Mcary wrote:
OP a simple example of RAW vs JPEG and yes I'm using pictures of my cat

Camera Data
Fuji X100
ISO 800
F2
Aperture Priority
Center weighted metering
RAW 1/110 second
JPEG 1/125 second
Processing LR 4 Basic Panel
Both files exported to CS5 as 8bit TIFF then re-sized to 800x533 and saved to JPEG level 12

JPEG


RAW


So whats an advantage of shooting RAW?  See the white areas of fur and notice how there's a bit more detail in the RAW image but even with the RAW image detail in those areas is lacking compared to other areas, that's because despite its greater dramatic range due to being a 16 bit (12-14bit Capture file) vs a 8bit file  format RAW has its limitations. 
So what does this tell me?  It tells me I should have done a better job metering the scene and choosing an exposure that would have better recorded detail in those blown/partially blown areas rather then depending on RAW/LR/ACR.

What I see here is that

1- You zoomed in for the RAW image and that increases camera shake
2- Shutter speed is slower in RAW than in JPG so you get more camera shake.
3- JPG image has all the pre sets like sharpening. RAW, you probably have to do it in post.

OK not disagreeing with what you've posted. But how does decreasing the physical distance between the subject and the camera increase camera shake?    I realize that decreasing the distance between the camera and subject results in less DOF, but I've never heard that it contributes to camera shake which is why I'm asking.
Agree with the rest of what you posted.

eh.... so were the rest of us on day 1.

Back in the 70's I gave some work lights a try... they sucked, I found some used cheep speedlights (before we called them speedlights), and some PVC pipe with a bedsheet, and guess what?

I still got shitty pictures.

Now I was a guy with a camera, and some lights, and some books from the library. I guess that was an upgrade, but I still wasn't much of a photographer. Even after I bought my first Novotron pack and heads, I still sucked...

Back in those days, it took a hellova lot of time to become un-sucky. 

So, it's not insulting (what she's asking)... it's just we've become a little impatient with newbs on tight budgets. I'd be more inclined to suggest they work outdoors until they can afford studio lights.

My niece and nephew are producing some stunning photography on an iphone 4s with no lights.

I don't really want to defend myself and maybe my words were a bit more direct than one would want to hear. But...

The OP is complaining about things that are so fundamental and she has such little grasp over some very basic principles, that it shows not only impatience, but no respect for the craft. The only way her husband wouldn't be able to help her with the lighting setup she asks about is if he was just about as new to shooting as she is.

Yes, we were all noobs once. But if you called yourself 'a photographer' the day you bought your first camera, you were wrong; just as a person who knows how to play chopsticks and buys a piano. The day the piano comes home, does that person call themselves a pianist? Of course not.

My thoughts are, asking questions is rarely something that should be criticized. Asking questions, even without practice or one's own research, doesn't equal disrespect.

It's what you do with the responses that count. In this case the OP has taken the feedback and done something positive with it. I didn't take anything as a complaint.

We all learn differently and choose to gain knowledge differently. I don't know how to develop film, only had a quick class in school. That's considered pretty fundamental by some. I still have to spend a minute thinking about what a 3 stop difference is when using my ND filter. But I still choose to call myself a photographer.

It sounds like your main beef is that she called her husband a photographer? For me, it doesn't matter what others call themselves.

Just my opinion.