waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

I have my camera set to shoot RAW and JPG so I can see the same shot side by side on my monitor at the same time. The RAW photos have way more detail in hairs, leaves, lines, cracks in walls, you name it, when it gets down to the super sharp details the RAW files will show a lot more than the JPG.

JPL

No, you just need to check the histogram if you have a camera that can show it. If the histogram is kind of centered in the window where you look at it and no pressing against either side of the window then you have your raw file optimized for quality results in post processing.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

both raw and jpeg have their places, and when you edit your raw photos and save the edited photo, it will be in jpeg, or some form other than raw. when shooting a family gathering or some other situation where you are not going to display or print photos, jpeg is a great format to be able to post or email the photos instantly without any post processing. most cameras will allow you to save both jpeg and raw photos on the sd card, try that setting for a while to see which you prefer. if you are shooting wildlife, landscape, portraits, or some other photos that you want to post process and possibly print or sell, then raw is the best format for post processing and to allow your artistic values to grow.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Faststone is not a raw converter. But it does a decent job on the embedded jpeg.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Contrast and color has been said already is more of an artistic choice than a format choice. It is true that RAW offers the photographer more choices when it comes to manipulating the image but JPEG files also have plenty of choices to do that.
To "get it right" you need special software. While JPEG is a universal file easily read and displayed RAW requires especial software to edit. All data comes from the sensor without intervention by the camera and it is up to the operator to make it look good and give it a color profile. Depending on the number of pixels of each individual camera the files could be very large taking lots of memory.
I would say get your exposure and composition right and the rest is editing software and making the file to your taste.
Although I know you are not asking I find myself today using JPEG more often than I did in the past. They have excellent quality and although they are loosy files saving them to TIFF makes them lossless. I always work with a copy of my original JPEG and in case you ask some of my best enlargement have come from original JPEG files.
Make two pictures of the same subject with the same gear and see if you can tell which one was a JPEG and which one a RAW.
I know this was not your question but I thought that perhaps some clarification would be important to add to your learning.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Typically, raw files have considerably more information (image color and tonal values, dynamic range, etc) than out of camera jpegs, which start off as raw and are then processed by the camera according to the parameters you set for contrast, sharpening, color saturation, color space, etc. When a camera does this, the changes are "baked in" to the resulting jpeg. The values that are not chosen for the final image are then discarded. finally, the image is compressed considerably. There is no going back, and if you open the file to perform an edit - you'll find that there is less latitude available for changes.

Using a raw file in a raw converter - Lightroom, Capture One, Adobe Camera Raw, Aperture, DXO Optics Pro - ensures that all data captured by the camera is available for edits.

Raw files have from 1-3 stops more dynamic range than jpegs, and they have more headroom before clipping on the individual channels of red green and blue.

Making a "correct" exposure for a jpeg "may" be different than for a raw file. For a jpeg, you strive to get the middle tones correct, which in some cases may mean that you sacrifice the darkest and the lightest tones. When you record raw, you have the luxury of preserving the highlight detail, allowing the rest of the image to be modestly underexposed, and you end up with a dark unprocessed image, but a couple of adjustments to the shadow recovery and exposure sliders will bring back the colors and tonality. The difference will be that your highlights will not be overexposed, and everything else will look very good. Depending on what you shoot, this can be a compelling reason to avoid shooting raw+jpeg. For some it may not make any difference, but for others it will.

Lastly, adjustments to color and white balance, tones, exposure, local contrast, highlight and shadow recovery, exposure, etc are more easily done and are more effective if you do then to a raw file. If you use Photoshop, you have the editing commands in Adobe Camera Raw available as a filter, but if you tweak things to far they will appear posterized and generally not nearly as nice as when you make these changes in a raw converter.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Yup, that is what I meant to say. :-)

1Drummer Loc: Mississippi

Wow, what great feedback. Thank you for your perspectives, opinions and guidance, I will dive off into them and submit some of my examples for constructive criticism.

Again, thank you

Richard

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Everything depends on personal taste. There is no "right" in processing just what you like. I started with JPEG and now shot raw because it gives me more latitude to correct exposure mistakes, which I have been known to make.

I use Lightroom and just work my way down the right column - nothing fancy.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I agree entirely Jerry. I have shot RAW for many years because that was what I was always recommended in all the workshops I attended.
To me the greatest advantage of RAW is its better control of noise because all other parameters I can easily work with with editing software.
Lately I have been shooting more and more JPEG files to my entire satisfaction. By the way, these two files are an original RAW and an original JPEG. Both shot with the same camera and same lens with the same exposure. Both edited in Capture NX2 with the same minor adjustments for both.
Could you tell which one is the RAW file?

(Download)


(Download)

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

I open each image in LightRoom's develop module, then click on the <auto> button. This never gets it 'right', but it gives a good starting point for me to work on...

blackest Loc: Ireland

The 2nd one is raw, the sky gives it away. Problem with a lot of scenes is there is a wider dynamic range than is capable of being recorded straight into a jpeg. You can spread the tonal range but then you need wider color steps and your in danger of posterisation. The Jpeg file tends to pull from the middle of the raw tonal range. With Raw the tones available can be shifted into an image capable of being displayed on screen or print.

It's worth noting these are two separate shots, the cat moved :)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Blackest you have an excellent eye if you did not cheat.
Both files are perfectly acceptable to me although the sky in the RAW file is brighter.
Details and colors to my eyes are exactly the same. I added warmth because it was a rainy day here in South Florida.
When I began to use JPEG files years back I became very disappointed and from there on it was only RAW for me. In the past few years I have seen a significant improvement in the JPEG files that for my taste they have excellent quality.
It is true that for those who want to spend time editing their files RAW has a lot to offer.
Quality has improved so much with JPEG that I feel comfortable with it. I also shoot RAW but not as much as I did in the past.

blackest Loc: Ireland

No I didn't cheat, but could you have used better file names :)

I could see a difference to the sky the top image seemed to be a single tone and no detail the bottom had just a little detail and tone variation.

I only saw the file names when i went to look at the cat although there wasnt much more detail with a larger image. I had decided on which was which before the second image had fully downloaded.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

This is not a good example of RAW vs JPEG. The light is evenly dispersed from an overcast day. Try an image where there is more dynamic range, more shadows and highlights. This where RAW excels to lift more detail from the shadows and highlights than JPEG could ever do. That's a fact.