Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You are wrong. I certainly did consider and select the camera's pre-processing adjustments. In terms of noise filtering the camera only provides three different intensity levels of poor quality. At all three levels the noise filtering remains sub-poor because of the camera's requirement to complete the task quickly. There is no noise filtering option in the camera that isn't poor quality.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That depends on the specific camera brand and the camera's embedded processing software. You can't claim that as a blanket statement applying to all camera makes and models.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

We a photographers are all striving the have our pictures stand out. We have some of us who think the answer is in fixing in raw and others who feel it's it the taking and can use in jpg is OK. They will never agree. You can also fix in jpg (but some say not well).
Do your own thing and develop your own stile.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Imagine yourself as a successful photographer. Are you shooting in JPEG?

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

YES

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If there is never going to be any postprocessing then raw is not an option (unless you are never going to view the image). Jpg is required (unless your camera can give you another viewable format). While it is true that a raw file contains a camera-processed jpg preview, processing is required to extract the jpg preview. An extra step that would not be necessary if you export a jpg from the camera. (Also I have been led to believe that some cameras include a jpg preview with a reduced size in their raw files. My cameras supply a full-size jpg preview in the raw file so I can't confirm that).

However, I question your premise. You should ALWAYS consider that some postprocessing MAY be necessary, in which case you should shoot raw whenever your camera is capable of producing a raw file.

It is true that for many images (if not most) a jpg directly from the camera can be sufficient as long as the camera settings are optimum. That means your have to have the camera settings optimum. For every shot. That means you have to spend time diddling with your camera settings before every shot. It means your exposure has to be optimum for every shot. That means the camera has to be set for the proper metering environment for every shot. This all means you will not always get a good postprocessing-free image unless you set up the shot beforehand. Of course, sometimes you will get lucky. But you don't want to trust to luck for all your photos.

Over the last couple decades much of my photography has dealt with events. Events are dynamic. Things happen quickly. I don't usually have time to even look to see what my settings are before taking the shot. For that reason I always shoot raw and assume that postprocessing will be necessary.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

99% of all photos can be improved with a bit of post processing. I shoot RAW except sometimes when making a utilitarian photo (e.g. a picture of a part to send to a vendor).

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Post processing is not just "fixing", which implies correcting flaws in capturing the image. There are things you can do in post which can't be done in the camera to enhance the image. Like many, I started out shooting JPEG. Now that I have learned to process RAW, I wish I had shot them that way as I now know how I could have improved them. I know some say they don't want to spend hours doing PP, but often just a couple minutes can make a big difference.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

No.

You might regret it later on but that your issue.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

OK we do what bye want is what I am saying. I shot Film at 10 ASA and went to JPG and RAW then started to use the JPG and eventually stopped the RAW. That is me we all play the game differently and that bis what make photography what it is. DO YOUR THING.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Occasionally I get an image which requires no fixing of white balance or brightness/contrast or simple things so it could be used directly. However, most of my images need some cropping to improve the composition. I know of no camera that can do the cropping before exporting the image. For such an image postprocessing is required. Cameras can output images with a selection of aspect ratios but they only allow a fixed set of aspect ratios.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

As eluded to by Ysarex, IF you have enough hardware/memory, enough software, enough knowledge and experience to run the software, enough time and patience in PP-ing, then , IF you look CLOSE, you may perceive a gain in what MIGHT appear as "sharpness" ....IF you put them side by side. So, as a practical matter it DEPENDS on a lot of IF's - but the POTENTIAL does exist !

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Accomplishing what? I presume you mean the ability to use a computer, which has nothing to do with shooting photographs.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

AND it really is camera make/model dependent. All of our cameras do not use the same embedded processing software. There are real differences. At low ISO values my Nikon makes a very good JPEG that's hard for me to beat in terms of the basic processing: demosaicing, input profile, sharpening and fine detail rendition, lens profile, contrast and tone response. I can't say that's equally true of all of my cameras.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you don't shoot RAW, you're not a photographer.