RAW will always produce more detail than jpeg, and this applies just as much to a RAW file shot and then processed to jpeg - all you are doing is what the camera would have done.
To fully understand it you need to know what happens when a jpeg is made...information is reduced from what was there at the time. Some of the pixels information is duplicated to approximate what was there, so as to save space. Hence why white areas of cloud or spray from boats has little definition - it is all approximated to white round about.
Shoot RAW and have a picture with all the information possible for your camera to capture. Then back home, edit hard. Go through and chuck EVERYTHING that isn't worth hanging onto. If you shoot jpeg and RAW and only edit out on jpeg, then you still haved the RAW file filling up your hard drive space, or you have to go through the RAWs as well!
When you have got your final selection (and quite often you can edit out in the field some of the RAW files in your camera, during a lull you can reduce probably 25% of them.
If, having tweaked your RAW files, you can then save as a reduced information picture (ie you can tell your computer to do what the camera would have done at the time) jpeg. OR choose to save as a better qulity TIFF. It depends on what you are going ot do with it afterwards. If you are sending it off to a magaziune for instance, and you have 120 shots to send....then send jpegs. If you are keeping them for yourself - jpegs. BUT for those really great shots, save them as TIFFs.
The pros and cons?
Pros of jpeg - smaller file size (typically 5 or 6MB per image at A4 which, when opened up, become about 35MB - 45MB) Takes up less room on camera card or computer.
Cons of jpeg. jpegs can be edited and processed - but you are starting with less information at the outset because the camera averages the pixel groups to make up the scene. Detail CANNOT be provided to the same depth as other formats. Once you edit a jpeg and save it you have changed the original for ever. You can get round this by SAVE AS and making a duplicate then not saving your changes (because you already have with the SAVE AS) now you have two pictures, one with slightly less information than the first, because as you save the edited jpeg in jpeg, everything is averaged out again....so the quality is dropping all the time. Do this in RAW and you still have an unadulterated image that you started with ans o you haven't lost any information.
Pros of RAW: You get all the information available saved in the camera. You have more possibility of tweaking than you do in jpeg - because you starting with more information. You doing the tweaking is taking the effort out of the camera and getting your desktop computer to that bit instead. You end up with an image that you can describe as a "digital negative". When you process it, you then save the result and the RAW is totally unchanged. Just like making a print off a negative in the enlarger...you don't change the original film when you fiddle with the paper.
So you can always go back and start again if you make a muck of it. You can even save the bits of editing up to the point where you messed up, so you don't need to start from scratch, just go back one step to where you were before you made your mistake (EDIT button on toolbar - undo!)
Cons of RAW: because the camera is saving more information it is a little slower to download the buffer onto your card. Even at motorsport, this isn't a problem unless you are a machinegun photographer......3 or 4 shots per pass and it will be ready to go again for the next car/bike/boat. The secret is to shoot what you want when you want, and not rely on the motordrive to do it for you. Even at 1/1000th if you shoot 5 frames in one second, that means you MISSED 995 of those 1000ths in that second. Nothing will beat THE DECISIVE MOMENT! It might nearly equal it......anyway, back to RAW.
You have bigger files to store, so your workflow has to be organised. The only way to not fill up your camera and computer is to be SELECTIVE and edit hard. Is it really worth keeping? If you have to think about it - throw it!
You have to work through all those files and process them into something useable. There are tools (like batch processing) to make this much easier - for those that are OK without having to tweak/rescue. If you need to tweak a lot, then you messed up in the field, so get your taking technique worked on and save yourself a load of work.
Some people see RAW as a way of making a silk purse out of sows ear....if you have a crap RAW you have a crap picture with more information about that crap, thats all. It is still crap whether it was a jpeg, RAW or TIFF doesn't matter...it is still worthless!:nuts:
For quick jobs with no long lasting value, jpegs will do, they are not as good as those same shots in RAW, but good enough. The starting jpeg is as good as it will get, processing jpegs reduces the amount of info still further. There is nothing you can do about it, so tough.
For pictures that will have enduring value, or need to be tweaked to perfection - RAW.
Try opening the RAW files in the Nikon editing suit that came witht he camera for starters. Then once you get going do the photoshop thing.
I am a full time pro (23 years now) and I don't own any type of Photoshop....that is what designers are for! I just do the simple tweaks and then send them off. If they want to do fancy things with them (and is YOUR monitor calibrated to the office's - all the different offices???) that is up to them. If you fiddle, they spend more time fiddling it back again, so just leave it be.
I describe the way I shoot as shooting digital trannies. As in, they get it as it comes out of the camera, just like with slide film. I spend time making sure that it is right - it is by far the better way to work than all this rescue nonsense! If I get it wrong? I lose the shot and I don't eat - which is why I am sat here with bare feet
