luvsgrtdanes said:I guess my question would be...other than more info you get when shooting raw as opposed to jpgs what is the difference? I can fix things with jpgs in photoshop just as easy (for me actually easier) than raw if editing is needed, which it usually is 
Are raw better for printing? My png files won't upload here, so I have to convert them to jpgs anyway 
Think of it this way...if you took the same negative to Costco, Walmart, Walgreens, and Target and asked for a print, you'd get 4 different 5x7s back...ranging from subtlety to radically different (in my experience).
RAW is that negative...and your in-camera processing (shooting to .jpp only) yields the results of only one of those stores (take your pick). And it could be that you prefer Costco's prints to Walgreens (after you see the difference) yet your camera delivers in Walgreens style.
A little esoteric, I know, but that's what's going on...sort of...or close enough to have this conversation, anyway.
Don't think of the RAW file as a replacement for .jpg. It's not. It's where the .jpg comes from (either in-camera or through your computer). And how you get to that point, I guess, is part of the trouble. You convert the RAW to .jpg at some point to upload or print (you don't print straight from RAW normally - I've never even thought to try...or look).
A good RAW converter ought to let you do a few things. Some of them have camera-specific profiles that should kick out a .jpg that will look just like a .jpg coming out of your camera. Software that shipped with the camera ought to be able to do that, too. I know that in Photoshop, you can mess with the contrast and saturation and colors, etc., from a .jpg, but because RAW files contain so much more data, the possibilities for potential outcomes are all the greater.
I don't know if I'm doing this right or traditionally (I'm new at the practical side of things here and a TERRIBLE photo editor still), but lately I've been making the EV (exposure value) and WB (white balance) adjustments with the RAW editor, saving it off to .jpg, and (when I remember) cleaning up an artifact from a dirty sensor (need to get that cleaned...again!).
So...bottom line??? My camera (Pentax K-x) has the option to shoot/save both RAW and .jpg concurrently. I have a number of fast 32GB cards and prettymuch limitless hard disk space, but that's a consideration because one bad thing about RAW files is that they take up approximately 2x the disk space as .jpgs (at least in my experience). It also takes the camera longer to write both formats (so shooting in burst mode will get really frustrating really fast). But I think if I were you (read more comfortable with straight .jpgs), I'd set the camera to shoot both - and then use the .jpgs like you normally do...and then only appeal to the RAW file if there's some stuff you just cannot fix in Photoshop. Archive the RAW files like (I assume) you do your .jpgs...and then maybe revisit them in the future, as needed (and as your skills working with RAW files improve).
