Many destinations wedding photographers shoot their photos directly to JPEG (just like your simple point & shoot camera) and because of that, they can give you a CD disk of your JPEG wedding images "on-the-spot" or that day. It takes far less time and all you have to do is burn a disk for the client. This is not as good as it sounds and speed in this case leads to many disappointments.
If you just want to spend as little time as possible on each job, you shoot directly to JPEG and let the camera do the work. After all, it's not like you're ever going to hear from these people (you) again and for what most destination wedding companies pay, you're not getting paid for all the extra work and time RAW processing requires, good enough is good enough. At least that's the thinking of the photographer.
We on the other hand, shoot our images as RAW files, followed by manual computer processing for exposure, tone and color, saturation, and other parameters, and then we convert your images to JPEG for easy handling. This normally takes 2-3 hours of additional work. It's provides the best final images, it's the only way we shoot. If you are a professional, you shoot in RAW.
Don't believe us? Here's what others say:
"Many professionals -- particularly those who want total control over how their pictures will look like in their final form, be it for the web, fine art blowup prints or for publication in a glossy magazine -- prefer RAW. That's because RAW is as pure an image as you can get, no in-camera processing involved. Others refer to it as the "digital negative," which you can print your way, either printed straight or with some manipulations like improved color or better contrast."
"In contrast, JPEG images, directly from the camera, are processed using pre-programmed in-camera algorithms. While this may be fine for some situations and images, if an image is not exposed within very narrow parameters (perfectly), fixing a JPEG in Photoshop or other image processing programs may actually do more harm than good, further degrading the image quality while attempting to fix the problem."
Conversely, in the hands of an expert, particularly those adept with image processing software like Photoshop, a RAW image can become a work of art, worthy of being displayed in an art gallery.
RAW also has the advantage of capturing more color, and even more as camera technology progresses, unlike JPEG which has a limited color range. Experts say RAW has more latitude, meaning, there can be variations in your exposure (as happens under most situations) and your RAW software can account for that. You can also capture more details in the shadow areas, a well as in the highlights (bright spots).
RAW is thus used by demanding professionals who have all the time to tweak their images.
The bottom line is, if you really want to get the best quality in your images and storage space and the time consumed in tweaking your images is not a problem, then by all means shoot RAW.
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/33_cms101-5.stm
http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/santoro_digiwk2.html?CMP=EMC-DP
http://www.callofthewildphoto.com/articles/raw-versus-jpg-debate.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/articles/raw_vs_jpeg_is_shooting_raw_right_for_me.html
http://www.inq7.net/inf/2004/apr/20/text/inf_37-1-p.htm