Most of the "processing" is done in the RAW file browser. Final tweaking is done with adjustment layers, levels, and hue/saturation. Then cleanup and sharpen for print. It does not take long because adjustments are made in groups in RAW and changes are relatively minor.

I am a corporate photographer who shoots thousands of images and many people in the company (most who know nothing about imagiing) need to be able to access images quickly and easily for presentations, legal documentation and proposals.

RAW Rocks, it gives you the extra edge for low light settings and various lighting without the hassle of slow shutter speeds and white balance.

Occasionally, if I think I might need a huge image (e.g. 30X40), I will shoot RAW.

In the beginning it seemed to much trouble but after the first few times, it was easy and definitly worthwhile.

The RAW is by far the best format to process an image. It not only saves a lot of time of image adjustments later with Photoshop CS2, but it can do several things not available in Photoshop. Just to mention one: white balance adjustment. There are plenty of other reasons why I shoot only in RAW. The only slight disadvantage is, that the file size is larger, than a JPEG file, but still slightly smaller than a TIFF file. For any advanced amateur, like myself or any professional there isd only one way to go: RAW only.

I used to shoot in JPEG only, but on several occasions, after making minor mistakes, I'd wish that I had shot it in RAW so I could go back and correct the mistakes. I now shoot everything in RAW so I have the option to alter the image anyway I like.

My Canon allows me to shoot both raw and jpeg to two different cards at the same time. I use the raw file when the jpeg needs adjustments beyond the basics.

It's hard work but worth the effort in the end, especially for up and coming photographers. It makes editing exposure mistakes on photos that would otherwise be unusable.

As a fine art photographer, I feel there is no other file format other than Raw. Having the most image information possible to work with is key to a successful fine art image. My work deserves any extra time needed in processing the RAW file format to achieve the highest quality image. Nothing less will do.

I spent 2 years shooting JPEG, Then a couple of months ago I started with the RAW and JPEG. It didn't take me long to see the advantages of RAW and have switched to it exclusivly even though it is more time consuming. I think is quite sonderful and now have to learn to convert a quick and easy way. It's a lot more like being in a darkroom only now you have much more control of the final project.

I have yet to come to terms with RAW. Have been very satisfied with JPEG's, I fully understand their limitations but to me, they work very well. I find RAW still too cumbersome, though I occasionally use it.

I have enough trouble with with just plain jpeg processing let alone learn RAW processing.

Raw is just is SO much more! Just dont see any reason to shoot jpg unless one is shooting sports. And that would be for the workflow only!

I use a Linux system and have not found a good Raw processor. I hope to find one and use Raw files too.

I shoot RAW + JPEG most of the time. I use the JPEG for selling from by projection, and use the RAW to process the image for printing. Only shoot JPEG Fine if I know I am not going to need to process it much.

CS2 makes it work.

I almoast always shot Raw. I prefer the raw data and allow image maniplation afterwards. Also saves room on memory card.

I've only owned the Canon 30D for three weeks. I'm still learning how to use it. Perhaps later I will explore the cost/benefit of processing Raw images.

I shoot in RAW, primarily, so that I have the full spectrum of the image. I like the editing abilities you have with RAW, along with the fact that every time you manipulate a JPEG file you degradate it. One thing I do enjoy is shooting in RAW + JPEG. I find that even with a fast machine with 2gb of RAM that previewing RAW files can take a lot of time. So, when I move the images to my hard drive, I look at the JPEGs (That load previews a lot faster) and figure out what works and what doesn't. Sure, does processing take a little longer? Sure, but I think it's worth it.

Definitely RAW in circumstances where I want the most flexibility and highest quality. I'll use JPEG when I take "snapshots" for basic 4x6 prints or some quick, email or web-ready images.

I want the best image possible, I have a Canon 5D. I've shot jpegs with other cameras and now I wish I had shot a higher rez image. You can always make a jpeg out of the RAW file format, you can't go the other way, get a RAW file out of a jpeg.