Original JPG vs. Processed .nef

[CGalvan]

I am using CS with the 2.4 CR plugin on an XP machine ~600mb ram. I shoot my Wedding candids with a D70 on "Raw plus jpg" which provide a 2000x3008 pixel images.

I then edit my images moving the acceptably exposed jpgs to a "Use" folder and deleting the rest of the jpgs and the "Use" nef's. I then process the remaining .nef's after adjusting the exposure and color and use the subsequent jpg's moving them to my "Use" folder for printing images as small as wallets and no greater than 10x10.

I see a significant size difference between the jpg via processed nef and the jpg straight from the Camera

My question is, would I benefit significantly if I would process all the nef's not just the ones which needed exposure and color corrections?

[jliechty]

I don't know if you'd see a significant difference, but in general I always prefer to use RAW files where possible. By the way, when you refer to a size difference, which is larger: the JPEG straight from the camera, or the JPEG created from a processed RAW file? I tend to store my converted NEFs as PSD or TIFF depending on whether they're for myself or for a CD to be given to someone who doesn't have Photoshop, because JPEG throws away information, and my particular camera has rather little resolution so that I'm reluctant to throw any of it away. ;)