I tend to shoot raw+jpeg. Jpeg for the fast editing stuff.

Adobe Raw

i like raw for the extra post production options. i also like the fact that you have a greater dynamic range with raw.

Why shoot anything but RAW?

I use the Canon EOS program to process raw, and Adobe CS2, I teach photography workshops and stick by my rules, shoot the exposure correctly to start with and you have very little work flow. Master your camera and master your understanding and control of lighting. It works like a charm.

Don't care to spend a lot of time in post processing.

RAW offers all the information the camera was designed to capture.

My primary software is Adobe's Lightroom.

I shoot in both RAW and JPEG. This gives me choices but fills up my card fast.

I use Lightroom on my Mac.

I use the camera option that creates both a RAW+JPG files. When I'm in a hurry I use the JPG, then for the serious images I use RAW.

I shoot raw and jpeg but the shots I really care about I shoot in raw. Family and snapshots I usually shoot in jpeg but almost everything else is in raw.

I have a Sony Alpha A-100, and its DRO feature is unavailable when shooting in RAW or RAW+JPEG modes, and since I find it a very useful feature, I tend to stick with shooting straight JPEG...

Primarily use Lightroom and Photoshop CS3, depending on what the photo is for.

Like one reader said, he is careful on composition and exposure so he shoots jpeg. Well, shooting raw is like shooting film. You still work with it after composition and exposure.

I see advantages of RAW in challenging indoor light, but mostly use JPEG because RAW editing is slower and file size eats up memory card and hard drive too fast.

I shoot in RAW always and do most editing in Lightroom. I use CS2 for any advanced editing needed.

Raw conversion takes too long. I shoot JPEG then resave as TIFF or PSD before doing any editing.

Much better options when processing shot in RAW.

I shoot almost everything in RAW and then work with Photoshop CS2 and Bridge. I do it because I believe the better quality is worth it, not because of a workflow advantage. In fact, I think the workflow becomes a little more difficult and time consuming.

Memory is reasonably cheap. RAW files provide much more detail and processing flexibility than jpg. The choice is clear!

I use RAW because it gives me much more control over the quality of the final print.

My work flow is the same for RAW or JPEG. First I create a folder with the date and a small discription of the event like "20071201 Shutterbug Vote" then I import all those images into that folder. Then I sift through with ACDSee and delete all the unfixable (out of focus)images. Next I import into Lightroom and make minor adjustments and export into a "modified" subfolder. These are the end of the proof/family pics. Images that are used for wedding albums, portrait prints, projects or competitions get special treatment in Photoshop. With the introduction of Lightroom my work flow time has really decreased and spend alot more time behind the camera now instead of behind the computer. Hope this helps.

Raw gives me greater flexability when processing the images. I can do preliminary corrections and edits for proofing. I use Photoshop CS3 almost exclusively.

I want the full resolution. I do my color balance... as part of edit. Corel photo album and Photoshop CS2 is what I use.

I always use Adobe Lightroom for my RAW workflow. Its nondestructive approach gives me the edge I need. And if my images ever require any further enhancing (i.e. altering), I switch to Photoshop.

Start out in Lightroom and then to Photoshop CS3. Am also checking out Camera Raw.

I love shooting raw and the freedom it provides.

If your serious about photography there is no other choice than raw.