Anyone tried RAW, then reverted to JPEG only?

In 2006 I got my first DSLR.  While I was learning the new tool, I kept the camera set to raw + jpg even though since I used to shoot slide film a lot, I felt that I could handle jpg and get the image I wanted with minimal PP while saving memory space and time.

But I found that when I really like the shot, I ended up PP to also make different versions.  I found I had much more flexibility with raw than with jpg only.  So while I still try to get the settings correct so I get shot I want w/o much PP, but also save the raw in case I want to do something with it.

About a year a go I bought some HDR software (Photomatix), and I have been revisiting some of my early photos from 2006.  By processing 1 raw shot in LR3 by changing the exposure slider and saving 6 tiff copies from +3ev to -3ev, and then processing as an HDR series in Photomatix I have been able to get much greater dynamic range in the image, bringing out details in whited out skies (in the original) and in the deep shadows.

For an experiment I tried the same technique using the companion original jpg and one raw where I did everything possible to increase the dynamic range on the one image, as well as using pixmatic's built in HDR-from-one-shot.  In all cases, none came at all close to what I could get using the HDR using 6-files-from-one-raw method.

That showed me the worth of saving the raws from scenes I really like -- in the future we can't predict the PP possibilities that will be developed.

For documentation type shots, I still take raw+jpg, and then usually only save the jpg on disk.

tom