As it has been stated, it depends on your workflow and how much time you want to put into postprocessing. I don't think that any reasonable person will argue that JPEG images can be of the same quality as one captured in the RAW format. If you have the time and reason and camera/computer memory to shoot RAW, then that is the way to go. That said, if you didn't know an image was orignally a JPEG, you would be hard pressed to tell without a side by side comparison. Not in all cases, but many. As was mentioned above, if you know you won't be making large prints and mainly using your images for the web, a high quality JPEG is not a bad way to go, especially if time is a factor. Though I agree that you have more control over an image and the quality is better with RAW, I rarely shoot in it. I just had a person in Chicago buy a print of a photo of mine they saw online. The original was a JPEG, but I was able to blow it up to about 4'x5' and the image quality held up. They were very happy with it as well. Maybe I just got lucky, but there you go. BTW, I only capture in JPEG. After importing my images, any photo that I've worked on is saved as a TIF or PS file.

Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations