James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

For us old timers: "RAW" is the "negative". In theory, It represents the data as the camera records it. (think lossless,like WAV audio) JPG is "lossy" JPG original to JPG copying (jpg orig to post to Post processed jpg for example) would incur loss of data. If using the image "as is" jpg is fine. As memory is cheap nowadays go ahead and shoot raw+jpeg! If you plan serious P.P. use a copy of the RAW image.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

For raw converters the cameras converter is the best. Other than that I've often had Capture One recomended as better than Lightroom.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

One big advantage I find with RAW using the photoshop RAW processor is that it seems to have advanced adjustments, that I can't get in photoshop, or anywhere else, sort of like a "Photoshop Plus" It seems to be the most advanced adjustment tool so far. (There are some interesting plugins like the Topaz series, but most of them are overrated) Of course that means it is more complicated, and even I have started avoiding the RAW hue/saturation balance controls for highlights and shadows most of the time. Still, I like having as many options as possible. Also, I got tired of filling up my memory card too quick, and after a year of having saved folders of unused jpegs on my computer, taking up space there too, I finally got rid of them. RAW only. I admittedly am in love with post processing, so using jpeg to avoid pp doesn't work in my case. I guess you could just open a RAW file in the converter and do nothing, just open the image from there and save it as a jpeg if you need it, but why keep hundreds of duplicates? If you do serious DSLR photography on your computer sooner or later you will run into "running out of space" problems. Eventually a box will pop up saying: "could not perform that function because your scratch disc is full" and then you have to start transferring photos to DVD's or an external hard drive to free up space. Why save Jpg's and RAW's of the same photo?

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

*** I fiirst suggest you simplify your questions and statements. No wonder you're confused!

I hope I'm interpreting all this correctly.
---------------------------'

To answer your 1st paragraph:

Yes, it will try to make things good.
---------

To answer your 2nd paragraph:

Yes to part A if you tell it to automatically correct things using:
1- Stock factory actions, and/or
2- A preset(s), and/or
3- A style(s)

Yes to part B if you don't tell it to... (same as the 1, 2, 3 above).
-----------------

3rd paragraph (if B):

Just wondering. If you don't use RAW in some capacity, how are you ever going to "Master" it?
-----------------

4th paragraph (if A):

Certainly you can! Capture One Pro, (probably LR also), lets you easily go from a good picture and back to an origional photo with just a click or two. Capture One Pro will also let you look at multiple original and/or modified versions at the same time by using "Variants". It's totally your choice. You can do and see anything to any number of the same photo or put another photo in the compare with. Like I said, it's your choice.
-----------------

5th paragraph:

It's obvious by now that I like Capture One Pro. You can simply set up a process for your method of doing things, or leave things set as they come. (Your choice.)
------------------

*When in doubt, do as stated before and use RAW plus jpeg! I do but rarely have need for the origional camera made jpeg version.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Again, thanks to everyone. Terrific responses.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I don't see processing raw as being more difficult. It just allows for a greater range of adjustment. It's gotten to the point where I feel that I would be cheating myself if I shot in JPEG.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Ps, PSE, Lr and ACR has presets and auto settings itself that sometimes are pretty good themselves even if you did not know what you were doing. If you know how to use these programs they (files "processed" automatically) provide a good starting point. But Raw files MUST be processed or they will look funky. And knowing how to use Ps and ACR and the like lets me even improve camera or internet provided JPG images!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Any raw converter, worth its company's reputation, will simply present the data captured by the camera, as it was captured. Of course, your monitor setting, video card, etc. can affect the image you see on your screen. The unadjusted RAW image will probably look a bit disappointing. This is due to the nature of the RAW file.

To garner all of the quality of the image, one needs to learn the various adjustments the RAW processor offers. One of the best is Adobe Camera RAW.

I equate the RAW processor as the development phase of film processing. Photoshop is the equivalent of the enlarger printing portion of the photographic process.
--Bob

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

In addition, a way to think about JPEGs is like contact prints or a sample book of small prints to select from before the final important images are created from the raw files.

JPEG has the advantage of being almost as instant as Polaroids. For example with JPEGs you can stick them on a thumb drive and show them to people almost immediately using a large screen TV. Can't do that with raw files!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You make a good image. A raw file may look a little flat compared to a JPEGs
but nothing to be afraid of. Any of the programs "will" improve raw as well as you make it. There are tons of free YouTube tutorials available - take advantage of that. Just remember that if your shot isn't a great one, nothing will make it better. So try focusing on the more important aspects of photography. Subject, composition, light etc. Once you have those under control, is when you should worry about "enhancement". Are your vertical lines vertical or crooked? Your horizons level? Worrying about how well your car can handle at 100 miles an hour when you can't even keep the car under control at 30 miles an hour is not the question you should be asking.
But any of the popular raw converters will work fine

CaltechNerd Loc: Whittier, CA, USA

Short blunt answer. Lightroom does NOTHING with the RAW image unless you assign presets. This is deliberate and later on you'll be glad it works this way. To start, follow the advise to shoot in RAW + jpg. BUT, also google to find a good set of presets for Develop to make your RAW images attractive.

My presets are:
Basic/Highlights-20
Shadows +20
Whites +10
Blacks -20
Clarity +15 (more helps picture pop)
Saturation +15 (more helps picture pop)

Detail/Sharpening
Amount 70
Radius 1.5
Masking 20

Lens Corrections
Enable Profile Corrections checked
Remove Chromatic Aberration checked

Then, you can change any of these sliders and you'll immediately see what that slider does. So you can catch on pretty fast.

p.s. these are NOT the best presets, just what I happen to use.

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

Yup, JPEG is universal like Mp3, When sharing photos I use JPEG in the same manner that when making an audio recording it begins as WAV, then after it had "worked" on, I share the recording as Mp3. Both formats use less "space" and just about every "media player" can use 'em!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Ha! Exactly similar workflow in a different medium, and I also do the same thing with audio files. Everything is kept as lossless wav files even if acquired as flac or something else, edited if desired and then converted to mp3 for use and distribution. Sometimes going back to 'master file, becomes extremely valuable.

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

Yeah, I "boil" it down to: RAW=35mm negative, JPEG = 4"x6" print. (in my head,anyway. YMMV!)

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Hi Linckinn. A lot of good answers have been posed to answer most of the questions. Let me attempt to give you some insight to the above question.

There are various articles written on the subject and a search on-line will bring up information with photos and examples of different conversion results.

I have done a lot of comparisons and different raw (no need for capital letters) file converters yield different results, that are visible on the screen. Additionally, the different raw converters work differently with different raw formats. So using Adobe on Canon raw may not yield the same result as if you were using a Nikon or an Olympus, etc. For example many people feel that Adobe's rendering of Nikon raw format is very flat, while Adobe's rendering of Canon raw format is much brighter.

Ultimately, which one is the "Best" is completely subjective.

The camera manufacturers raw converter usually does the best quality conversion, but the manufacturers software is often clunky and buggy and crash prone. Aftermarket software companies, like Adobe, Phase One, Et al., write software that is much less buggy and easier to use. However aftermarket companies must reverse engineer the raw conversion algorithm, because the raw formats are propriety and only the manufacturer has the "secret formula" for their raw file format.

My answer to "which is best?' is "the best raw converter is the one that makes the least amount of work for me in post". I shoot Nikon and for me, for now, that is Nikon's software.

Again which is best is subjective you may prefer something different. My suggestion, do some research, try a couple different converters, pick the one you like best.

One more thing, off topic but important. Are you using a calibrated monitor? If not I recommend that you get a calibration process in place, because if you are adjusting raw images on a screen that is off-cal you are basically wasting your time. The good news is most screens are pretty good but if you going through the trouble of editing raw then you obviously care about color and the way to assure consistent color is to adopt a color calibration process (a.k.a. color management process).