The RAW versus JPEG debate is treated as settled in most photography education. It is not, and flattening it into a simple answer produces photographers who carry the right files without understanding what they are carrying.
The case for RAW is real and substantial. A RAW file preserves all the sensor data captured at the moment of exposure — full dynamic range, uncompressed color information, no in-camera processing decisions baked in. When exposure or white balance is off, RAW gives you recovery latitude that JPEG does not. For high-stakes work where post-processing is part of the workflow, there is no serious argument against it.
The case for JPEG is more nuanced than it is usually presented. Camera manufacturers spend enormous resources developing in-camera JPEG processing engines that are, for many film simulations and color profiles, genuinely excellent. Fujifilm’s Film Simulations in particular have attracted serious photographers precisely because the in-camera output reflects a visual intelligence that is difficult to replicate in post. Shooting JPEG with a camera whose processing you trust and understand is not a beginner’s compromise — it is a deliberate choice that trades flexibility for immediacy.
The more interesting question is why RAW files from different cameras look different before any processing is applied. They should not — RAW is RAW. But default demosaicing, noise reduction behavior, and color matrix interpretation vary by software, and what you see in Lightroom’s default rendering of a Canon RAW is not the same image a Canon engineer would recognize as neutral output from that sensor. The RAW file is closer to raw data than a JPEG, but it is not unprocessed.
Shoot RAW when the edit matters. Shoot JPEG when the camera’s judgment is good enough and speed is the priority. Know which situation you are in.