7 out of 10, but I think it is rather a meaningless test.

JPEGS & PNGs shown postcard size on a computer monitor (calibrated?) are worlds away from a fine print. Furthermore, the saved quality number from presumably PhotoShop is not an indication of the quality of the file one started with.

Bottom-line, one needs to know for what purpose(s) they might use the image. Website? Slide show? 4x5 prints?
Then JPEGs are just fine from almost any camera even after a couple of lossy edits.

But if you don't know what the future holds for a yet-to-be-taken image -- you might use it for commercial purposes, or may need to make some significant edits or changes, or perhaps frame that lucky perfect shot in a detail revealing 24"x30" metal print, then RAW is the only viable way to go that offers the most flexibility. From RAW you can output almost any file format, any size or variation while preserving the original RAW file; the original picture.

If filesize is a driver of this decision (as indicated at the end of the test), then it should be mute in 2012 with 3TB portable drives selling for $199 and Kryder's Law marching onward.

With one RAW file in Lightroom for example, I can save hundreds of versions of that file, cropped and edited in dozen of formats and color profiles without using any more additional space than the untouched original RAW file. Again, conserving space on a hard drive is not a criterion to be used for making such a permanent decision.

How many folks have comparatively tiny JPEGs from yesteryear who wish they could have a do-over - to save the file in a more detail capturing or more useful and versatile format? I know I have thousands of them, mostly family and overseas vacations that are doomed to only look OK on a monitor in post card size.

Other than that, to each his own based on needs and likes. There is NO RIGHT ANSWER for everyone, just an informed one. Want to cover your bases? Shoot both RAW and JPEG if your camera permits.

Sorry, for what turned out to be a bit of a rant. This subject never seems to end with a consensus and I guess I've grown weary revisiting it to see if I may have missed something after all my years studying it.

Our local camera club did an extensive review last year looking for the best slide show maker (using a wide variety of criteria) and they decided that Pro Show Gold was the recommended program for all club presentations.

I have used it for the past 3 years and find that it does most things quite well. It even burns HD presentations onto Blue ray disks and integrated video and stills seamlessly.

ProShow Producer is more expensive, but takes things to another level that is probably more suitable for the person who is creating slide shows professionally.

Let us know what program you finally settle on as like most technologies, things seem to swing back and forth and there is always something new and better out there.

Good response to an important subject that is often misunderstood. To make this decision, one should have a rudimentary understanding of the differences between the two files.

1) JPEGs reflect the camera's color profile, image settings, and pre-set adjustments depending on camera settings. When you shoot in AUTO for example, the camera makes a number of decisions that are not easily changed with fidelity in a JPEG. RAW generally ignores these settings and records exactly what the camera sees. But not in an immediately usage format.

2) JPEG images will generally look better than RAW when simply viewed on camera or a computer screen. This is misleading because the RAW format is data waiting for a computer to turn it into a JPEG (or other printable format) file. RAW is the basic database of all the photo's details and requires processing into a printable file format. This can be a simple click in an editing program or hours of tweaking depending on what the photographer wants.

3) JPEG files are compressed by the camera. Some more than others as the compression technique in cameras vary. Whenever you edit a JPEG with any program of your choice, the quality of the file is degraded. Each time you edit and save the file, the quality is reduced and artifacts are introduced into the image. This is not a problem for most folks, and you can edit an image several times before noticing a significant difference. (A few cameras offer a non-lossy format like TIFF which can be edited without losing data)

4) RAW files should never change. When edited, the output is a JPEG or other format as selected by the photographer depending on what is needed.

5) RAW files are not image files, and require some degree of post processing to be used for most purposes. JPEGs are ready to be used if the photographer likes the initial image.

Once you understand these fundamental differences, you can better make a decision that works for you. I know several highly successful award-winning photographers that never shoot RAW and strive to get the right image using JPEG and never do any editing to the image. Once in while they may crop something. So RAW is not the end all, but it offers so many more choices and infinite options when altering an image. However, this flexibility is not for everyone.

Bottom-line, you decision is NOT selecting a computer program, or a workflow, but understanding the fundamental differences between RAW and JPEG.

I always shoot both. I end up deleting most RAW files as I cull thru my images. However, I keep the RAW files for my favorite images as I can always use them later on to output an image using whatever color profile and size is needed. I have tens of thousands of JPEG images that I think are great but are there is simply not enough information there to make a quality print/image using today's standards. I now regret not also taking them in RAW format.

Whatever format you prefer, the important thing is to understand your options, and then go out and take pictures! Every hour you do not spend in front of a computer screen, is an hour you can use to capture that special shot we are all seeking.

Great shots. I see more skill than luck in these shots. Thanks for sharing them.

Thanks GE! I have been waiting for Windows viewer support of my RAW files for years. I just downloaded it, installed it and used it. Sure saves time when sorting thru uncataloged files.

However, with a little more discipline in my Workflow, importing everything into Adobe Lightroom (automatic group cataloging) and then culling out rejects is the best way to get your photos organized.

Thanks again for the link.

Taking photos can be intimidating to some folks. Why are you taking pictures? What are you going to do with them? Will taking pictures here somehow compromise our security, pose a legal evidentiary concern, or make our customers uncomfortable? It is usually perception that drives policy restricting the taking of photos than anything specific and substantial.

A SLR with a large lens pointing at anything just naturally garners a variety of attention in a public place, especially when attached to a tripod and a strobe. I have been asked to get rid of the tripod for a variety of reasons, including that it posed a tripping hazard to others (possibly true) and that while in public areas it crosses the legal threshold of something "permanent" versus portable. Many municipalities have laws regarding this and require a permit to use a tripod in some public places.

While always good to ask, the problem is often discovering whom to ask. I find General Patton's philosophy works well for me: it is far better to beg forgiveness than to get permission ahead of time.