RAW still worth it?

[hollis_f]

or would the raw/jpeg combo give the best of bost worlds?

I find there's no point at all in shooting raw+jpeg. All raw files have a jpeg version of the image embedded within them. For decent, recent cameras these jpeg images are full-size and identical to the jpeg you'd have got when shooting raw+jpeg. In effect, you're really shooting raw+jpeg+jpeg - I don't think the redundancy is too hard to spot.

If I want a jpeg I just double-click on the raw file. This opens it in FastStone which, by default, displays the embedded jpeg. I then use the 'Save As...' option to save that embedded jpeg. It would be difficult to make it simpler.

If I want unprocessed jpegs from a lot of raw files then I just use Instant Jpeg from Raw - which can do batch extractions of embedded jpegs (with lots of other tricks, like auto-resizing).

 

[magicaxeman]

It depends on the camera really, some like the Fuji X-pro1 are producing amazing jpg's straight from the camera.

On a personal level I treat raw files as the digital equivalent of a film negative so just as I have always retained my film negatives for future use I would shoot raw + jpg and save the raw files to my raw file vault folder.

 

[Lbm]

I'm a RAW convert so to speak, never used it untill recently.

I find the ability to tweek the WB and exposure a real asset.

Tweeking the WB can make a real difference to a shot, it's amazing.

You can tweak WB in pp with jpeg too.

 

[ernesto]

Well, you can tweak everything in pp with JPEG - the point is that the tweaking is more detrimental and the image can start to suffer and you can also not recover as much.

Do a quick test and take a raw + JPEG and then do some extreme pp with them and see which one starts to suffer more quickly.