Raw or JPG files for LDR source

I've looked at various tutorials, how-to's, and other sources, including here. I can't seem to find a definitive answer (there may not be one?) to this particular question.

It is better to use X number of RAW images, or the same number of JPGs as the source for your HDR software? Some people seem to recommend using RAW, others JPGs. Assuming all other things are standard, what's the general opinion here?

Thanks!

RAW is always going to look better than JPEG, so if you want to make sure that you get the best looking HDR then shoot RAW, if you shoot JPEG it will be close to RAW's quality, sometimes almost indistinguishable, but still go with RAW.

RAW. how is that for definitive?

Use RAW.
Don't use camera created jpeg because Canon (& others) add too much contrast thus blowing out whites & crushing blacks & leaving weak midtones.

That's opposite to what you want because all HDR software weighs lightness values of all pixels creating a histogram with most pixels in the midtones & only a small percent at both sides of the histogram.

However, if your jpeg was created by you without an s-curve then you could get away with those jpegs. But, you'd still be better off using RAW.

RAW is like a dream. I love it, love it, love it. I love it so much I wrote it three times.

Seriously, it's so much easier to work with Raw. You can improve the image a lot without messing up the integrity of it.

Think of it like this: You know how when you have to peel tape off a surface or a sticker off a window? Well, Jpeg is a nice-looking sticker, but everytime you get a corner up and start peeling, it breaks off. Very frustrating. RAW is like pulling up a corner, and as you peel you worry about it breaking, but it just keeps peeling until you get it and you think, "ahh, that was awesome."

Okay, bad analogy.

Try this: It's like cooking with a high-grade gas stove vs. a cheap electric. With gas you can fine tune the heat and make changes to the heat quickly and accurately, but electric is frustrating because you're literally creating an overflow in an electrical current, which will only get worse if it doesn't slow down, so the stove is constantly changing temperatures and making it difficult to do it right.

Still a bad analogy.

Oh well. I can't get it too well. It's just that RAW lets you do a lot to fix the photograph. Fix isn't even the right word all the time. It's a way to create a look. It takes longer, but it's worth it.

Here's evidence for you: Ken Rockwell says shooting in RAW is mostly pointless.

So shoot RAW.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #10259012
RAW is like a dream. I love it, love it, love it. I love it so much I wrote it three times.

Seriously, it's so much easier to work with Raw. You can improve the image a lot without messing up the integrity of it.

Think of it like this: You know how when you have to peel tape off a surface or a sticker off a window? Well, Jpeg is a nice-looking sticker, but everytime you get a corner up and start peeling, it breaks off. Very frustrating. RAW is like pulling up a corner, and as you peel you worry about it breaking, but it just keeps peeling until you get it and you think, "ahh, that was awesome."

Okay, bad analogy.

Try this: It's like cooking with a high-grade gas stove vs. a cheap electric. With gas you can fine tune the heat and make changes to the heat quickly and accurately, but electric is frustrating because you're literally creating an overflow in an electrical current, which will only get worse if it doesn't slow down, so the stove is constantly changing temperatures and making it difficult to do it right.

Still a bad analogy.

Oh well. I can't get it too well. It's just that RAW lets you do a lot to fix the photograph. Fix isn't even the right word all the time. It's a way to create a look. It takes longer, but it's worth it.

Here's evidence for you: Ken Rockwell says shooting in RAW is mostly pointless.

So shoot RAW.

My ex had a great analogy when I was telling her about why she needed to stop shooting in JPEG. As I was explaining the differences she says:

"It's like going shopping when there's a big sale. It's always better to go right at the very beginning of the sale (The sale = JPEG processing) because there's so much more at the store to work with. After the sale, you're pretty much stuck with what's leftover and you have to deal with that."

She shopped a lot.

RAW for the win, as they say. I can understand that and some further googling and surfing seems to support that in a modestly overwhelming way. I have a feeling that the ideas I got that RAW was NOT recommended were in web pages that talked about doing an HDR with ONE RAW file, and how they'd save it with different EV's and then combine them all together, and other people took that idea to task, making it sound like using RAWs was not a good idea.