JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Neither is as good as a hamburger you cook yourself at home.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Yes you can edit a jpeg. However the extent of the changes is limited since a lot of info was lost when the jpeg was created. It assumes your settings were near perfect. So if an area in shadow is dark according to the settings you chose, the detail in the shadows is (pretty much) lost. With a RAW file there is much more information, so you can recover detail in the shadows (or the highlights) that are missing in the jpeg.

ELNikkor

For 10 years I shot 95% jpegs, and have many wonderful photos that I was able to post process to my satisfaction. Now that I have a D750, I shoot jpegs on one card, RAW on the other. If I get an exceptional image, I save the RAW in a special file for future use, but still deal mostly with the jpegs.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I shoot nothing but JPEG. And I post process with photoshop and lightroom. I create 16X24 show prints. My prints sell well. I have no issues. My exposures are usually spot on so changes in exposure in photoshop is a non issue. As far as color balance, I shoot outside with the sun behind me. Again, no issues with color balance.
Now some folks love RAW, shoot nothing but RAW. And the RAW folks love there results. And, so do I in using JPEG.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

You can get them how you want it at Mickey Ds too. I just don't really want their food...

sumo Loc: Houston suburb

:I have tried shooting in. RAW But find post processing in Affinity to darn complicated & time consuming. I’ve been told Affinity is a light weight version of photoshop /Lightroom. So, if I have trouble with the lightweight version why try anything more complicated.

I feel like an outcast for shooting in JPEG but I like my results. I have put all my photos in Smug Mug for the past 16 years and edit when I need via Pic Monkey. When I say edit it is mostly cropping, lighten or darken, sharpen, put in a frame etc.

I’m totally satisfied with my results. That is all that counts even if I am violating the photographers secret handshake by not shooting in RAW

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

I must admit that I too shoot only in jpg

JDG3

Use the right tool for the job - both raw and jpg are acceptable ways to take photos. Most cameras usually have settings to process the jpg images to a manner of your liking. However, remember that the latitude to do further changes to a jpg is limited. But in one of my Photoshop classes our instructor was able to do some amazing things to jpg images, so editing is possible. The software conversion to jpg does do compression to an image that eliminates some "unneeded" pixels, so these can make a difference in some images. Raw images undergo no compression or processing and is simply all the data that the sensor collected for that image. All the pixels are available for processing. But this can be time consuming.

Why not do both as some writers suggest? Many cameras today with shoot both. The only downside is that it is a little slower to write both images to the memory cards. That is what I do, then if I need a photo for something immediate, I just use the jpg. If I am going for something better or special purpose, I bring the raw image into LR or PS. I use both, if jpg will work for a particular application then use those, if more processing is needed then use the raw. No need to choose one over the others. I know several hardworking professional photographers that do this and use their jpgs as often as they use the raw due to time constraints and demands from their commercial customers.

anotherview Loc: California

Yes, this has been my experience, too: "I shoot both RAW and jpeg and both seem to be processable in post production."

Not an expert in this matter, but I offer that you may have the JPEG size setting at Large, to maximize the available pixels for editing images in Adobe Camera Raw. Thus, you have plenty of headroom for editing.

The drawback from using JPEG has to do with the camera processing the JPEG file and then discarding some image information depending on the camera settings.

A RAW file has not been processed in the camera. No image info is discarded. So the photographer has more image data to manipulate later in ACR.

Others here more checked out may provide you with a better explanation.

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

Simply and succinctly. JPEGs are 8 bit at 256 tonal values, RAW are at least 12 Bit and are at 4096 tonal values. JPEG are lossy, meaning every time you work with one and resave it, it degrades, RAW are not. RAW provides a ton more useable information when working with images. JPEGs are lossy images that are condensed through an 8x8 grid of pixels but not providing pixel by pixel info, but the difference in pixels to the upper left pixel in the grid. Every time you resave, it re-calculates the difference. You are relying on the cameras ability to interpret the data and give it irreversible set of instructions whereas RAW is exactly what the sensor saw and is adjustable as if you were taking the photo again.

It is much easier to reset white balance in RAW.

I haven’t shot JPEG since learning about RAW in 2003.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

You’re right, they both can be edited. I look at it this way: a RAW file allows for making edits on photo data like exposure that you can’t do on a JPEG file. Others may argue with my use of the word "can’t" but I don’t want to dive into the technical stuff and make myself look stupid. 😉😉

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

CHG CANON hit the nail on the head. RAW has advantages but, JPG works and in men option works well. I shoot both but in many cases (maybe most) I use JPG. I soot HDR and get back with 100 pictures for the day. I view my pictures in JPG to see that I have all sets of 3 and then put them in Photomatix set it to do them on automatic and go and have dinner. Come back and have them ready to tutch them up with Aperture. Which is not available any more on Apple. If I had a problem I can go back tom RAW

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

I'll go against the RAW fanboy commentary here a bit. I shoot both RAW & JPEG with every shutter click, however, with some camera sensors, such as the Fuji X Sensor, the JPEG simulations (of older style Fuji film) is outstanding for many shots. Thus reducing post-photo work to virtually zero, leaving more time to make more photographic art. I find that I use the RAW version maybe 10% of the time. In short, RAW is not necessarily the "best" choice. However, there will be some photographers that really do enjoy time spent manipulating their craft in front of a computer... for them, it's RAW all the way.

Cheers!

anotherview Loc: California

Yes, the field of photography has plenty of room for a variety of approaches to doing it.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Post processing jpegs is a pain in the ass. The one good thing about film was that post processing was not an option for all but the pros. Processing raw images is an even bigger pain in the ass as well as a greater time waster. If I'm the only one on the planet that feels this way, so be it.