One fact is indisputable, you will NEVER know the full image quality that your camera and lens can capture if you never shoot a raw file.

All jpegs are compressed and processed by the algorithms of the camera's image processor. When your camera compresses a RAW file into a JPEG image, it undergoes a lossy compression process. While the compression makes the file smaller, you will lose some of the data and detail from the photograph, including lots of your tonal range, some of your color pallet, some of the pixels and some of your image quality, all to compress that image down to a smaller size file.

Sure Jpegs coming out of current cameras have better image quality than they used to have, as camera processors and their algorithms have advanced, but you are still losing data and image quality, FOREVER. Uncompressed raw files keep all the data captured without any of that data being compressed and discarded by the camera's processor.

Why spend for a good camera and good glass and never really know the full image quality that they can capture?

Those who say it doesn't make any difference are just like countless folks who have gotten used to the image quality of jpegs SOOC, and the ease of working with jpegs in most photo software, and the ease of sharing them across all platforms. It has become the industry standard image format for better or worse.

Another lossy compression image format is HEIF, first in Apple smartphones and now also in some larger cameras, but it has yet to be fully embraced by all editing software and all platforms. HEIF is the name for the standard — High Efficiency Image Format — while HEIC is Apple's chosen file name extension. The terms are basically interchangeable because the High Efficiency Video Compression (HEVC) standard, also known as H. 265, is the base for both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/heic-vs-jpeg.html#diff_heic_jpeg

If you are totally satisfied with losing that data and image quality forever, then just shoot jpegs and be happy letting your camera processor's algorithms make the processing decisions for you, like noise reduction, image sharpness, shadow and highlight retention, color space, etc.

For my professional work I shoot raw+jpeg to the two cards in my camera. Jpegs for quick sharing and/or transmitting to media from the field on the job location ; and/or for clients for their quick selection of images chosen for their use. Then I process the raw files for my best final output.

Also my jpegs do give me some redundancy for all paid shoots. If a card fails or gets corrupted ,I am not at risk to lose all my useable images. It is a very rare event, but it has happened in my long career, and better to be safe than sorry and not take a hit to my reputation, or fail and possibly lose a client.

Raw file culling takes no more time than culling jpegs with the right editing software. Processing of the raw files takes a bit longer, but you have much more image data to work with, more latitude in processing, the entire color space without prior need to set a white balance or color temp in your camera (though I do by habit for the jpegs I also capture) , and you never destroy or discard any of your original raw data when you output your finished work.

Yes I do save both my raw and jpeg files. For me they are my assets, my source of revenue now and for possible future sales, and my legacy. Not everyone needs to do that if you aren't making a living with your work.

Cheers and best to you all.

I could d have said that better BohoH. I have been a professional photographer for years… guess what??? I shoot JPEG. If you expose your pictures properly when shooting, you should have no problem fixing them up if needed… 99% of mine do not need altering because I take my time, look at my settings and get them right. When I see some of these pictures posted you can tell the RAW file has been edited and now looks like a painting. Not what the actual scene looked like when the photo was taken. If that’s a persons thing.. so be it.. but I laugh when I hear a person say you’re not a professional if you don’t shoot RAW. Instead of learning how to edit… learn how to take a
Properly exposed photo….. just saying

Even with perfect exposure…which is seldom the case no matter how good you or any other pro thinks you are…there will almost always be areas that are too dark or light and need exposure or contrast or whatever adjusted. While there’s nothing wrong with jpg for some purposes…any pro worth the name…and I in no way consider myself a pro…would want to get the best possible output as well as express his/her vision…and the simple truth is that if you let the camera maker determine what PP the photo gets and shoot in jpg you’re simply and stupidly throwing away a great deal of the recorded light and color you paid so much for the equipment to get. While you can PP a jpg…it isn’t nearly as much as you can do with a RAW file. So…I would agree that a PRO would likely want to shoot RAW almost always in order to produce the best results for the client.

File format…much like brand fanboys…much like the FF/DX arguments and the MILC/DSLR ones…and much like the fast prime/flexible and affordable zoom ones…simply depends. The correct answer to *any* of those is…it depends on a whole raft of factors and even narrowing it down to a single user that doesn’t reduce the field of decision much because it is all situational.