G'day Baz, I know where I've heard that quote in your OP from
I'd like to participate in the poll, but don't believe it's possible. The way you've worded it, I think it's a sometimes A, sometimes B type answer. And sometimes C...
Not trying to be a smart-a$$, but:
1. I obviously assume you're talking about "terrestrial" photography, not astro. PS is (almost) the only way to go for astro.
2. While your OP seems to be talking about the RAW conversion process, the poll doesn't clarify that.
3. What about those who process the RAW file to TIF (or JPG or whatever) in DPP, then finish processing in PS?
4. What about other software like Lightroom, GIMP/UFRAW, and so on?
5. PS alone does not handle RAW files, it needs something else to convert them, whether it be ACR, or DPP, or something else.
What do I do? My workflow has changed quite a bit over the last year or 2.
Originally I would convert RAW to TIFF using DPP, then edit the TIFF in GIMP. I also used UFRAW and RawTherapee to convert RAW to TIFF and still edited in GIMP.
Then I got PS, so used DPP as above for RAW to TIFF, then finished in PS. I tried to use ACR, but went back to DPP.
Now I have Lightroom as well. I'm finding I'm using it more and more for terrestrial shots, and on occasion I'll do some tweaking in PS if needs some really detailed processing, layer masks or something that LR can't do. But I'm trying to get more and more shots right "in camera", so don't need to process as much and LR is suffice for that.
I understand where H is coming from in terms of using Canon-authored software to convert Canon RAW files, but by the same token I haven't yet noticed a difference in quality between DPP converted files versus LR converted files. Well, not in my initial testing/comparison. And as he mentioned, LR and PS/ACR are becoming (if not already) the industry standard for professionals. I'm sure that Adobe, or all serious RAW conversion software authors, would listen if pros are complaining that their software isn't as good as the free Canon one. Wouldn't they?
Re the ProPhotoRGB etc. Since that thread that wasyoungonce posted above, I've been having a chat with some guys in another forum about colourspace, sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs ProPhotoRGB, converting and assigning different profiles etc. The thread kind of goes around in circles, so I won't link it here. But basically I'm doing some more reading/research on all things colourspace to find out more. They seem to be suggesting PPRGB isn't the way to go, and I need to understand why. They seem to be experts.