My curiosity got me thinking... There has been many debates regarding shooting RAW or JPEG. I previously shot only RAW with my Nikon gear, but that soon changed when I purchased the Sony A6000. I currently shoot only JPEG and tweak a bit in LR5. For my "hobbyist" needs, the results from JPEG is good enough for me. I decided to make a test comparison by shooting both RAW & JPEG and post process just enough for my liking in LR5. The subject is a calendar that I have hanging in my home office and the only light is from a desk lamp with 60watt bulb and my 27" iMac screen. The test isn't well controlled, but only wanted to see what results I get. Both the photos have been slightly straightened & cropped. Funny that the RAW file was a bit more uneven, but had additional information on the bottom of the photo. The JPEG file was already straight, but was cut off on the bottom compared to the RAW file image. The in camera JPEG correction might have something to do with it. Below are the files in JPEG format. RAW post processed in LR5 and converted to JPEG. The JPEG was only cropped in LR5 and pretty much SOOC. Sony A6000 : SEL35F18 RAW Dragion Designs by dragioniii, on Flickr JPEG Dragion Designs-2 by dragioniii, on Flickr Is RAW the only way to go or is JPEG actually good enough? I would like to know your thoughts on this.