What do you shoot?

No need to feel inferior it's just a different way in doing things and yes RAW can be time consuming but it does reward you though and it can save time in the end because making a JPG better is quite hard.
And all photos can benefit from RAW, it just opens up possibilities but it isn't for everyone.

There is a difference between RAW programs I find that Lightroom works very fast and Aperture works roughly the same way i believe, just try out those programs and see what it can do for you.

I just shot 129 photos yesterday in 2 hours so the numbers off shots say nothing.
I do shot them all in manual mode so hopefully i can work on 3 to 5 photos at a time applying the same settings to all of them.

Mike, I can't answer your poll because I use all three setting equally, in controlled studio conditions JPEG because there will be little or no PP and it will all end up as JPEGS anyway, RAW+ for weddings so that the JPEGs can be quickly uploaded to the client area of my website and RAW for everything else.

Made that 304 photos

So what do you do with 304 shots?

If I am on a shoot where the client requires 50 photographs I wont shoot very much more than 50.

I have made it a habit to hold the shutter for at least 3 shots so basically i've only 100 unique shots so the number sounds big but in the end it isn't.

Since this was my first time and tough lighting (concert) I think i'll end up with 20 to 30 keepers.

When i shoot for leisure under normal condition that number is higher tough.

You must be an insomniac, Stefan! It sounds like you are exposing as metered, a bit under, and a bit over, (for each shot) and then further correcting at pp stage! Sounds like a formula for getting to bed VERY late after an evening at the computer......
Personally, with the price of large capacity SD cards so low now, I do RAW + high quality JPGs most of the time , and soon (same evening) delete the RAWs where the photo is not so good as to merit keeping for special doctoring.

I'm sorry Stephen, but sometimes I think you overcomplicate things.
One does not need a college level physics class to hammer a nail. Most people get by just hitting the nail with the hammer while trying not to hit their thumb. Understanding the physics and calculating the forces involved, explaining why the head of the nail is bigger than the shaft or how the point of the nail focuses the energy.... is for people that have wayyy too much time on thier hands....

Sarcasm obviously doesn't travel well

RAW, its the digital negative! I have only used JPEG on one exception and that was 2 weeks ago when my main PC went belly up and I needed to put up some shots of some gear I was selling. I use Lightroom 3.2 and am also looking at the Topaz addons.

Mostly RAW but sometimes JPEG and occasionally RAW+ too. It depends on many things.

I switched to RAW quite late on and still hate all the conversion work involved tbh.

You think i bracket the shot?
If so that isn't true, i actually shoot most in manual so that they have the same setting/exposure so that i can batch process 3 to 5 and some times more at one time.
Off those 304 shots i only need to edit 40 times or so because of that, it goes quite fast.

So what i'm actually doing is time saving so that i dont get insomnia

Where was that aimed at?
At my explanation to TT or my shooting?

How about just pure simple straightforward curiosity and interest as reason for wanting to understand "why the head of the nail is bigger than the shaft or how the point of the nail focuses the energy..."

I don't know about others but I personally cement better any knowledge when I understand the workings of it. That's how I managed to improve my photography and also thanks to the patience and good will of many members here who put up with so many silly questions often that I would come up with.

But hey, I could well be wrong, after all I am just a learner and on a steep learning curve with regard to photography

Tolerance is a wonderful thing. We are all different and have different reasons for being involved with photography.

you guys are , I apologize.

Another thread that has raised the mercury a wee bit?

Not sure of why an exclamation mark is needed here?

RAW is a processed file. So let’s assume that it is the equivalent of an exposed negative. For me, a jpg is an exposed and developed negative.

Now if the jpg lacks something that can be retrieved through "digital developing" prior to conversion to a jpg, fine, no issue. If the jpg does not come up to spec from the camera with neutral settings or with tweaked settings, then blame the camera as it's built in "developing process" isn’t cutting it. I have no problem with jpgs from my cameras taking any noise issues aside.

The whole discussion is no difference to using direct cut LP's to pressed LP's. Yes there is a difference, but take into account the whole chain of variables. Monitors, calibration, resolution, etc. etc.

I'm moving on. I've decided to do charcoal rubbings. Full frame, great detail, does not fade, great for modelling images and a feeling of one to one contact.

Best regards