[JohnC]

I don't know if I still have the images, but last summer I did a small test of shooting a Macbeth color chart with RAW and JPG and the difference was quite startling. The dark brown patch on the card did not record anywhere near its real color with JPG, but was right on with RAW. There were other colors that didn't match, but that one stood out a lot.

By using RAW you can often pull in some highlight detail that appears to be blown out. In the JPG it might be blown out if only one of the channels has maxed out. But with the RAW converter you can often pull out some detail from the other channels.

But going the RAW route does add complications. File sizes are much larger (need more cards or a way to offload images on location). You have to do the conversion. You can get caught up in trying different things in the converter, etc. It does add time.

Until recently I shot mostly large JPG and sometimes switched to RAW in tricky situations or when I really thought I had somethihng I'd want to work on. But now I pretty much keep the camera set to RAW. Sometimes I'll do RAW with small JPG if I want to have quick access to see what things look like and maybe get them on the web for someone quickly.

John