RAW question

Noah Genda wrote:

I hope you all don't mind me resurrecting this thread, but my trip is 7 weeks away and my head is spinning after spending the last couple of days reading pages & pages of discussion & debate on RAW vs JPG. There appears to be compelling arguements from both camps.

(BTW, I did upgrade from PS CS5 to CS6).

So I've done a few test shots with my camera set at RAW+JPG (using a tripod, and even at various WB settings), processed the files, and I simply fail to see any desirable difference. In fact the JPG images saved from the RAW files actually look like they have what I would describe as a very fine digital noise when viewed close-in (although I know it's likely not "digital noise").

It appears then, based on my limited tests (in non-sunny conditions) the JPG images out of the camera are just as good as the RAW; some even nicer, smoother looking. So if the only real benefit of the RAW file is to save ones butt if one has the exposure or WB terribly wrong, then is it really worth the massive file sizes (both for cards and long-term storage), the much slower write-times when shooting, downloading time (minor), and the post editing time of RAW?

I'm starting to wonder if the arguments for RAW are based on the JPGs of old small-sensor 2 MP cameras. Haven't the JPG capabilities of cameras (even modest ones like my Panny G3) come a long long way in the last few years? Aren't the JPG images out of today's better camera's at a level where the "cost" of shooting RAW is really not worth it?

I'm quite surprised too at what can be done with an out-of-camera JPG with the NIK suite, with amazing results.

After my trip, I just don't want to ever find myself ever saying "I should have shot it all in RAW".

Head-spinning sequence........resumed.