Personally, the RAW vs. JPEG debate is kind of silly. They both have their advantages and for the most part a jpeg image can be good enough for certain projects. I tend to shoot more JPEG than RAW in some instances, because processing RAW can be a bit more time consuming. It really depends on the shoot. For family events that will only really see Facebook, shooting RAW is overkill. Your results will be the same as shooting jpeg, but with more work. You don't need the extra dynamic range and white balance data if your shot is pretty close to what you want. JPEG has more than enough data for minor tweaks.
For a professional shoot or stuff you want to end up in your portfolio though, it's worth it to shoot RAW because you want as much image data as possible. It's all about time and money management. It would be more expensive to do a re-shoot for fashion for example, whereas it wouldn't really matter much for snapshots of your company picnic.
It's a bit silly to take sides. Some people swear by RAW, others swear by jpeg. Until cameras can handle large, lossless RAW files without breaking a sweat, there will always be a place for a compressed jpeg file. I wouldn't be surprised if something new comes around to replace both in the near future. Lossless data with the ease of jpeg. Just think, we use to think 6 megapixel jpeg files were insanely huge at one point, but technology has allowed for cameras and computers to handle them with ease.
__________________
[09][MB][6-Spd MT][Touring][Stillen Gen III][K&N][Borla CBE][Evo-R]
|