Post processing isn't cheating. Every image that has ever been photographed by a camera has been post-processed (including film). The question isn't whether or not is is post processed... the question is who (or what) does the post-processing and where does it happen.
Even when I shot B&W film, we'd develop the film, then produce a "test strip" (many different exposure timings used in the darkroom) to determine how much time should be optimal for that image (and then take notes that get filed away with the negative). This is a lot like adjusting the exposure on a digital image using computer software.
When you shoot a JPEG image, the camera is post-processing the image. It takes the "RAW" data... applies white balance corrections, applies color, may apply some de-noising (depending on the ISO), may apply some sharpening, etc. etc. But all of this happens in the camera and you have very little control over it. (but it still happens).
When you shoot RAW, you get the "RAW" data before any post-processing is performed (which is why RAW images usually don't look as good as JPEG images if you haven't done anything to them.) You get to control the exposure adjustments, white balance correction, etc. etc.
It's actually a pretty fast and easy process and software designed specifically for RAW workflow makes it even easier. For example, Adobe Lightroom automatically applies certain adjustments as soon as you import the images from the camera. But the difference is these are non-permanent adjustments (aka "non-destructive" is the term you'll hear... referring to the fact that original data was not destroyed as the changes were made. You can undo anything at any time.)
The reason RAW is heavily preferred is because RAW images are 14-bit and there's are loads of subtle tonal differences from pixel to pixel which are not lost. JPEG are 8-bit images AND they are also heavily compressed to reduce the amount of space neeced to save them. This results in similar pixels (with only subtle tonal differences) being "normalized" to the identical values (because they figure your eye would not notice the difference) so that the images compress better. Unfortunately this results in a loss of original data. So now when you want to adjust that image and maybe bring down the highlights or boost up the shadows... thinking you'll recover some of that detail... the detail is gone. In a RAW image... that doesn't happen.
Another way to think about it...
There are two broad categories of camera users... one group is just snapping photos to preserve memories. They don't think of these photos as "art"... so they're not going to fuss over color, lighting, etc. The other group thinks of the photos as "art"... they want a lot of control over color, lighting, and many other factors.
If you're in group 2... then you want to shoot RAW.
Pretty much any favorite commercial photograph you've ever loved... you look at those colors and wonder "how did they get those colors?" The camera didn't get those colors... that was all done in post processing and those photographers shoot RAW. The camera accurately captured the data ... and the photographer did the rest in post processing.
Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
. I only take serious interest in photography lately, only started shooting raw and doing some editing lately. Just like you said, it popped out of my mind :" why bother having a good camera if i don't learn to get the best out of it".
)
