So is it just using RAW allows you to go back to the original anytime you want and not worry that changes you made will be permanently embedded in the image file?
That depends on how much editing you do. RAW files give you more leeway during the editing procedure.
If all it takes is minimal editing, because the picture is properly exposed and white balance is spot on, in all likelihood, you won't be able to tell the difference. If the picture is not exposed properly and you need to crank the sliders hard to fix it, you will be able to tell.
One question I have though is, will an image shot in RAW and then edited for say white balance and some sharpening, look any different than an image shot in JPG and edited exactly the same way?
White balance? Maybe, it depends on how far off your camera is. Sharpening? Probably not. In many cases, the jpg may even look sharper straight out of the camera compared to the developed RAW file.
So basically, in terms of just looking at a photo, can you tell the difference between a RAW image and JPG image if edited the same way?
The most important point is: if the photo is good, no, because it won't matter. Also, nobody will tell you `oh, you can tell, it's a Canon/Nikon/Olympus' or `it must be an
L lens.' Photography is not about gear, it's about the image.
If only minimal editing is necessary or you scale down your image to post card size, you will not be able to tell. Even at full resolution, you will not be able to tell a properly exposed and white-balanced jpg from a RAW file.
If you're not sure whether you should use RAW or jpg, compare both yourself. Do not do something extreme such as under/overexposing by 2 or 3 stops and see which one you can rescue (the answer will be: the RAW file gives you more headroom, but in all likelihood, the picture still looks ******). I'd start taking pictures in dark places (churches, bars, etc.), places that push your camera to the limit. Expose properly. Now you can compare both. The closer you are to ideal settings and circumstances, the smaller your benefit.
The question whether or not you `need' to develop RAW has two components: (1) the benefit which you hope to have, but (2) there are things you need to master.
Trying out RAW in normal shooting scenarios gives you an idea about the extra leeway you have. On the other hand, you will need to get accustomed to software such as Aperture or Lightroom. Without it, I don't see much point in shooting RAW as it becomes either very cumbersome (if you develop each image by hand) or pointless (if you continue to use iPhoto, for instance). RAW files are harder to edit since it takes more time and processing power. You cannot just copy your pictures from your memory card to a friend's computer and share your pictures, you need to develop them first with specialized software.
Even though I only shoot RAW myself, I advise against `just shooting RAW because there are some examples on the internet that show how much better it is.' There are many components to taking good pictures and RAW files are only one of them. In many cases, you're better off investing time in learning how to use your camera, about composition and exposure, etc.
