wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

Ken Rockwell says he shoots in JPEG normal never RAW, says "RAW is better" is an old wives tale.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

There have been exhaustive posts on this site regarding this with the most recent included the following link http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

You will find that Ken Rockwell has very few fans among knowledgeable photographers on UHH. He means well, but just doesn't quite present a consistently balanced review of equipment or techniques.

Bigdaver

He thinks for him, being an experienced photographer, RAW offers little advantage compared to the extra time and memory it demands. He has settings that work for him (he uses VIVID color settings and SHARPNESS settings in camera) and he makes his living at it. Evidence enough.
I use RAW, like the adjustability, and make a little $.
Maybe we're both right, just for ourselves. But I like RAW.

alggomas Loc: Wales, United Kingdom.

Again personal preferences !

If you do not want to do a lot of tweaking with your photos use JPG. You can still play around.

Shooting in RAW only means that ALL the information that hits the sensor is stored on your card. Therefore you can manipulate all this information on photoshop or whatever. Some camera manufacturers include software for RAW in the box. I believe also that you can download free this software from their websites.
RAW shooting does take up a lot of space on your card. Unless of course you have a wi-fi card which you can set to empty after say 3/4 full. It will then upload to your laptop or computer. It can also be set to upload to , I think Fliker [sp!] and Picasa.
So: RAW for Lots of manipulation and JPGs for not so much.
There may be an argument for degration of quality here also but leave tha for another time..........

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

if you don't do any post processing..shoot jpg. nothing wrong with that.

post processing is like having your own private "darkroom"...and you need raw format..

i found that i can underexpose a couple of stops in really low light settings to get higher shutter speeds..and then adjust up the exposure to a properly exposed photo afterwards.

also, if there is a mix of different kinds of lighting....i can set my whitebalance to auto and if necessary, adjust it after the fact.

if you are shooting your own snapshots, jpg is fine.

post processing is a skill and most that do not use post processing shoot jpg and preach that shooting raw is not necessary.

i shoot both raw and jpg...if the photos come out great with no post processing, i just file away the raw file. but having the raw file ensures a great photo for most of my shots.

your controversy jpeg vs raw is like chevy vs mercedes. if you prefer a chevy or that's all you can afford, that's fine......but knocking the mercedes just because you can't have one is pretty lame.

if you are comfortable and happy shooting jpeg....that is great. but i think that most intermediate and advanced photographers and photo buffs shoot raw.

Opus Loc: South East Michigan

deliberately take a picture that is improperly exposed recording it in both raw and jpeg. Then try to adjust and salvage the pictures in photoshop. This will give you your answer.

Allegro23 Loc: Illinois Chicagoland Burbs

Hey very good job explaining this controversary.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

think again

Archy Loc: Lake Hamilton, Florida

Is it your contention that if one does not shot in raw one can not become an accomplished photographer???????????

Opus Loc: South East Michigan

I think shooting JPEG is fine but it does not allow you to correct the mistakes you make quite as easily, and we all make them. These two pictures were salvaged in Photoshop. The Egret was badly overexposed as I was photographing a hidden nest which was in an area that was quite dark when this guy flew by. I didn't have time to change camera setting. The moose was badly back lit, her face just a dark spot. I also removed about 50 flies that were covering her face. Neither of these pictures could have been salvaged as JPEGs. Working with raw files is just easier but it is not for everybody. Also if you want to darken (or lighten) clothing that is black raw makes it very easy without ruining the rest of the picture. This is a pretty handy thing when shooting weddings and making the tuxedos look better.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I'll take on that challenge if you provide the images?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Complete rubbish.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

That might be fine PROVIDED there is little contrast in the scene.

Allegro23 Loc: Illinois Chicagoland Burbs

Mdom--please explain "complete rubbish"-----digital photography has become a matter of how good you are with the software not whether the shot was good when it was made. I think many people may have a little difficulty learning the "software" needed. On the other hand there is no such thing as a "perfect exposure", from who's perspective--- that can only be determined by the person who made the shot, that is his call---"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"!