He/She is correct.
If you look a guides there are suggestions to many very complex features that do have benefits but people starts using those and focus to those instead the most important things - getting photo correct in the camera. Instead they start to focus settings and dream that they can fix things on computer.
There is huge amount of professionals who has no idea from all camera settings and they relay too much about computers software to get photos.
It is like learning photography first starting with pinhole camera, then film cameras and then giving digital cameras with limitations like only prime objective offering 46° field of view and even fixed focus range. Then eventually trough multiple steps moving to more advanced settings and possibilities.
And then the person just learns that JPEG is far more powerful than it is given credit for here or almost anywhere as it is almost always told JPEG is like damaging file and not good to anything, and some people even wonder why it is in camera and it should be removed as its no use.
OK, let's try this another way.
For example, I go to the Albert Hall and listen to a concert where a world class orchestra is playing Vivaldi's 4 Seasons - which I quite like. So I decide to buy the CD on sale in the foyer.
I get home and on reading the label I discover it has been recorded on a cheap mobile phone as a compressed mp3 file.
How am I going to feel listening to a tinny reproduction where much of the detail and subtlety has been chopped off by the recording device. I turn the volume up or down, I can adjust bass and treble and all that stuff - but I'll never be able to put back what has been taken away.
If on the other hand it has been recorded on a multichannel hyper duper system and then reproduced in uncompressed format with warts and all I can then choose how I modify the playback to make it sound good to me - which may be less than good to others who have different hearing, tastes etc etc.
My oldest camera is a 1999/2000 Sony DSC S70. It shoots jpeg and TIFF and it does both very well - if a little sluggishly. In most cases the jpegs are just fine, but sometimes they're not because no matter what you do the camera cannot cope with certain lighting conditions with its on board JPEG Engine - which by the way is perfectly acceptable shorthand for describing the software built in to the camera that converts the original raw data into the output jpeg. Why would that be I wonder? If jpeg was good enough what was the point of providing TIFF way back then. Why do mfrs provide RAW?
In the past 15 years I have shot 14 in jpeg. The only reason I switched to RAW has been because I have become more demanding -and I have become fed up of the way certain cameras ruin pictures due to poor metering, poor colour reproduction, mushy sharpening and other features.
No-one (who knows what they're talking about) is saying that the OP is wrong. If you want to shoot jpeg then shoot jpeg - no-one cares!
BUT - if you want to ram 'jpeg only' down other peoples' throats as the 'ONE TRUE WAY' then you'd better be able to back that up with examples as well as details of how you have fixed the mfrs jpeg engine/output process. As yet I have seen neither.
