Q:

Is there a reason for raw over jpeg if you have your lighting figured out?

I hired a photographer for an event, and he says he doesn't shoot raw because he has his lighting (white balance and exposure) all figured out. Are there any other reasons why a pro should shoot in raw if the lighting will be correct? I'm trying to convince myself that there may be some other reasons and then maybe I'll convince the photographer too.

A:

RAW certainly gives a lot more after-the-fact flexibility. But, it's generally true that if the exposure is correct and white balance set to match the lighting, that flexibility is less important. If you're happy with the processing options the camera gives (and, especially for higher-level cameras, such options are extensive), RAW isn't really a necessity. 
Were I doing professional shoots, I'd want to use RAW in order to give myself a little more of a safety net. But, on the other hand, were I hiring a professional to do a shoot for me and the agreement was for finished images, I would relax and trust her or him to do the job.
If you want the RAW images yourself, or would like the photographer to do extensive and careful processing of the images after the fact, you should negotiate for that, or find a photographer who will offer what you want — but be prepared to pay extra for the effort of extra processing or for the loss of creative control in giving you the RAW files.

A:

It really depends on what you mean by "photographing an event". If on-site printing/sales are part of the deal, then the photographer would have to be an idiot to shoot RAW; it would just increase turn-around time for no benefit, and every delay is lost sales (that part of the trade is highly impulse-driven). So if the "event photography" is mostly a matter of photographing individuals and small groups in a mini-studio environment, then expect JPEG (and expect the "I have it figured out" to be a true statement).
If, on the other hand, the photographer is milling around playing photojournalist and subsequent sales (if any) are post-event, then RAW is not a huge penalty to take. There is a time penalty, but with up-to-date equipment (fast cards, CF if possible, since they're still faster than SD, and a fast USB 3 reader, reasonably up-to-date computer, preferably with an SSD), then the penalty isn't quite so great as it once was. (And it once was huge.) In a PJ shooting situation, lighting isn't always well-figured-out, and even if you can be confident in your white balance/exposure based on what you're doing, you're still at the mercy of a hundred morons with their point-and-shoots set to red-eye reduction who will manage to match, to the microsecond, your shutter timing.

A:

I can think of a handful of possible reasons to shoot RAW:

The "oops" factor.  If anything at all needs to be corrected -- even if you believe it's properly set up during the shoot -- RAW gives you just a bit more room to do so.  In virtually all cases, you'd very much prefer to get stuff right in-camera vs. trying to fix it later, so you can think about having access to the RAW file as a sort of insurance, where you hope you don't need to use it.
External tools vs. in-camera processing.  All of the processing your camera applies when creating JPG files can be applied in an external tool.  In some cases, you might believe you can do a better job of sharpening, noise reduction, etc., using specialized tools.
Increased dynamic range.  Your sensor records information that can be helpful in recovering details from highlight or shadow areas of a photo.

Having said that, I can't evaluate whether any of these are particularly applicable in your case.  It's entirely possible that all of these are complete non-factors in your situation, and as others have pointed out, there are also good reasons not to shoot RAW, including speed of processing and storage requirements, and it sounds like your photographer may be leaning in that direction based on his understanding of the event.  

