An interesting story on ClientsFromHell. Would you agree with the poster or do you agree with most of the comments?
I agree with the commenter that basically said:
So… You have the opportunity to work with someone whose photos are
worth your attention (and that > of others). Then you realise that she
obtains that result whilst shooting in JPG and without any form of
post-processing…
…and you decide to stop working with such a photography genius?
That’s non-sense.
I saw not too long ago that Reuters stopped taking raw (or JPG from raw) files from photographers - instead requiring only in-camera JPEG’s.
I would imagine that for some of us it might be a goal to be able to produce marketable, in-demand work straight out of the camera with no further processing required? 
1 Like
Personally I use RAW only when the picture has rather difficult lighting. My JPG settings are however very neutral (little saturation, hardly any sharpening) so the pictures can be post-processed. What I don’t understand with some photographers is that they shoot RAW while being trigger-happy, so they don’t spend any significant time on each picture, they just mass-convert on the PC.
I actually have my camera normally set to shoot raw + jpeg, just in case. That is, even if I get trigger happy, I can always easily delete the extras (I’d rather always have the option to delete, rather than wish I had taken the time to change to shooting raw. 
).
Actually, this did happen to me on this shoot with Sarah:
I had set my cam to jpeg and forgot to set it back before shooting this session! 
Unless it’s sports that I know will need high burst shooting, where raw fills the buffer too quickly and I want to maintain around 9fps that I can shoot with my current gear…