I was going to ask "Witherby, Stanley, Union, Swan or Jennings?" Then I saw UK so, Sorby, Ilse, Taylor? etc..
Narex and Irwin, but Stanley and Record for hand planes
Used to we embraced RAW for it's malleability right? Thinking correctly then that jpg was 'fixed' with little latitude.
Are you all suggesting now that this has changed and a jpg is more forgiving now? And/or that this new camera
is just plain better at internal processing?
The raw images have a higher bit depth than the JPEG, and given that it contains all the "original" data you should in theory be able to produce something as good as the raw in post (potentially better, given the processing power of a PC).
The tones in the JPEG will be mapped from the raw using the picture profile, and if that's not to your taste you may find that manipulating the JPEG produces some posterisation (i.e. visible bands in tone, as the fine gradations are lost in areas where the tonal range has been squashed in the raw->JPEG conversion).
But - if the JPEG engine is really good, the tonal mapping is to your taste, and the noise reduction that's also being applied is acceptable, then you may find the JPEG so good that there'd be little point playing with the raw.
The raw data really comes in useful when you want to pull back an apparently blown out highlight (e.g. a white sky in a JPEG, where there is actually data in the raw) or, for example, a really bad choice of white balance (which can sometimes have caused enough "damage" to the JPEG that the colour data you want is lost - but all present in the raw).