Neither RAW nor JPEG is "better". There are times and places and purposes when either might be more appropriate than the other.

A pro shooting a sporting event for a website that expects to upload images immediately might need to shoot JPEGs, so that the images can be used directly from the camera.

An advanced amateur might choose to shoot RAW for the greater adjustability and flexibility the images offer.

In fact, JPEGs are a pretty universal image format for use on websites.... and RAW files are virtually "unusable" online. RAW are largely proprietary to each camera manufacturer and have to be decoded into a more universal file type before they can be used. There are a number of different image file types that are fairly universal... JPEG is just one of them. But JPEG is easily the most widely used. JPEG Is also required for many types of printing. Few printers can or will "print from RAW".... and those that do will need to convert to some other type of file format before they can actually print it.

Here's a secret... your camera shoots RAW all the time, every time you press the shutter release. You can save that to the memory card and convert it to some other, usable image format later with post-processing software.

Or, you can set your camera to save JPEGs, in which case it will immediately process each image from the RAW into those JPEGs, using whatever parameters you've set up in the camera and throwing away whatever it deems to be "unnecessary" or "extraneous" data. How much is "thrown away" is pretty easy to tell. Most cameras today can shoot "RAW + JPEG". Set your camera to do that... maximum size and quality for each. Take a shot and then look at the two versions of it side by side. You'll always see that the RAW file is much larger than the JPEG file. For example, cameras I use make 20MP JPEGs (approx.) and the same images typically end up around 30MP as RAW.

One of the differences is that most cameras capture in 12 or 14 bit depth. A few do "true" 16 bit, but even those that don't, software used in post-processing interprets the 12 bit and 14 bit as 16 bit. JPEGs, on the other hand, are 8 bit files.

8 bit versus 16 bit refers to the number of colors available to make up an image. 8 bit has a lot... something like 17 million tonalities... that's 256 shades in each red, green and blue channel... but you don't add them, you multiply the to get 16.7 million possibilities. That's the digital "color palette" you have to work with, in 8 bit mode such as is required with JPEGs. And it seems like a lot, until you consider that 16 bit gives you 65,536 shades of red, green and blue.... or 281 trillion colors in your palette! That's 65,536 x 65,536 x 65,536, as opposed to 256 x 256 x256.

This gives you some idea of what's being "thrown away" when you convert a 12 or 14 bit RAW file into an 8 bit JPEG. And, once it's been discarded, there's no getting it back. If you convert an 8 bit file back into 16 bits (or 12 or 14), it won't look any different. But if you start with and work with a 12, 14 or 16 bit file, it will better "tolerate" changes to exposure, color adjustments, resizing larger or smaller or most other things you might want to do to an image. More data to work with equals better quality results, even though you'll eventually end up converting the image to 8 bits before using it.

Plus, having that untouched and original RAW saved in your archive of images is like having negatives back in the days of film. You can always go back to the original and re-develop it a different way, if you wish, with equally good results. JPEGs on the other hand, will lose quality each time you re-edit them, with each "generation".

From a RAW I can make an 8 bit JPEG, 8 bit PNG, 16 bit TIFF, 16 bit PSD or any of several dozen other types of image files. I could also convert a JPEG into the other file types, but there would be no improvement increasing an image from 8 bit to 16 bit.

Whenever time allows, I'd much rather post-process RAW images on my calibrated, graphics quality computer monitor, than rely upon "getting it exactly right" in-camera with JPEGs. But, as mentioned, there are times that it's necessary to shoot JPEGs (although if I have plenty of memory cards, RAW + JPEG is another option... that just fills up cards a whole lot faster).

As to software for processing RAW files, there are various freebies out there. Most cameras come with a free RAW converter.

But it's often better to spend a little to get a more full-features software. Adobe Elements 15 is a good starting point and only costs about $70 right now. It's relatively easy to use... gives you choice of beginner, intermediate or expert mode... with more or less guidance, whatever you feel most comfortable with and you can change it at any time as you gain experience. Watch for sales, right after Thankgiving Elements 15 was selling for $40 on Amazon.

If you go to the Adobe website you can download a free 30-day trial of Elements, to give it a test drive. But, before you do I'd suggest getting one of the books and reading that, so you can get up to speed using it right away and make best use of the 30-day trial. Unfortunately, Elements 15 is brand spanking new, so many of the books for it are due this month or early in January. (I find Scott Kelby's books really good, but I'm sure there are other good ones.)

I'd also recommend buying a book