My brother-in-law asked me today if he should shoot JPEG or RAW. He bought a larger memory card for his camera and felt that RAW might be an option for an upcoming trip. I also noticed in a thread today posted by a non-photographer asking for advice on a point-and-shoot with one of the comments in the OP being "I don't need RAW." Both of these got me thinking. I understand the theoretical advantages of shooting RAW and it's what I only shoot after being burned in the past shooting JPEG. But I hadn't really shot examples of both before to see objective data. Maybe the party line of only shooting RAW is wrong. Made up? People spouting about theory and pixel peeping but perhaps it doesn't matter for real photography. So I decided to put my money where my mouth is before I responded to my brother-in-law and see if I could provide some examples. I shot a series of several different subjects in different lighting. Had an outdoor series in daylight, an indoor series in mixed light, and an indoor series in incandescent light. Varied the set white balance, though won't post those images in this post (one of the arguments in favor of RAW is that you can ignore white balance when you shoot and just fix it later). For each of the series I shot 5 images using exposure bracketing of +/- 1 stop and +/- 2 stops. Shot RAW + JPEG on my Nikon D800. For each image in the series I corrected the exposure in LR by the same amount as it was adjusted at the time the image was shot, in the opposite direction obviously. Here are two examples from the series that I shared with my brother-in-law and felt like posting here too. Cat 2 stops overexposed at the time of capture and then corrected by 2 stops in LR. RAW file. Same camera settings, but a fine JPEG file. There is zero detail present in the parts of the cat hit by the window light in the JPEG. Guest room in low light overexposed by 2 stops at capture and corrected in LR. RAW file. There is a little bit of artifact around the light in the center, but it isn't crazy. Same shot but as a fine JPEG. The artifacts are much nastier. These are somewhat extreme examples. For many images the differences would be more subtle. But shooting RAW gives you some wiggle room if you don't nail the exposure or have a high dynamic range subject for which there isn't a perfect exposure. People frequently talk about why RAW is better, but thought it might be fun to show visually how this can actually matter in real images. Feel free to post your own examples (either pro or con) of why you shoot in RAW or JPEG.