If the shot was well exposed, etc., in the first place. If it wasn't, JPEG can be quite limiting. Raw gives you much better capabilities if the original shot was less than ideal.
I'm not arguing that, I shoot RAW routinely. I just think that RAW, for folks who don't want to mess with their images too much is overrated, and that limited manipulation of JPEG is just fine in most cases. Unless one really knows what to do with a RAW image, you are better off with JPEG. Stoo has not checked back in on this discussion, so I have no idea what his abilities are with editing RAW images. If one keeps the original JPEG, so that if you do revisit the original image and edit it in a new way, rather than repeatedly editing and saving a JPEG, quality loss will be limited.
Many pros, particularly wedding and event photographers, don't even consider RAW.
Getting back to Stoo's question though - when you say photo processor though, what do you mean? Is Elements not your photo processor?
The other thing is that you should be able to use Nikon's software like View NX, which is free and should come with the camera, to bring your files in from the camera and view them as JPEG, NEF or TIFF and do some limited editing. View NX will incorporate the camera profiles as it processes the NEF to JPEG. Then you can further process them in Elements if you like.
Having said all that, if you in invest in a non-destructive RAW editing and storage program like Lightroom (or Aperture with Mac), this whole discussion becomes mute.http://www.nikonusa....2/ViewNX-2.html
Edited by loftus, 09 December 2011 - 01:08 AM.
Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.