TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

While you may find your JPEG acceptable, you can’t really make an accurate judgement without a controlled test. From a tripod, shoot the same scene, one that includes both detail and wide dynamic range at the same settings in both raw and JPEG. Process the raw photo using either the Nikon SW or Photoshop/Lightroom, being careful to adjust color, contrast and sharpness, etc. correctly (using some of the auto settings in Photoshop if you feel that you can’t do it well manually) and then compare. You might also shoot some shots intentionally underexposed and correct in post as well in making your evaluation. If you still believe that the JPEG looks better after this test, then you have two choices - either become more proficient with post processing (as you mentioned) or continue with JPEG. If on the other hand, after careful inspection, you discover the raw shot is better, then you have your answer.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

If jpeg floats your boat, use it as it is a personal choice. You know that you have much more flexibility with raw data if you really want to rescue that special photo that didn't quite come out of the camera right. I have a D7200 and a D500 on which I shoot large raw on the first mem card and fine jpeg on the 2nd. I only import the raw files into lightroom for final selection, PP, and the export of those few pics I keep. I use the jpegs for quick post out to social media.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

An image derived from RAW output can only be as good as one's RAW editing skills are. Unfortunately, many photographers who insistently shoot only in RAW format output don't really work on improving their RAW editing skills.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Raw files do not have any in-camera settings applied to them. That means any default sharpness, contrast, color tone, etc. which your camera may automatically apply to jpegs, is not applied to your raw files if you are using anything other then the proprietary software provided by your camera manufacturer. Proprietary software provided by Canon and Nikon does include the in camera settings when you view your files. But for non-proprietary software like Elements or Photoshop, etc., that means your raw files, unedited, will tend to be less sharp with less contrast and flatter colortone, and will often look flatter and a bit lifeless compared to straight out of camera jpegs intended as a finished product.

Raw files are not a finished product, and require editing in a good post processing program to get the best from them. The advantage of raw is the greater lattitude you have when making adjustments and the far superior results you can obtain with them in post processing versus jpegs. I suspect that this is at least part of the reason for the differences you're seeing. You may need to readdress the level of your post processing skills. There's no other logical reason why your straight out of camera jpegs should look better than the edited results of your raw files if you are skilled at using Photoshop.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

While I remain a bit skeptical of your claim that with your D500 and D850 shooting raw is more or less unnecessary, they're clearly both very superior cameras and it's great that you're so happy with the results you're getting.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Please refer to 3 pics I posted on July 5th that are straight out of camera jpegs with no post processing at all. Their downloads are available. Please feel free to make improvements if you'd like to try it.
By the way, the two non pano pics just took first and second place at our fair. And I have sold over 20 copies of the three in the last 6 weeks since taking them. I think the results speak for themselves.

IBM

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Now thats what i'm talking about. Thanks

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

If one is a newby and not well versed with his camera, RAW can help save his shot. This guy knows what he is doing and the 3 images he mentions show he knows what he's talkin' about. Personally, I'd listen.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This has been discussed many times in the forum. I have sustained that modern JPEG images are of excellent quality without the artifacts that used to plague those files in the past.
The problem with RAW files is that experienced editing is an integral part of bringing the file to life. JPEG uses compression and the camera firmware for immediate results.
I use both files depending on the subject.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Classic understatement!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Now, don't be like that. Maybe we can finally find out which technique is really the best.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Have the rules changed?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

😂😨