Firstly, a RAW file has no more pixels than a JPG, so in terms of image size defined by pixel density it makes no difference.
A 10,000,000 pixel image on an SLR will be ~ 2582x3873pixels, so printing at 180dpi (the native resolution of an Epson photo printer such as the 2880) will give you an image of 15.8 x 21.5 inches or 40.2 x 54.7cm which is easily big enough.
What RAW fundamentally gives you is better resolution within each pixel (typically 14 digital bits per RGB colour rather than 8 bits as in JPG) and an essentially unprocessed image without compression (and the attendant loss in quality). This in turn enables the photographer the option of choosing certain setting, such as white balance, in the computer rather than in the camera, and can give you several stops of leeway in the exposure that you can 'fix' in the computer in an emergency.
How RAW files are handled varies from photographer to photographer, but a consistent and efficient workflow is clearly essential. Many photographers keep their settings consistent throughout a shoot and then can batch process the images, but this isn't always possible. Perhaps just as important is discarding the 'dross' BEFORE embarking on RAW processing to make the workload acceptable. For example, talking to a friend who had just returned from a 3 week photo tour in Africa I asked how many pictures he had come back with. "Oh, I'm really pleased" he said, "about six or eight" - now THAT'S discarding the dross! Those few were all really brilliant though.
I could send photos for the competition "Wildlife photographer of the year" makes with a camera canon A-590 than it don't make file RAW???
I'm sorry for my english
On this question of RAW files: a photograph I submitted to this year's competition has got through to the final judging round and they are requesting a RAW file for authenticity. I was on a 6 week trip when I shot the photograph and needed more space so therefore shot on JPEG. I still have the image on my camera (a Nikon D80) as well as downloaded into my computer. I haven't retouched it or done anything with it, except submit it to this competition. Am I now disqualified from this competition because I don't have a RAW file of my photo?! Seems astonishing! In truth I've never shot on RAW because I'm not very techie and don't have the time or inclination to touch up prints back on my computer. I prefer to take the right shot there and then and whatever comes out is my final image.
Surely this competition is about getting original shots of wildlife, whether you are an amateur or a professional photographer? If this RAW rule applies, then I can only take it that it's not about that, and is basically a competition only open to professionals (who shoot on RAW).If this is the case, it's sad and it should be made very clear at the outset so that people don't waste £20 sending in an image that couldn't be considered....
I replied to this but it got lost in the Ether (My mistake). I think this issue deserves an airing; why not write to Amateur Photographer's letters page.
If a Photo is not good enough don't pick it.Why set these hudles. I suspect the judges are suspicious that highly processed or manipulated Photographs might win. I think this can be paranoia with straight shots accused of being Photoshopped. Does the removal of a speck of dirt or a leaf count as cheating anyway ( film prints were often manipulated ).