Even if they could print raw you would be leaving the convertion to
them, how would
they know what you wanted?

Best to convert them to what you want and have that printed.

BTW I doubt they could print from raw anyway.

Scott

No.  Very unlikely.

Yes.

Raw format lets you "geek out" a lot more during post-processing, rather
than entrusting the camera to auto-detect settings (light temperature,
etc.).  It's like a digital "negative".  You can batch-process them to
JPEGs with the camera-recommended settings, or you can manually tweak
each image.

If you're not the type that likes to spend a lot of time tweaking, shoot
JPEG and let the print processor auto-correct your images.  If you like
to obsess, then shoot raw and decide later whether to tweak or
batch-process them.

Personally, I shoot RAW+JPEG.  The JPEG's are convenient, and the RAW is
there if I want to fine-tune an image.  It's often surprising to look at
them side-by-side and see where the in-camera JPEG was wrong (usually in
lighting temperature, IMHO).  In the end, it's only disk space, and that
can be groomed later if needed.

Cheers,
Richard

I was trying to find a programme which batch-converts raw to jpeg.
Any recommendations?