Quote Originally Posted by Asylum Steve
Steve, I competely agree with what you say, and you say it well. I try not to be too stubborn with this whole RAW thing, because I know realistically it's not for everybody.

But I can't help but consider the archive aspect of the format, which I think you're overlooking in your advice. RAW files are such wonderful digital negatives, and it is so easy to make copy jpegs for whatever use you want and still have these great originals to archive.

I know this is a weak analogy, but it's almost like showing up at a custom film lab, and they give you great prints plus the negatives, and because you're so pleased with the prints, you decided there's no need to keep the negatives...

Like I said, a flawed comparison, but in a way I think it applies.
Actually it's a pretty good analogy and I do agree that there is a lot more information in the file so a better final image is possible with a RAW file. I just think in his case and some others, it might not be an issue and most likely not worth all the extra time required. It's more of a business decision; the client is happy with the result so why increase your costs (time = money) with a print that has slightly better shadow detail that the client doesn't even notice?

The reasons you mention are why I personally shoot RAW and keep the originals, but I'm an amateur (time vs. money doesn't apply). For one thing, as my post-processing skills (if I can call what I do a "skill") improve, I'll want to start over with the originals. This has been the case in the past and I'm glad I had the original to work with.