As much as I can I try to avoid arguments such as these. I will suggest someone shoots raw if they ask for help and I can see that it would be helpful for what they are shooting.

I used to shoot film back in the day, although I never got much into the darkroom side of things myself. I would usually send my film away and return a week later to see the results. I could imagine that someone could be developing them in a darkroom and taking care to make sure they were as good as possible, but the truth of it is more likely it was an automated process.

The relevance is that as an automated process there was an importance to getting it right in camera. If it was overexposed or underexposed on the film, the processing wasn't going to change that. I'd get it back as incorrectly exposed. That would be on me for not getting the exposure right.

These days, with digital and especially with RAW, not only do I have the processing control over the exposure but I am able to compensate for some errors in exposure. These days it's easy to expose for the highlights and bring up the shadows.

RAW seems to me to be the film of the digital camera era and perhaps my chance to play in the darkroom that I never really got to do with the film. Despite the wiggle room that shooting raw provides, I still find myself concious of trying to get it right in camera as much as possible.