I have a digital camera which can take pictures in RAW format or JPEG. I appreciate that one advantage of JPEG is that because of file size, a lot more photos can fit on a memory card, but now that memory cards are getting fairly inexpensive for large capacities, that is not as significant a factor as it used to be. In theory, RAW files should allow a much better final picture to be produced as a JPEG file will already have discarded a lot of the original information. However, I just wonder whether anyone has done any comparisons to ascertain whether that theoretical advantage is significant in practice.
Thanks for the answers.
Looking at the article and subsequent comments in mimosa418's link, the conclusion to be drawn seems to be that expert photographers will manage perfectly well with just JPEG, but the rest of us are probably safer sticking with RAW, which makes woodchip's suggestion very sensible.
If you are a 'photographer' who when shooting with film have them processed at the local chemist. Then Jpeg is the way to go, because quality was never really an issue with you.
If however quality is an issue, then Raw is the way to go. The latitude of digital cameras is the limitation. If you have blown highlights or no detail in the shadows, or the white balance is out, or exposure is incorrect then your jpeg photo is ruined. With Raw these problems can be overcome.
Memory is now so cheap I would'nt worry to much about file sizes. I have an 18Mp DSLR and can get a little over 300 shots from an 8Mb flash card when shooting raw
You followed Mimosas link now read this one raw v jpeg