Just no.

If there's a RAW versus JPEG dichotomy that's only because most cameras offer either or as output options.

It most certainly is also an ease of use issue. One reason to shoot raw is to reduce time post processing as well as reduce time and effort behind the camera. Shooting RAW is basically easier if you're going to hold both final output images to the same IQ standard.

The dichotomy you're identifying is a raster versus parametric editor difference. And you're very dated in your response. It used to be that raster editors were necessary for any kind of substantial healing/cloning work which doesn't require JPEGs it requires a processed (typically) RGB image -- could just as easily be a TIFF file.

Times have changed and although a raster editor is still required for major changes like big object replacement/removal and multiple image combination, the newer parametric raw processors now do a very good job with more basic cloning/healing work. In the image below the young man was removed on the left and goose poop cleaned up in the foreground using the parametric raw processor and avoiding the raster editor entirely which adds the advantage of a 100% non-destructive raw workflow versus a destructive raw workflow using the raster editor.

Okay, seriously, you have a lot of good advice here, along with some distractions and entertaining silliness.

One thing I'd ask you to consider:

We can help much better as a community if we know:

> Camera Model you use

> Whether the camera has software available for it from the manufacturer's website (usually found at [manufacturer URL]/support/downloads, or similar)

> Whether you have edited any JPEG files previously, and if so, the software you used

> Which mainstream computer platform (Mac or Windows) you are using

Generally, here are a few observations:

Raw file editing's main advantage is that you start out with more dynamic range, as in recording 12 to 15 stops of brightness instead of chopping out the middle 5-6 stops of that brightness recorded when the camera makes a JPEG. When YOU get to pick which tones to include in your image, you have a lot more chance of getting an image or a print that satisfies your taste.

Raw data files are sort of like EXPOSED but UNPROCESSED color negative film. But they have one key distinction in that regard: Raw files can NEVER, EVER be altered! They remain the same, unaltered data. You can "start over" and develop them differently an infinite number of times. You can erase them, but you cannot overwrite them with edits.

Raw files include at least three things: 1) raw data, digitized from the sensor's analog output 2) EXIF data, the same as you find in a JPEG file and 3) a tiny JPEG preview image that is exactly the same as what the camera did, or would have, generated if you saved a JPEG in the camera at the same time.

IMPORTANT: The JPEG preview image is processed using all the menu settings in the camera. If you have never changed these, they are manufacturer defaults. If you adjusted sharpness, contrast, saturation, hue, "picture style," white balance, dynamic range compensation, etc., then the preview will contain the effects of those menu changes.

When you open a raw file in the CAMERA MANUFACTURER'S software, that software first displays the 8-bit preview JPEG. Then it processes the raw data the same way the camera did, using the recipe in the EXIF data, but as a 16-bit file. At that point, you can edit it and export it as something else (usually some flavor of TIFF or JPEG).

When you open a raw file in something like Adobe Lightroom CLASSIC, the same thing happens at first, but the conversion to 16-bits is entirely different. It is based on whatever default camera profile you have set *in the software.* That can be Adobe's default profile, or your own modification of that, or a camera profile you picked up from someone else.

ICC Color Management is a very important discipline to learn. It is THE KEY to getting good results when editing raw data into usable images. Here are some basics:

You can get any color response you want from your camera. But if you want what you see on your monitor to be what you print from your printer or what your lab prints from your files, you must MANAGE the color workflow.

Many things affect the color recorded at the camera:

> Exposure
> Light spectrum (daylight at dawn, morning, noon, afternoon, dusk; flash (many variations!), incandescent (many kinds!), fluorescent (many kinds!), LED (many kinds!), Sodium vapor (two main kinds), Mercury vapor, HMI, power line frequency, power line phase characteristics, etc.
> Lighting specularity or diffusion
> Lighting contrast range
> Menu settings (they prime some initial settings in your software when opening raw files. White balance is the key one.

HINT: If you want accurate color reproduction, use a reference target at the camera. A wide range of white balance targets is available at better camera stores.

At your computer, the most important factor is the MONITOR:

> Is your monitor appropriate for editing images (photos and video)? HINT: Gaming monitors and cheap office monitors probably aren't ideal.
> Does your monitor display ten bit color? HINT: Most monitors display only 8-bits.
> Does your monitor display better than sRGB color gamut? P3 is better, while Adobe RGB is even better.
> MOST importantly, do you calibrate and profile your monitor using a hardware and software solution from Datacolor or X-Rite? This is a simple, software-guided, automated process that takes a few minutes every month to keep your reference monitor honest.

> Monitor calibration "linearizes" the output from black to red, black to green, and black to blue, so the color gray looks the same at every output level.
> Monitor profiling "describes" the exact color reproduction capability of your monitor to the operating system so it can display the color in your files correctly.

Adjusting images on a calibrated and profiled monitor assures that what is in your files will look roughly the same on all calibrated monitors AND printers that are also calibrated and profiled. And yes, that statement will start a thousand rationalizations about why such calibration is silly, (it isn't) but the entire professional imaging world will vehemently agree with me that it is essential.

So where do you start?

1) Calibrate and profile a good monitor with a hardware instrument and the software that comes with it.
2) Use these calibration aims at first:

> Gamma 2.2
> Black Point 0.5 cd/m^2 (candelas per square meter)
> White Point 80 to 120 cd/m^2*
> Initial color temperature 5800K to 6500K*

*Follow software recommendation based on room lighting conditions.

3) Make test prints or order test prints from your lab to confirm you have an acceptable calibration and profile.

That done, pick and install some good raw editing software. Whatever came with your camera or is a free download for your camera is probably the place to start. If you use a major package such as the Adobe Photography Plan, which features Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), a part of Photoshop, Lightroom, Lightroom CLASSIC, and Bridge, or one of the other packages listed by others here, you'll find the most support options. There are thousands of video tutorials on YouTube. Countless websites help users of every major package learn their features. Your favorite search engine is your friend.

Finally, adjust your images in a relatively dim room. The color correction department I ran at a portrait lab was painted neutral gray. We used gray table tops, gray computer operating system backgrounds, and lit the place with one 5000K fluorescent tube bounced off a white ceiling. Operators wore gray smocks. We allowed our eyes 5-10 minutes to adjust to the room conditions before adjusting color. Boring room? Yes, but we were there to achieve accurate flesh tones in millions of portraits.

Finally, if you're on the fence, look at these two illustrations. The first one is a JPEG that represents the camera default settings. The second is a JPEG made from the raw file I also saved at the camera. Review in download mode for best results. Prints from the second one look much more like the scene I know.

>