They both have the same number of pixels. The JPEG is created from the raw file which comes first. They can both be printed equally large with nearly equal sharpness -- raw can handle sharpness a little better.

That raw offers greater latitude for PP is correct and that is a big difference. Why that's the case needs to be understood. The JPEG by definition must be compressed and is limited to an 8 bit image. The compression used with JPEGs is what we call lossy as in loss. Data is lost in the compression method and unrecoverable. The 8 bit limit applied to the JPEG likewise fixes the amount of data the file can contain and compared with the raw file it's less.

The JPEG is a finished image with the processing work completed. In the specification for the JPEG algorithm the term archive is used to define the format -- JPEG is an archive format. What they mean is that JPEG was intended to save the final form of the image in a compressed state.

The JPEG algorithm is brilliant plain and simple. It can take an RGB image and successfully compress it by 80% such that viewing the image we can't see any difference. It's a technological triumph and has enabled our current sharing of data and images. Imagine if all the images on the internet (still and video) instantly increased in size by 85% -- the increased bandwidth demand would strangle the internet to death instantly.

Because JPEG saves/archives a processed image you can face problems if you don't like the processing that was applied to get the image to it's final form. Many people will further edit JPEG images. This can be more difficult and require more skill and time than processing raw data because it can be hard to "unbake a cake" as it were. It's easier and more direct to effect a processing result with raw data than to start with a different result applied and saved in a JPEG and then try and get the desired result with the JPEG that was already created differently.

I personally prefer to work from the raw data because not only can I achieve the results I want, I can do that so much easier and so much faster. I also prefer to limit my effort behind the camera to just capturing the subject I want. If shooting only JPEG and you want to avoid the increased difficulty that comes from editing a JPEG then you really need to devote attention at the time you're behind the camera to adjust the various JPEG parameters available in the camera software. I need only compose and nail exposure. The JPEG shooter needs to compose, nail exposure, consider WB, consider the camera's DR (lighting contrast) adjustments, and potentially tone, color and sharpness adjustments, etc. as they will all be baked into the camera JPEG.

Two final considerations: 1. The camera engineers must pay attention to how fast your camera can create and save a JPEG and then take the next photo. They must address the expectation that the user could want to take several photos in quick secession. If they devote more effort to creating the JPEG it will take time. They have the option to increase the power and memory of the camera but that increases cost. So there's always a trade off made in the design of every camera to cut a few corners and/or use a faster but not quite as good algorithm than what's available in a computer workstation. No free lunch.

2. The camera software has no idea what you photographed and what you want it to look like. Therefore it has no alternative but to process your image to the bell curve. The camera software must apply averaging methodologies to the processing it does and treat your photo with the expectation that it meets the standard average parameters. This process of applying averages is something we do to manage many aspects of our lives. It allows us to automate processes. The corn is an average height and the machine can harvest it etc. Applying the rule of a mean makes automation possible. The software in your camera is automated and although you can influence how it behaves you ultimately don't fully control it's automatic behavior. The mean will rule. Another word with the same root as mean is mediocre.

A raw file is an image. It can be displayed and viewed and recognized as the image recorded by the camera and although it may not look great it can be printed. The above is a myth. I don't know where it came from but it's wrong. Raw data stored in most raw files is basically a TIFF file. There are numerous software apps that will display or output raw data in a viewable form -- best know is dcraw. RawDigger is another app that will allow you to view unprocessed raw data as an image. Below is a screenshot of RawDigger displaying unprocessed raw data. I zoomed in so you could see the color filter array. You're looking at the center of a daffodil. If you look close you can tell the photo was taken by a Fuji camera as the X-Trans CFA is visible.

Actually a raw file is NOT an image. What you are looking at when you "see" a raw file is a bit-mapped rendering of a raw file - even in RawDigger's "raw composite" rendering selection. I agree that RawDigger does show considerably more information than your average raw converter and the image displayed is better - but it is using a very thorough converter to achieve this.

Dcraw, which is widely used in the industry to "show" a raw image is actually converting raw data on the fly into a viewable form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw

"dcraw is an open-source computer program which is able to read numerous raw image format files, typically produced by mid-range and high-end digital cameras. dcraw converts these images into the standard TIFF and PPM image formats. This conversion is sometimes referred to as developing a raw image (by analogy with the process of film development) since it renders raw image sensor data (a "digital negative") into a viewable form.

A number of other image processing programs use dcraw internally to enable them to read raw files.

And raw is not the same as tiff. Raw is unprocessed image sensor data and tiff is the bit-mapped conversion of that data - and if using the 16 bit uncompressed option, the best most editable with minimal loss version of the raw data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

I don't wish to get into a lengthy pedantic argument with you - since the always descend into vitriol and ad hominem attacks. I just wanted to some of your representations using some verifiable sources with citations, including some of your own sources.

A raw file is an image. It can be displayed and viewed and recognized as the image recorded by the camera and although it may not look great it can be printed. The above is a myth. I don't know where it came from but it's wrong. Raw data stored in most raw files is basically a TIFF file. There are numerous software apps that will display or output raw data in a viewable form -- best know is dcraw. RawDigger is another app that will allow you to view unprocessed raw data as an image. Below is a screenshot of RawDigger displaying unprocessed raw data. I zoomed in so you could see the color filter array. You're looking at the center of a daffodil. If you look close you can tell the photo was taken by a Fuji camera as the X-Trans CFA is visible.

Dcraw, which is widely used in the industry to "show" a raw image is actually converting raw data on the fly into a viewable form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw

"dcraw is an open-source computer program which is able to read numerous raw image format files, typically produced by mid-range and high-end digital cameras. dcraw converts these images into the standard TIFF and PPM image formats. This conversion is sometimes referred to as developing a raw image (by analogy with the process of film development) since it renders raw image sensor data (a "digital negative") into a viewable form.

A number of other image processing programs use dcraw internally to enable them to read raw files.