[ QUOTE ]
I like eps's due to the fact that there isn't any compression and the image quality stays the same
[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't the same be said for the PSD?
The Encapsulated Postscript File was originally designed for portability, think of it as an early version of PDF. You could take your Quark Xpress, Freehand, Pagemaker, Word, or whatever document, save it to an EPS file, and get it printed wherever, no matter what application the print shop uses. EPS is really a vector file format, unless Adobe has changed it much over the years. It was also a slick format for clipart, because you could resize it and it included a bitmap thumbnail to get a rough preview.
When you your photo as an EPS, you really aren't doing anything more than saving a bitmap (BMP) in an EPS wrapper. So, in the long run, you might be costing yourself a significant amout of disk space. I'm not sure if EPS uses any compression, like storing the image as a compressed TIF, but you could compare the file sizes really quickly and see.
I'm not trying to disparage what you do, you've got a process, and it's working for ya, and technically, there's nothing wrong with using EPS. I'm just explaining what an EPS really is (or was) for, so that if someone is looking for alternatives, they'll be informed. If you want a second format to save your files, I'd suggest compressed TIF, since you aren't losing any image or color data.
Me, I save the original RAW (16-bit), and the final PSD (8-bit, after all processing is done in 16-bit). I tried taking a few compressed TIFs from Adobe CS to a local department store processor, and the Kodak PC front end wouldn't read the files. Canon's Zoombrowser won't either. That may be a file-size limitation on both.
OK, that's my Cliff moment. Sam, I'll have another beer.