If it's going to be for web only, most photos are scaled down to 1/4 size roughly to fit internet screens (ecommerce) and such, screw it, jpeg... shooting kids running around the yard, jpegs... shooting for my personal enjoyment, jpeg, unless that is I see the possibility of it being portfolio quality, then raw + jpeg... Lets not fear the power of the jpeg.
If I am going to shoot jpeg I will get out the 7D or G12 and shoot on the green square mode
Coming from you, that's about the response i would expect... But in the end time is money and I do run a business so on smaller files, i do what I need to do to shave time and frankly, files for the web, when scaled down, are nearly identical either way if shoot and exposed perfectly, that it doesn't do anything but lengthen my workflow, lose money unless I charge higher which makes it even tougher in an already tight market and economy, and in times like these, isn't worth it unless you really need it... Since your a professional i'm sure you can understand that.
The JPEG/RAW argument is a little daft. It's like saying oil paint is better or worse than pastels (yet you don't see courtroom artists using oil paint). Whether JPEG / RAW / both are the best option are dependent on what the image is for, how much time is available and how it will be reproduced. If time is a factor (because of urgency or low payment per image) then of course jpeg has its uses. But for many of us, processing is part of our style / brand and the type of work I do (mostly weddings) allows me to put more emphasis on an individual image. My work is not time sensitive and just about pays well enough per image for me to treat a photograph more like a piece of art than a commodity.
Plenty of fine art, fashion and advertising photography makes my wedding work look like a snapshot with a disposable camera - but for that kind of polished imagery where post production is so important, jpeg is obviously not an option. On the other end of the scale is a picture of a drunk celebrity falling out of a nightclub with a hooker on each arm - an editor could care less about framing, colour, white balance etc - they just want a clean, clearly identifiable shot which tells a story, and they want it now. That's the epitome of photography as a commodity. It takes skill, but not refinement. Nothing wrong with a commodity at all - money is money and we all have to pay the rent. But the less control you have over the final product, because you're letting the camera or an editor do the processing, the more your work becomes a commodity.
>>Plus many Roes based photo labs prefer to accept files in jpeg rather than tiffs or psd... kinda says something.
Yes it kinda says that jpeg files are small. It has zero relevance to the value of jpeg as a starting point for post processing.