Well, I don't think it's too much of a debate; most people say RAW, due to its flexibility is post-processing (RAW files carry much more color information than JPEG). But since newcomers always wonder about the benefits, I found an example to post. Feel free to add any tidbits or examples you may have as well. I'll try not to get too technical here; but just post some before and after shots, and point out some quick differences. Also, I used Lightroom 3 for this. I know this isn't best exposure. But hey, it's great for example reasons. And as you'll see, I was still able to get the look I was going for. Just to let you know; to get the Jpeg version, I just took the absolute original and converted it to Jpeg. After that, I made all of the other adjustments. The Untouched Original.... 4028Original by Scott Smith (SRisonS), on Flickr The first thing I wanted to show is how a dark picture can still retain quite a bit of detail. The main thing to look at here, is the fence in the bottom left. You can only partially see it, before it goes completely black. By lighting up the picture A LOT (mainly with Fill Light, but other settings as well), you can easily tell the advantage of RAW. RAW image. Bottom left gate is completely seen. 4028RAWdarkrecover by Scott Smith (SRisonS), on Flickr JPEG image. A lot of the gate is seen, but quite a bit of detail is still gone. 4028Jpegdarkrecover by Scott Smith (SRisonS), on Flickr Without getting into all of the settings I did; I attempted to process the pictures to get each version to look pretty much the same. But because the jpeg version contains less color information, I could only get them so close. Ultimately, for the look I wanted, I really didn't need the gate having too much detail; but for other dark shots, maybe you'll need that recovery. And the jpeg version doesn't look all too bad. But to me, I really couldn't get it to the point I wanted it to; and it took more work to get its final look than the RAW did. I will say that I like the reddish look to the column in the Jpeg version. But this was just a some "quick" work; so I'm not fretting over it. For these final versions, one thing to look for is the area under the warthog's chin. In the original, it appears to be completely blown out. In the JPEG image, it remains blown out. But in the RAW version, I was able to pull out that hidden detail. RAW Image Final 4028RawProcess by Scott Smith (SRisonS), on Flickr JPEG Image Final 4028JpegProcess by Scott Smith (SRisonS), on Flickr I hope this helps to show the difference of RAW vs. JPEG. You might think that RAW requires a lot more work all the time, but it really doesn't. The advantage is that you CAN work on those important images a lot, to REALLY get the look you're going for. With JPEG, it can SOMETIMES be a struggle. I want to emphasize "sometimes", because a lot of JPEG shots are just fine. So don't let me scare you into thinking you NEED to shoot RAW. Just know that in some circumstances, there's a great benefit in doing so.