Lightroom and JPG

Is it still processed with ACR like RAW files are? Because under development you can apply everything you do in RAW to jpg... so really, what is the difference. Is it worth taking shots in RAW when jpg looks identical

bringing this query in line with the RAW for dummies thread https://photography-on-the.net …hp?t=245510&hig​hlight=raw

personally I shoot RAW... but i have been questioned a few time about why I do that and not just shoot jpg... to be fair I have not argument to why I shoot RAW only.

While this thread started out with the AWB subject, there's a great illustration on page 2 (Post #58.) that illustrate easily seen information loss in a web jpeg shot in the camera & one derived from a RAW file. I was surprised!
Auto White Balance - works really well
You paid for the ability to make an excellent picture. If you'd wanted an average P&S image, wouldn't you have saved the $s & bought one of those?

Then there's this: Take identical shots, RAW + max jpeg. Convert the RAW file to jpeg. Look at the two file sizes.
A max jpg from my 20D is 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from RAW is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Why throw those extra bits away?

LR processes JPEGs the same as RAW with one exception WB. While you can still move the sliders you are not really adjusting the color temp. You are doing more of a color balance.

But when editing RAW images you are editing unprocessed shots with more ability to recover data that is lost with compressed JPEGs. See the first quote in my sig.

in respect to those who shoot jpg professionally... to the normal viewer, they probably wont be able to tell the difference.

Think my main reason is keeping control with colour contrasts/WB with RAW