Convince me to shoot in RAW

[Meh]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

[AudioGlenn]

If you need to be convinced about the benefits of RAW shooting, do you really care enough to use it?
It would be like an audio engineer trying to apply EQ to an MP3 file (which is the counterpart of a JPEG in the audio world) instead of opening up the protools session which contains all the high-quality individual performances that went into creating that track.
That's not even taking Lossy to Lossy conversions into account (which degrades quality each time).
IE,  Take a JPEG and edit it, save it to another JPEG - this is significantly more damaging to the file than if you opened the RAW file and exported a JPEG from there.

haha.  I hate when people send me MP3s for "mastering"!!!

[RobT]

So I'm looking through the photos from my session this morning, and my lens was either upgraded overnight or everything is sharper than it has ever been before.

If RAW is going to always be obviously sharper this much I am never going back to JPEG only. I love sharpness. Love sharpness.

[cayenne]

Now, I had always known there were distinct advantages to RAW, but hadn't thought about it much until recently since I was only a hobbyist on a Rebel XT for five years. I upgraded to a 50D two years ago and tried RAW once or twice but still didn't have much knowledge about photography.

Now, I've been doing photography professionally for several months, have learned a crazy amount, and am pushing to get the absolute best out of my 50D until I can save up for the MkIII.

This article: http://digital-photography-school.com/should-you-be-shooting-raw
Finally made it stupidly obvious to me why RAW will always be a higher quality then the camera-JPEG equivalent. Somehow I didn't realize until now that there is quite a bit more tonal data in a RAW file.

So I would really like to be shooting in RAW, but a few things are holding me back:

1) Data management.
I don't have the budget for a bunch of HDD's, especially while saving every penny for the MkIII. This is not my biggest concern, but it will be a greater task trying to back up 800 RAW files instead of JPEGs. I know there has got to be a way to delete all images in a folder not chosen for import when using lightroom. If someone could explain that to me or if anyone knows of a workaround, data management wouldn't concern me as much. I always import more than I truly end up with, and I don't want to add to my workflow time by deleting all the out of focus images outside of lightroom before starting the import process.

2) Workflow time with only RAW files.
I know I'll figure out the speediest way for me once I actually start taking on the beast, but some advice on getting started would be greatly appreciated. I advertise a photo-journalistic style for weddings, so I often come home with over a thousand images expecting to choose about half of them to process. Part of this is needing to be more selective in shooting, but I still feel much safer taking three shots of the same pose using the 50D and shallow DoF as there is such a razor thin margin for getting critical areas in focus.

Does lightroom handle RAW files in an efficient manner? With so many images per session, I'd prefer to keep all my work within lightroom. I'm just worried that processing RAW and then processing all the produced images will prove to be too time consuming. It may not be a problem if I did photography full time, but it is currently a weekend job on top of my normal full time job. Business is starting to pick up for me, and time management is starting to become a real issue.

Help please 

One thing...harddrives are CHEAP these days. I constantly see Newegg.com specials for 1TB drives for only about $80.

[awinphoto]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said. 

[PackLight]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

I agree with Meh, you should spend a few extra hours a day doing PP on your pictures. That way you will be able to do less work that pays and more of the other Pro's out there will be able to step in and make a few extra dollars on the work you can't get to. Spread the money around I say.

[Policar]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?

That said, if there's a sign post or something in your otherwise perfect landscape, it's easier to clone it out than reframe, same goes for blemishes, etc. So overall efficiency and quality rather than dogmatic adherence to one part of the process or the other makes the most sense. No reason to criticize anyone's work flow if they're getting good results efficiently.

[bdunbar79]

Although I agree that PP is often a crutch, I still use it and shoot RAW but I am not using it as a crutch.  If the option is there for me, I'll do it because I print 8 x 10's or bigger of all of my sports shots and none of us are perfect (although some on here will tell you they are) and so I like to brighten midtones sometimes, sharpen, add a bit of contrast or saturation.  You know things like that to make the photo look as good as I can so that the athlete gets the best product I can produce.  Another issue is indoor volleyball and basketball where WB and color balance are exceptionally difficult, especially in lower-lit gyms.  Since I only do about 30 photos per game, shooting and editing RAW does not slow down my workflow. 

On the other hand, weddings I can see it seriously slowing workflow.  That would be the IQ vs. efficiency detail to iron out if you are a wedding photographer.

[awinphoto]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?

That said, if there's a sign post or something in your otherwise perfect landscape, it's easier to clone it out than reframe, same goes for blemishes, etc. So overall efficiency and quality rather than dogmatic adherence to one part of the process or the other makes the most sense. No reason to criticize anyone's work flow if they're getting good results efficiently.

Agreed for the most part... and dont get me wrong, a sign post, blemish, etc... that stuff I'll take care of... i'm not afraid of photoshop... All i was referring to was as meh suggested that a jpeg converted from a raw was better than a standard jpeg from OOC was that I thought that extra step wasn't necessary for my workflow and what my clients want.  Packlight, I do spend a bit in PS editing images that I know will sell...  if i see an image that I know will be a hit, and usually i'll switch to raw for that shot, but even if I missed that during shooting and only have a jpeg, I will PS the heck out of it if needed until i've got a salable image.  If shot and exposed and balanced correctly and if the settings are similar to how you normally would set your raws, you can get a great base image to jump off on...  So i will do what I need to take my photos to the next step, but for me and my workflow, it's just quicker going that route than taking extra steps in raw conversions and typically a client would never tell the difference if I did an OOC jpeg or raw conversion jpeg.  I know this is a sensitive topic as it flys in the face of everything everyone has learned, and me, but just keeping it real as a working pro. 

[Marsu42]

Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?

I hear that a lot from old-school photogs and I have to agree I don't understand that position. I do understand awinphoto who says that setting wb correctly and shooting jpeg helps him save time and thus helps his business.

But for other scanarios, "getting it right" on set is certainly admirable and nice, but hardly necessary if you are ready to invest the time to do corrections in post. Often, it sounds more like a delayed ego-trip to me like from people that are not comfortable with the fact that some skills are not as valuable as they were in the analog days. Please don't get me wrong: It's good to learn the basics, but for some the necessity has decreased just like you don't do your balance sheets on a piece of paper w/o calculators nowadays.

If you can reframe a high mp shot in post, why not shoot with a security margin? If you can change exposure in post, why risk blown highlights? If you can set the correct wb later on, why not use awb that usually gets it right? Imho that enables you to put more energy into creativity and (if shooting with people) communication?

[Policar]

Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?

If you can reframe a high mp shot in post, why not shoot with a security margin? If you can change exposure in post, why risk blown highlights? If you can set the correct wb later on, why not use awb that usually gets it right? Imho that enables you to put more energy into creativity and (if shooting with people) communication?

Why shoot with a proper composition rather than reframing? Why expose properly?

Because you're a skilled photographer and you can. Of course this holds true more for landscapes and architecture than for street portraits (which is such a strange genre) where a little margin of error might help, though I don't see the point of intentionally doing a bad job just because you know you can improve it. If you're afraid of blowing highlights then an underexposed shot might be the best exposure. And shooting raw in high contrast areas makes a lot of sense. Intentionally underexposing and forcing yourself to do NR and tone mapping or whatever, or framing wrong just so you can frame right later makes no sense to me. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

But the better it is in the first place the better the end result will be. I'm just of the mindset that you should do as much as you can with each step, and more earlier on (either with efficiency or best product possible in mind), rather than falling back on post. Get the right subject, get the right light, get the right composition, enhance it in post--in that order and in order of decreasing priority. My favorite photographers do tons of PP (Adams, Crewdson, etc.), but those whose entire style is PP (Trey Ratcliff, for instance) are usually horrible photographers.

[gilmorephoto]

@awinphoto = Agreed on your reframing of my post.

As for getting it right vs. time in post...  I started out loving RAW not only because I saw more information to work with but also because it rescued shots that I "missed."  This made me look better than I was at the time, but it got old pretty quick spending hours in post with a shot that could have been done right (or closer to right) in the camera. So I learned more, practiced, and--now that I shoot better (still learning and improving but much better)--I have more keepers from less shots (no more spray and pray) and I don't spend a lot of time in post. I correct for WB, minor exposure and contrast tweaks, and blemish removal where necessary.  That's it.  Clean, fast, and consistent results.

[Meh]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

I agree with Meh, you should spend a few extra hours a day doing PP on your pictures. That way you will be able to do less work that pays and more of the other Pro's out there will be able to step in and make a few extra dollars on the work you can't get to. Spread the money around I say.

Not a very useful comment.  Allow me to restate my point again.  Shooting in RAW does NOT require very much extra time in PP.  It gives you the option of having more latitude in PP, it does not force you to edit your photos.  You can batch process all the RAW files and end up with the exact same JPEG files with little loss of time/effort.  But if out of thousands of images there happens be one or a few that need some editing then having the RAW file is very beneficial.

But hey, if your images are all perfect and require no editing then by all means shoot in JPEG only.

[Meh]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

Ok sure... if all your images are perfect or good enough and you have absolutely no need to PP then sure it's unnecessary to shoot RAW.  I don't disagree with that.  But on the presumption that you don't believe you are 100% perfect then there is a chance that a few of those 2000 images could benefit from PP then having the RAW file is advantageous.  I further agree that there is a time/effort penalty in your workflow but my contention is that it's minimal and can be easily handled by the computer while you are doing something else thereby mostly eliminating the extra time/effort.

[Meh]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?

That said, if there's a sign post or something in your otherwise perfect landscape, it's easier to clone it out than reframe, same goes for blemishes, etc. So overall efficiency and quality rather than dogmatic adherence to one part of the process or the other makes the most sense. No reason to criticize anyone's work flow if they're getting good results efficiently.

Agreed for the most part... and dont get me wrong, a sign post, blemish, etc... that stuff I'll take care of... i'm not afraid of photoshop... All i was referring to was as meh suggested that a jpeg converted from a raw was better than a standard jpeg from OOC was that I thought that extra step wasn't necessary for my workflow and what my clients want.  Packlight, I do spend a bit in PS editing images that I know will sell...  if i see an image that I know will be a hit, and usually i'll switch to raw for that shot, but even if I missed that during shooting and only have a jpeg, I will PS the heck out of it if needed until i've got a salable image.  If shot and exposed and balanced correctly and if the settings are similar to how you normally would set your raws, you can get a great base image to jump off on...  So i will do what I need to take my photos to the next step, but for me and my workflow, it's just quicker going that route than taking extra steps in raw conversions and typically a client would never tell the difference if I did an OOC jpeg or raw conversion jpeg.  I know this is a sensitive topic as it flys in the face of everything everyone has learned, and me, but just keeping it real as a working pro.

In no way did I suggest that the jpeg converted from RAW was better.  I said it was the same and can be produced by the computer in batch mode and therefore requires very little extra time/effort.

You betray your position when you agree that sometimes you have a need to edit an image in PS to get a salable image... if there is ever a need to edit then you are far better off having the RAW file for any editing.