I'll add that whether I shoot RAW or JPG, I still edit every single photo that I give to a client or save in my "good" folders, and it takes about the same amount of time per photo.
The benefit of RAW is that I really CAN make sure the lighting & skin tones look their best -- it's just a really good insurance feature! Apart from the white balance & skin tone/colorization issues, though, I don't find that RAW necessarily and automatically makes my pictures "better."
For me, it's all about finding good lighting to take a picture. If the light is right, a .jpg FINE will do the trick just as well as a RAW! I've taken .jpg FINE for clients too (although I usually use RAW) and they turn out great!
I don't own Lightroom. I do my editing in Photoshop CS3. When I said that I edit EVERY picture, here is what I do:
- crop (about 80% of the time I will crop a photo)
- for jpg's, check to see if levels or curves make it look better/punchier. If the light is perfect, this is not needed, but sometimes if a photo is underexposed or the colors are a bit "off" this is necessary.
- in RAW, I adjust white balance & other controls as needed to get the right colorization.
- perform some sharpening
- brighter eyes if necessary
- smooth skin if necessary (or other cosmetic adjustments)
- add a convert to b/w layer so I can check if I want the photo in b/w too
Again, even if the photos look PERFECT, I usually always at least CHECK to see if a levels/curves will make it even more perfect, and do some sharpening for print or web view. I have written some actions to automate my favorite batch activites to make it simpler, but things like checking levels/curves have to be done individually, of course.