BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Possibly.
I (occasionally) go in both directions however.
Doesn't sound like you do?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

In the past is correct.

The fundamental difference between a raw processor and raster editor: a raw processor works parametrically while a raster editor pushes pixels, a pixel editor. Raw processors save their work as a series of instructions -- a simple text file. They don't actually push pixels around. It is much more difficult to create good clone/heal tools parametrically and as you note correctly in the past that was the domain of raster editors. Raster editors are still more capable of that kind of work and still required for more extreme tasks like head replacement.

However the raw processor engineers have devoted considerable effort to the task in recent years and made a lot of progress. The parametric editing model has multiple advantages. First for me is that a properly engineered parametric editor can be 100% non-destructive. All raster editors are partially destructive. I avoid destructive editing if at all possible and with today's raw processors I can do that. It's one in a thousand photos where I still need the capability of a raster editor. I don't do head replacements. Utility wires and poles and a trash can on the lawn type stuff my raw processor handles easily now and in some ways more easily than a raster editor. Most importantly it's done non-destructively which the raster editor does not do. Take a look at the photo I posted of the airport here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-806249-9.html#14601824 Look at the clump of trees on the right edge and compare with the camera JPEG below. I cloned that clump of trees and moved it closer to the control tower -- no raster editor needed.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

There are occasions when jpgs are what I have. My cameras will not produce raw files in live view high frame rate: jpg only (but my use of that mode is very limited). My cell phone produces only jpgs and heic. Other than that I shoot raw whenever possible, since it doesn't cost me any more time and provides insurance against the exceptions.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Because the camera always makes one anyway and embeds it in the raw file.

Because I'm responsible to teach which I take seriously. I started teaching Photoshop to college/university students in 1992. When I get students who want or need to learn to edit JPEGs it's my job to do right by them and I do and I can.
See answer to the first elephant.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That's all fine -- it's a good photo, but the technical flaws are really there.

And I have normal vision at best when I wear my glasses. The banding in the sky is obviously visible. The blown red channel on the child's face is obviously visible. And they're really hard to fix in an editor. You don't see any of that and that's OK, but then you are operating with different standards and expectations. The photograph is most valuable for it's content and the tech flaws can be overlooked. But the two things are not exclusive. You can have good content and good IQ together. Good IQ enhances good content.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Much depends on the dynamic range of the scene. No way a jpg can touch a raw in high contrast situation. The same goes when you need to correct white balance.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

You are completely disingenuous and I suspect you know it. Every time someone refutes you with facts you try to spin your previous statements. You’ve proven you know as little about editors as you do raw files, (PS is NOT a “JPEG editor”. While you can use it to edit JPEG’s, which you can also do in Lightroom, I have never edited a JPEG in PS). Now you say that you’re only speaking for yourself when you say raw isn’t worth it after calling those that shoot raw “anal retentive”. I never said you or anybody else should shoot raw. I just say that because you lack the editing skills to make the most of shooting raw that you shouldn’t denigrate the benefits. Who are you to determine what other people “need”?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Some people think that wanting the best is an obsession. Some even think that wanting to improve has to be an obsession. For an obsessive person that may be true but the simple fact is that most people aren't obsessives. The desire for improvement and the desire for optimum results are motivators that most people can relate to.

Given the undeniable fact that raw is a better starting point than jpeg for editing (and the more extreme the editing the greater the advantages of raw), any arguments against using raw start to look suspiciously like lame justifications for not bothering. In that context the only argument that sounds in the least bit convincing is when the person admits that they know they're settling for second rate results and are happy to do so. If that describes your attitude, fair enough - each to his own.

Sometimes the advantages of raw are truly marginal, but in general terms the advantages are much more than that. And lets not forget that shooting raw doesn't just give better results, it also lowers the failure rate. Recovery and repair can both be carried out more easily and more effectively with raw as the starting point. And lets also not forget that the most common reason for the need for recovery or repair isn't user error, it's a lack of favourable circumstances at the time of shooting.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

I always shoot RAW because I want the best picture that I can get, but you do whatever makes you happy.
If you are happy with straight-out-of-the-camera pictures, great.
Life is too short to worry about things that don't matter to me.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Do you have a filter on the lens such as ND that would affect the exposure if using shutter priority?

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

Artcameraman Loc: Springfield NH

Shutter Priority, remember you have more settings in SP than in AP, you can quickly run out of AP adjustments and resort to an ND filter. I rearly use SP except when shooting H2O or getting artsie.