The difference between RAW and JPEG is that the RAW files have had little or no processing to them except to take the data from the chip amd losslessly compress it.
JPEG's on the other hand have had white balance correction, brightness, contrast , sharpening, scene preferences added, and converted from a 12 bit image to an 8 bit image. In other words well massaged and some ( a lot in fact ) bits thrown away. And then using a lossy compression method saved.
Sounds quite daunting for a file to survive all that, but it does and at the end of the day gives good images.
Most RAW converters when the initially process the image don't do anything to it. That's why RAW images can sometimes look a biy dull compared to the scene optimised sharpened , contrast enhanced JPEG. The advantage you have with RAW is you can now adjust the image exactly as you want it, with ALL the data not just part of it. How much data is discarded in going from 12 bit/channel to 8 bit/channel. A fair bit. in 12 bit you have over 4,000 bits of information per channel. 8 bit it's only 256. Don't get me wrong in most cases 8 bits is more than good enough, but the data that's lost tends to be in the highlight area, where a lot of data is stored.
To work on RAW files you need a good piece of software. Something that will let you make the adjustments to get the image yoy want without "over processing" the original file.
My favourite is Lightroom. OK it's expensive, but using it you will see what you can really do. Photoshop Elements is also very good at handling RAW files and is about 1/4 the price, and is a good piece of software anyway.
You can download demo versions of both Lightroom and Elements from the Adobe web site, both are fully functional and are limited to 30 days.
If you opt for Lightroom download some of the many tutorials on the web before you start. It will mean you get the most out of the product. The Develop Module is awesome, but don't get overwhelmed by it. it's not that difficult to use.
Some people liken a RAW file to a digital equivalent of a negative. It's a good analogy, but there is so much more to it. than that. However if a RAW file is a digital negative a JPEG is a digital version of a print. Looks OK but there was so much more information in the original negative
Here's a link to a very good article about RAW.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml
It may take you a little time to appreciate what RAW files can do, but once you realise I doubt if you will go back. The only disadvantage is the files are so much bigger, so be prepared to buy some more cards, and Hard Drives
For the time being I'd shoot RAW+JPEG. This way you still get the enjoyment out of your photography, whilst learning the advantages of RAW. Plus you can see the differences between the two .( Just try underexposing a JPEG by 2 stops and pulling it back compared to a RAW file )
John C
