Playing a little bit of devils advocate here;
Nowt wrong with that, as long as you say and not just ****** stir.
You take an image of say for example a sunset. You have chosen an appropriate mode on the camera, maybe set a custom white balance, selected an appropriate ISO and set the exposure as best you can. The camera is set to record the image as RAW + JPEG (highest quality).
You then download the files to your computer, which looks the best? The JPEG.
If that works for you, then carry on.
You have to open the RAW file in a converter before you can print it or mail it to someone. So you open it, tweak some sliders, run noise reduction, export to JPEG and which looks better now? It all depends on how good you are with the RAW conversion and remember you have to do that for every file and in that time you could do some PP on the JPEG to further improve that.
As with any editing software, you need to use it to get better with it, if you choose not to, then :shrug: I would say most images benefit from some editing, and the amount of editing needed to convert a RAW image to Jpeg is exaggerated, as if you brighten, sharpen maybe a contrast adjustment to your Jpegs, then you are doing a similar amount of 'work' as you may do on the average RAW file. And you don't have to edit every RAW file, just as you don't edit every Jpeg, should you edit.
But if you just print straight from your camera, then RAW is more work, I agree.
But I can batch process RAWs. Of course you can, but, all batch processing is doing is exactly what the camera RAW to JPEG conversion does, are your settings better? Is Lightrooms reverse engineered noise reduction algorithm better than Canons?
It isn't doing exactly as the camera is doing when converting from RAW to Jpeg, the processes may be similar, but the technicalities are different.
Does Canon, (or whoever) know the correct settings for each image, or do they just put general settings on each image? Maybe if you use a picture style you are giving it an idea, but it is the same settings for each image, regardless of content.
Is the processing in the camera as powerful as your computer? I hope not.
Is the the processing in the camera locked at the time of manufacture? The very rare firmware update aside (which generally fixes camera function problems, rather than updating image processing), yes. Hopefully whatever RAW editing software you use would get better over time. I know Adobe Camera Raw has changed significantly over the years, and because of that I can go back to old RAW files and re-edit them to take advantage of the new software. The Noise Reduction in the newest version is a particular improvement over previous versions. That Jpeg taken with and older camera years ago would not be able to have the same amount of improvement imho.
Is RAW really a lazy solution? You dont need to find out what the JPEG settings in your camera do, you dont need to evaluate the scene fully. You can snap away in RAW, getting things about right because you can sort it out in Lightroom later.
I don't think anyone says be lazy when taking an image, apart from the odd 'you don't need to set the WB' aside. To get the maximum flexibility shoot in RAW, and edit with the Manufacturer's own software which will render the RAW with the same settings as the camera would, but would give you the opportunity to improve if you thought you could, as you can change the camera setting which were being applied. For most people though, they would have image editing software to edit, which although may not display the RAW as the camera would have, is close enough to start from.
I know there are some theoretical benefits to using RAW, but in practice are the printed images noticeably and consistently better from a developed RAW original than a JPEG?
'Consistantly better'? Depends on the image, and the person doing the conversion. But the potential to be a lot better? Yes imho.
Taken to an extreme, if the aim is ultimate detail and tonal range then shouldnt we all be shooting slide film?
Maybe for tonal range and detail, but not for flexibility. The exposure had to be exact, and colour capture needed to be corrected through the use of filters as far as I'm aware. Though I only shot a few rolls of slide film 20 odd years ago to see what it was like, so I could be wrong.
RAW may not be for everyone, but at least consider the possibilities before you make your choice. That's why I love threads like this every so often, to show people different side of the 'argument'.
