I've always shot RAW because everybody agrees you can make more thorough adjustments, as Michael demonstrates in his front-page article. As I read the article, this question popped into my head: "What if you really work at it, and take a great deal of care with your exposure, setting your white balance, and so on? Would you then get JPGs whose cake is not so baked that you couldn't adjust them to be essentially as good as RAWs?" If you can, then that would seem to be a strong argument for shooting JPG at least in some situations (running short of card space, running short of time to get the photos back to the office by phone, etc.)
Would that be even more true, where you were shooting in a studio where the lights can be minutely adjusted, and you may have to download and manipulate hundreds or thousands of shots? In other words, if you can manipulate the external conditions thoroughly enough, does it obviate the need for RAW, or make it even *desirable* to work in JPG?