Trying 'RAW' -- some queries.

The sliders only affect JPEGs, not RAW files.

A photograph taken in good conditions and exposed correctly will often need very little adjustment in RAW. However, I find that levels and focus always benefit from some tweaking.

RAW comes into its own when you don't get it right in camera. But once you get a good process going, RAW doesn't take any longer to deal with than JPEG. This is definitely true in Silkypix, which has the ability to apply a set of corrections to a batch of pictures. I imagine most software does this nowadays.

Personally I use sRGB because that is best for Windows and for the Web. If you print a lot, you might do better with Adobe.

G

I find RAW of particular benefit in situations with mixed lighting, such as large halls. Instead of constantly having to check and amend the WB setting, to save time, leave the camera on Auto WB and make the adjustments when you process.

Hi Peter,
In answer to your questions:

1. As George says, the sliders, image style etc only apply to JPG. In fact, you can use it to your advantage. For example, you can set the picture to monochrome - and the embedded JPG that's stored inside the RAW file (and the separate JPG file if you are shooting RAW+JPG) will be monochrome. The RAW data will be completely untouched

2. RAW is completely unaffected by white balance. I generally use Auto WB, as the K-5 has very good auto white balance. Most often I'll use the K-5's settings directly in the RAW development software (Lightroom or Silkypix) but I can always override that in the software.

3.& 4. No, RAW isn't a waste of time Let's assume you have a perfectly exposed shot, with correct white balance - using out-of-the-box settings in the RAW software you'll probably see little difference. However, you have a lot more latitude in the RAW - for example you can use "Fill Light" to bring out much more detail from the shadows. As a practical example, I covered a friend's wedding in full sunlight with the K-5 in RAW. The dynamic range was massive and the embedded JPGs struggled to cope with both the shadows and highlights. However, in Lightroom I could tweak the settings to effectively compress the dynamic range and make everything less harsh. I didn't need fill in flash at all (Which saved my arms no end!)
You end up with much more scope for creative control of overall exposure - even when it was right in camera.

Additionally, with Lightroom I can use graduated adjustments which mean that I rarely have to use ND Grad filters anymore It's unbelievable what can be pulled out of the murky shadows in RAW

5. When shooting RAW it is irrelevant what the colour space is on the camera (at least on dSLRs - large format backs are sometimes a different matter!). The colour space (sRGB or AdobeRGB) only affects the embedded JPG. When you use your RAW conversion software you can decide which colour space to output to. This is handy... you can set the camera to sRGB, and use sRGB for 99% of your work within the PC. If you decide you need a wider colour gamut for an individual shot you just re-export to a wider one (like AdobeRGB or ProPhoto). Easy

Hope that helps!
Matt

Btw, photoshop 7 will edit raw files. Maybe it hasn't got the right converter for your PEF files, but you can download it or simply shoot in DNG format. For me the main advantage of RAW is much better noise reduction. Especially with lightroom 3 but photoshop is also very good. You can also pull back more detail into highlights and shadows which you would have to sacrifice even on a 'perfectly' exposed jpeg.