I agree that you shouldn't shoot RAW simply because you can fix everything post, but there is a major quality loss in shooting JPG which I'm sure you know of. I shoot RAW because I want the ability to do what I want with the photo and not be limited to what can be done with JPG. I'd rather make edits without any quality loss at all. I like having the ability to print as large as I want and not be limited to JPG print size. I do like having the ability to fix white balance if off which if done in JPG has quality loss. In the long run, any editing with JPG has quality loss. I mean, it has quality loss as it shoots and compresses the photo.

I submit JPG's to iStock as well, but I don't think they take RAW files.

Basically, I shoot RAW because it gives me control of what I want for my photos. I don't shoot RAW because it fixes everything.

Thanks for commenting Mike! :)

I have a love / hate relationship with these discussions. Many photographers, not pointing a finger here, feel they are somehow better by shooting in RAW than those who shoot JPG. The reality is, the camera is a tool, period. If I'm snapping some quick photos for ebay, I see no reason to shoot in RAW. Moreover, I've shot a good number of stock images for iStock in JPG and done very little post and had them all accepted.

Sometimes, and only sometimes, photographers should be better at being photographers than digital developers. I work in this industry and often here too many shooter say, "O hell, why bother setting a custom white balance, I'll just fix it in post, that's why I shoot RAW." Sadly, they are mistaken because that same shooter won't bother to at the very least, shoot a grey card in the scene so they have some reference point. What color is that bride's dress? White, eggshell, cream, ivory?