The most tricky question, to which we will answer in the affirmative: in JPEG. And immediately make a reservation: “except when RAW is better.” And it is better in the following cases (one point is enough):
You constantly print photos of a format larger than 13×18 (and certainly more than 10×15) and rotate them for a long time in the editor and also call affordable wedding photography – this is especially true not for photos with small details, but, on the contrary, with gradients that occupy a significant part of the area.
You like black and white photos and shoot mostly in monochrome
(you can set the RAW format, and set shooting in b/w in the menu – then there will be a preview of the black and white photo, and roll back to color, in which case, it’s easy, because the photo will remain in color).
You are a professional and you are paid for quality, and therefore you cannot afford even the slightest embarrassment or inconvenience. In general, any case when your photos are paid, with the exception of those that have already been taken.
You edit a lot, you like it, and at the same time you see the difference between RAW and JPEG shots taken at the same parameters.
You know a photo lab that faithfully prints all 16 bits of a color image and provides color profiles for printing presses, and the operator only presses the start button.
You are a photographer and you think that “shooting in RAW is cool”.
In other words, all shots related to a home photo album, friends and work colleagues, street photos, photos that do not require editing, any photos printed in a format up to 13×18, shooting corporate parties, drinking parties, parties.