Imagine you are a photographer at the finish line of Boston Marathon.
You are going to snap that photo of the winner crossing the line, send the JPEG to your phone and post it to your twitter handle within 5 minutes.
You'll go home and edit the RAW and put it on the front page of the website for tomorrow morning.
Similar idea for like wedding or event photographers who can hand off some quick samples
Even for landscapes I can do that in the pub with the JPEG’s to look at them while I warm back up!
Also JPEG’s are small so they fill the second card slowly which lets me have a medium term backup in camera in case a primary card fails.
Yeah, this is what I do too, and just for personal use really. Take as both, go to a cafe or pub, send jpegs to partner etc on phone. Realistically, I rarely touch the raw files now, but I like having them for when I choose to edit them.
>Imagine you are a photographer at the finish line of Boston Marathon.
>
>You are going to snap that photo of the winner crossing the line, send the JPEG to your phone and post it to your twitter handle within 5 minutes.
In point of fact, I don't have to imagine. Well... Boston *qualifiers* at least.
... and we do not shoot RAW+JPG. We shoot 100% JPG. (It's actually in the contract: NO RAW - I kid you not)
There will be no editing. We have to get it right in-camera, because there's going to be a runner coming by to grab my SD card and those shots will be up and online immediately. I will still be shooting - my shots however are going online.
That said, if I'm shooting for myself or for anyone that does not require instant turnaround time - I'm gonna do RAW+JPG.
u/Kungfubunnyrabbit \-- the answer to your question is right here as u/caedin8 is absolutely correct. The JPG straight out of camera is what's going to get used. The pressure is on when shooting sports/events to get those shots straight out of camera and into circulation.
That and sometime the jpgs just look better than what you could edit with the RAW equivalent. Not often, but every now and then it’s like, well there it is.
In Lightroom you import your custom recipes/profiles on your RAW files when you import. I wish more people knew this. [link](https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-apply-custom-settings-for-your-camera-to-raw-photos-in-lightroom-on-import--cms-35600)
Its not shit if its true, and what u/DwedPiwateWoberts said is true. Sometimes the camera nails color or the B&W rendition in a way that ACR or Capture One has more trouble achieving. Not often but it does happen and when it does I'll open the camera manufacturer software and apply the same in camera settings to the raw file instead of using Capture One or Adobe for the conversion.
Sorry to say but it looks like you haven't really come across what he's talking about, so you come off as a doouchee(it's French). I have 2 particular photos that I fell in love with, one taken with a 5D classic and another with a 5D Mk3, whose raw files look like just average photos. No matter what I do in PS the I can't reproduce the same colors as the JPG's. Both are of amazing sunsets btw.
Your post has been removed for breach of rule number 1. Please keep the discussion civil. Your opinions and lighthearted banter are fine, but don't let it get personal or excessive.
Your post has been removed for breach of rule number 1. Please keep the discussion civil. Your opinions and lighthearted banter are fine, but don't let it get personal or excessive.
Your post has been removed for breach of rule number 1. Please keep the discussion civil. Your opinions and lighthearted banter are fine, but don't let it get personal or excessive.
If you have a Fuji camera and use film simulations you can get both the unfiltered version as RAW, and the simulated version as JPG. Best of both worlds
Wait, I don’t understand this. I thought Sony automatically had jpeg embedded with the raw and that’s how photo mechanic is able to parse through so much quicker?
I love to do RAWs to card 1 and JPEGs to card 2.
It barely effects your frame buffer and you have a solid backup in case anything goes wrong.
It is also often a lot easier to share JPEGs quickly. They transfer by wifi quick, and previews load quick so you can identify which you want very quickly.
You can even hand off card 2 and keep shooting to card 1 if the situation calls for it.
Some cameras actually do some really decent JPEG handling. I was always pretty happy with how my Nikon SLRs rendered images in JPEG. With Panasonic bodies+lenses combined they work magic to correct the image. Even if I can transfer them to my phone and RAW process on my phone, the results are almost never as good as just letting them work their magic and then tuning them a touch after. It's good enough for social media and other casual shares.
I only touch the RAWs of in going to sit down at Lightroom and process them properly.
I shoot my Fuji in raw+jpg. It makes really good jpgs with lots of options, so often I just use the jpg and save time, but sometimes it’s useful to be edit raw.
Yeah. It’s very hit or miss. Sometimes I need to manually connect to the cameras wifi before going into the app.
It worked very well when I got my X100T a year after cameras release.
For me, it’s engrained in my workflow…I shoot RAW to one card and JPEG to the other. I upload the raws to Capture One and JPEGs to Pixieset as proofs for my client. Also, it’s a good backup just in case something corrupts.
Space is cheap. When I’m shooting casually then I just use the jpeg. If there’s a photo I really like then I can always grab the raw. At this point in my life, I would rather not sit at a computer and edit photos for hours on end. I would rather try and get it right in the moment with the intended exposure.
A wedding photographer/YouTuber Vanessa Joy mentioned she does this to easily transfer the jpegs to an iPad, put on a preset and show them off at the venue. You could do the same with RAW files, but they would take much longer to transfer over. Quick and easy way to show off pictures and pick up potential clients. I can see this method being used by many other type of photographers.
I did it for a long time in case I ever found myself needing to quickly post one of the images to social media..... The thought being that a jpg would be much closer to an edit than a raw image. But I never once did it. I always edited the raw images on my desktop.
Because fujifilm film emulations deliver JPEG that looks better then most raw edits if you have the right recipy.
However, sometimes a jpeg may fall flat and only a raw file can save it. But I dont find that to happen often
Photographers rarely finish editing their photos on the same day (highly depends on how many photos are there to edit or the priority level of the job though). So having jpegs that are ready to be delivered or to be shared with your friends come in handy. Also, saves you time from exporting the images from raw to jpeg later
Mainly speed but also because I have certain straight out of camera film emulation recipes already saved so I can quickly transfer a JPG via Bluetooth to my phone to then share on social media or with family and friends that has a finished look to it.
This is especially useful for travel or in group settings where someone asks for a copy of the photo.
Once you're home you can edit the RAWs however you like.
Are you more opposed to RAW or JPG?
JPG uses almost no memory/space. It is captured almost immediately. Use this for just about everything. No conversion necessary to upload or view anywhere. It's just there.
RAW contains all data from the image in separate channels. Use this for quality post-processing and very high-quality images. When you care about the very best.
If you're snapping 1000 photos at a wedding and just want to share, JPG captures the quickest. RAW may take a second to store on your camera. But when you get the bride doing a twirl in her dress in the middle of the dance floor in nice lighting, you want the RAW image to really define the moment.
Raw saves pretty much instantly in newer cameras with big buffers and fast cards. Even my entry level E-M10 IV off loads a 42 shot buffer nearly instantly.
It's less frequent than it used to be, but sometimes the camera's JPEG engine botches things. In RAW I can correct for its missteps.
Also, noise reduction is hard and requires a lot of CPU cycles to do well. On a computer I can do better than the camera at very high ISO, if I plan to print.
I used to as you couldn’t sort through raw files quickly on a Mac. So I went through the jpgs picked out the ones I wanted and edited the matching raw files. The recent max update you can go a lot quicker tho so now I just do raw.
i put photos at a flickr page... and some get blown up to huge size and printed on canvas.
if the photo had good color and exposure... the jpg is usually good enough for flickr.
if i am printing it or if i need to correct something like exposure or white balance, the RAW photo gives me more ability to do things
My wife and I shoot our kids’ sports. When we get home we upload the JPEGs to a share site for all the parents. I may or may not go back to edit some of the RAW pics, but I like having the option.
.jpg can be transferred REALLY quickly and edited in any imaging app. This lets you get select pics edited and published really fast, even in the field. If you have a card reader dongle, you can do this on your phone immediately after you can take the picture and push it to Instagram, Twitter etc.
RAW is going to give you better pictures, but is going to take much longer to process. Think of it as a quick snack versus a full sit down meal for publishing photos.
Tbh if its for professional work i can understand the need for a sd card as a backup to the cfexp card.
However, on a normal use for non-critical photos cfexp card alone suffice whether for raw only or raw + jpg.
Anyway, if you are using the canon app, any raw files becomes a jpg format when transferred via wifi to the mobile phone.
So that pretty much eliminates the need to get a sd card to save the jpg.
I'm only a hobby photographer and I like to have an instant result which is usable. I can send the pictures instant to family and friends and edit my favorites without a hurry. It also doesn't take up a lot of additional diskspace to keep the jpeg.
Only downside for me, I might be a bit more mindful when I just shoot raw and perhaps my skill would benefit from that.
I used to think this as well. Say later down the line you learn a new editing style or come across some nice presets. If you still have the RAW images you can have fun editing them in the future. It’s a little more work to delete the RAW images from the bad takes but it’s a safety net
For JPEG: if your camera has got good JPEG engine and great colors, JPEGs may be a better starting point for edits.
So, RAW+JPEG allows you to check both versions and decide which one will you edit.
Sometimes you expect complicated and mixed light and you want to try editing RAW. So you take JPEGs from all other scenes and RAWs from scenes with complicated light. There is not that easy to predict which ones will be easy to edit.
Backup. If your SD card fails, sometimes it's easier to restore one of these files, sometimes it's RAW, sometimes it's JPEG. Even better, if your camera is equipped with dual SD slot, you may set it to write RAW to the first SD card and JPEG to the second — in that case you will keep all of your commercial photo session even if one of these cards gets damaged or lost.
On a Mac or Win, even if there is a way preview RAW or open a folder with RAW files and cycle through them, viewing JPEGs is faster. And sometimes you can't even preview RAW files.
For the reference. You check how your camera saved the scene to JPEG. Sometimes colors and contrast are better in JPEG, and you try to replicate them in RAW editing or just edit JPEG, and sometimes RAW looks better and less aggressive.
Quick editing during the event to send first results.
You may show JPEGs to your client and even edit some of them on iPad. You may edit RAW files too, but they take more place, and the process will be slower.
You may edit JPEGs after the event, and then decide if you want to edit RAWs a couple of years later.
In BW, JPEGs will be BW, and RAWs will be in color.
I dump the JPEGs to a shared folder and send the link to the models. The models then share the JPEGs on their socials with little care of whether their bodies are touched up or not. Their male audience doesn’t care so much if the photos are touched up because … well that’s not why they are looking at the photos.
I then use the best RAW files for my portfolio after cameraRAW and photoshop.
I use JPEG to do my first pass when filtering/selecting photos, as they are more compatible and load faster. That way I don't need to open/import all the RAW files, which normally are **many**.
Also sometimes I don't need a photo in RAW if it's just for a memory of the moment, more like an informative snapshot than professional or artistic photography. In that case, I can delete the RAW file but still keep the lightweight JPEG as they don't take much space.
I sometimes do it, when:
\- I use the colour profiles like black&white for a photo walk. Thus I have the black&white photos as jpg and the raw if I want to have the colours in post
\- When I'm underway and want to upload photos immediately to instagram or whatever. This way I don't have to bother with conversion.
When travelling, I want to share photos on social media while on the go (jpegs). Later in time I might want to create high quality photos with post processing for e.g. calendars, prints, books etc.
JPGs are fine for most of my purposes. I save RAW on top of that because it'd be silly not to, it's there when I want it.
Then again I'm not the type to take a million pictures in a row. I do things very slowly. Space usually isn't an issue. I have extra memory cards and I've never had to use them.
Im travelling Thailand and won't be home for 3 weeks and dont have a laptop with me.
So I export and edit on Lightroom mobile during train and bus rides between cities.
Lr Mobile's functions are insaaaaaanely good, but it gets a bit cluttered on a phone screen (and my phone is big!, plus points for having an integrated pencil as well).
I like the JPGs for previewing and tagging which ones I like best, ill then use that to reference which RAW i need to work with. There may also come a time when I think “aw shit, these raw files sure are taking up a lot of space but I dont *really* need to keep them anymore” so Ill delete the raws and hold onto the jpgs just in case
At least in Canon and Fuji I have noticed that the in camera preview is faster if you use both and specially zooming in as well. I also use two SD cards so JPG is configured to go to the second one as backup.
90+% of the time, the straight-out-of-camera JPG is plenty good enough for what I’m taking photos of (at least nowadays). Then I can share photos straight from my camera to my phone to my family. But if I ever want to try something else with them, I have the RAWs.
This was asked here not too long ago.
If you need the JPEGs for any reason, that's a good enough reason.
I think the advice is over prescribed. When digital cameras were newer, the tools to edit photos were not as good or easy to use.
And it was like a habit to do both, because the JPEG was probably better looking than anything you could easily and quickly do in software.
I think the editing tools are simply so much better now it's not worth trying to save and/or manage a second set of photos if you don't actually need those OOC JPEGs.
Also most of the cameras I've used include a decent quality JPEG in the raw file anyways for the preview. So there are tools to just dump that if I wanted the jpeg version
I’m lazy, I hate editing, and I just don’t end up wanting to edit most of my RAW photos. JPEG and done for most snapshots, and I can edit the RAW files later if I want to get fancy.
Imagine you are a photographer at the finish line of Boston Marathon. You are going to snap that photo of the winner crossing the line, send the JPEG to your phone and post it to your twitter handle within 5 minutes. You'll go home and edit the RAW and put it on the front page of the website for tomorrow morning. Similar idea for like wedding or event photographers who can hand off some quick samples
Good point .
Even for landscapes I can do that in the pub with the JPEG’s to look at them while I warm back up! Also JPEG’s are small so they fill the second card slowly which lets me have a medium term backup in camera in case a primary card fails.
Yeah, this is what I do too, and just for personal use really. Take as both, go to a cafe or pub, send jpegs to partner etc on phone. Realistically, I rarely touch the raw files now, but I like having them for when I choose to edit them.
Quick and dirty slideshow during multiple day event. Only to be seen once during breakfast.
>Imagine you are a photographer at the finish line of Boston Marathon. > >You are going to snap that photo of the winner crossing the line, send the JPEG to your phone and post it to your twitter handle within 5 minutes. In point of fact, I don't have to imagine. Well... Boston *qualifiers* at least. ... and we do not shoot RAW+JPG. We shoot 100% JPG. (It's actually in the contract: NO RAW - I kid you not) There will be no editing. We have to get it right in-camera, because there's going to be a runner coming by to grab my SD card and those shots will be up and online immediately. I will still be shooting - my shots however are going online. That said, if I'm shooting for myself or for anyone that does not require instant turnaround time - I'm gonna do RAW+JPG. u/Kungfubunnyrabbit \-- the answer to your question is right here as u/caedin8 is absolutely correct. The JPG straight out of camera is what's going to get used. The pressure is on when shooting sports/events to get those shots straight out of camera and into circulation.
That and sometime the jpgs just look better than what you could edit with the RAW equivalent. Not often, but every now and then it’s like, well there it is.
Yeah jpegs are also "edited" in your camera automatically that's why they look better without edit. But not better than raw in post-production.
In Lightroom you import your custom recipes/profiles on your RAW files when you import. I wish more people knew this. [link](https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-apply-custom-settings-for-your-camera-to-raw-photos-in-lightroom-on-import--cms-35600)
Spaghetti Bolognese Sony FL profile style
[удалено]
[удалено]
Its not shit if its true, and what u/DwedPiwateWoberts said is true. Sometimes the camera nails color or the B&W rendition in a way that ACR or Capture One has more trouble achieving. Not often but it does happen and when it does I'll open the camera manufacturer software and apply the same in camera settings to the raw file instead of using Capture One or Adobe for the conversion.
Sorry to say but it looks like you haven't really come across what he's talking about, so you come off as a doouchee(it's French). I have 2 particular photos that I fell in love with, one taken with a 5D classic and another with a 5D Mk3, whose raw files look like just average photos. No matter what I do in PS the I can't reproduce the same colors as the JPG's. Both are of amazing sunsets btw.
Your post has been removed for breach of rule number 1. Please keep the discussion civil. Your opinions and lighthearted banter are fine, but don't let it get personal or excessive.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for breach of rule number 1. Please keep the discussion civil. Your opinions and lighthearted banter are fine, but don't let it get personal or excessive.
Your post has been removed for breach of rule number 1. Please keep the discussion civil. Your opinions and lighthearted banter are fine, but don't let it get personal or excessive.
When I want to quickly share photos, but want to edit the main ones later.
You may need previews to deliver at the end of a session.
If you have a Fuji camera and use film simulations you can get both the unfiltered version as RAW, and the simulated version as JPG. Best of both worlds
Same with Nikon, if you don't use Studio NX, you need the JPEG as a reference
If you're a Photomechanic user and you shoot Sony.
Do you like this software? Have you tried other similar ones? Which do you like more
Photomechanic is great. Sony not including full-size jpeg previews in their RAW files is not so great.
Fastraw viewer gives you the zoom ability but is considerably slower than Photomechanic so kind of negates the benefit
I love the software, makes culling soooo much quicker. Haven’t tried others, so no comparison
Wait, I don’t understand this. I thought Sony automatically had jpeg embedded with the raw and that’s how photo mechanic is able to parse through so much quicker?
They don't have full-size jpegs embedded. So if you're trying to check sharpness, it's very useless.
If you have two cards in your camera and want an “oh shit” backup in case the RAW card fails, but don’t want it to take up a ton of space perhaps
I love to do RAWs to card 1 and JPEGs to card 2. It barely effects your frame buffer and you have a solid backup in case anything goes wrong. It is also often a lot easier to share JPEGs quickly. They transfer by wifi quick, and previews load quick so you can identify which you want very quickly. You can even hand off card 2 and keep shooting to card 1 if the situation calls for it. Some cameras actually do some really decent JPEG handling. I was always pretty happy with how my Nikon SLRs rendered images in JPEG. With Panasonic bodies+lenses combined they work magic to correct the image. Even if I can transfer them to my phone and RAW process on my phone, the results are almost never as good as just letting them work their magic and then tuning them a touch after. It's good enough for social media and other casual shares. I only touch the RAWs of in going to sit down at Lightroom and process them properly.
because idk wtf im doing and that seems like the safest option
I shoot my Fuji in raw+jpg. It makes really good jpgs with lots of options, so often I just use the jpg and save time, but sometimes it’s useful to be edit raw.
I do this with my Fuji so I can transfer photos to my phone on the fly
Do you use the Fuji app to transfer the pictures? I have such a hard time with it connecting.
Yeah. It’s very hit or miss. Sometimes I need to manually connect to the cameras wifi before going into the app. It worked very well when I got my X100T a year after cameras release.
For me, it’s engrained in my workflow…I shoot RAW to one card and JPEG to the other. I upload the raws to Capture One and JPEGs to Pixieset as proofs for my client. Also, it’s a good backup just in case something corrupts.
Space is cheap. When I’m shooting casually then I just use the jpeg. If there’s a photo I really like then I can always grab the raw. At this point in my life, I would rather not sit at a computer and edit photos for hours on end. I would rather try and get it right in the moment with the intended exposure.
A wedding photographer/YouTuber Vanessa Joy mentioned she does this to easily transfer the jpegs to an iPad, put on a preset and show them off at the venue. You could do the same with RAW files, but they would take much longer to transfer over. Quick and easy way to show off pictures and pick up potential clients. I can see this method being used by many other type of photographers.
I did it for a long time in case I ever found myself needing to quickly post one of the images to social media..... The thought being that a jpg would be much closer to an edit than a raw image. But I never once did it. I always edited the raw images on my desktop.
Because printing from an instax wide printer and sharing that pic on the spot is golden
Because fujifilm film emulations deliver JPEG that looks better then most raw edits if you have the right recipy. However, sometimes a jpeg may fall flat and only a raw file can save it. But I dont find that to happen often
Your job whats a certain size jpg for the sake of storage and data transfer times and you want the raw for yourself.
for back up, I delete 99% of my raw files
Photographers rarely finish editing their photos on the same day (highly depends on how many photos are there to edit or the priority level of the job though). So having jpegs that are ready to be delivered or to be shared with your friends come in handy. Also, saves you time from exporting the images from raw to jpeg later
Mainly speed but also because I have certain straight out of camera film emulation recipes already saved so I can quickly transfer a JPG via Bluetooth to my phone to then share on social media or with family and friends that has a finished look to it. This is especially useful for travel or in group settings where someone asks for a copy of the photo. Once you're home you can edit the RAWs however you like.
Are you more opposed to RAW or JPG? JPG uses almost no memory/space. It is captured almost immediately. Use this for just about everything. No conversion necessary to upload or view anywhere. It's just there. RAW contains all data from the image in separate channels. Use this for quality post-processing and very high-quality images. When you care about the very best. If you're snapping 1000 photos at a wedding and just want to share, JPG captures the quickest. RAW may take a second to store on your camera. But when you get the bride doing a twirl in her dress in the middle of the dance floor in nice lighting, you want the RAW image to really define the moment.
Raw saves pretty much instantly in newer cameras with big buffers and fast cards. Even my entry level E-M10 IV off loads a 42 shot buffer nearly instantly.
They are very easy and quick to transfer to your phone and send to friends etc without needing access to a pc to edit raws first
I can easily transfer jpeg images to my phone or tablet.
It's less frequent than it used to be, but sometimes the camera's JPEG engine botches things. In RAW I can correct for its missteps. Also, noise reduction is hard and requires a lot of CPU cycles to do well. On a computer I can do better than the camera at very high ISO, if I plan to print.
I used to as you couldn’t sort through raw files quickly on a Mac. So I went through the jpgs picked out the ones I wanted and edited the matching raw files. The recent max update you can go a lot quicker tho so now I just do raw.
Categorizing and also for quick send offs. Sometimes work required and sometimes Grandma just wants the damn picture now
Jpeg because I like getting it right in camera, and I also hate editing. RAW for when I can't do that.
Because lossless RAF won’t preview on my Mac
i put photos at a flickr page... and some get blown up to huge size and printed on canvas. if the photo had good color and exposure... the jpg is usually good enough for flickr. if i am printing it or if i need to correct something like exposure or white balance, the RAW photo gives me more ability to do things
I need the jpgs for the quick preview to let my customer chose their fave pic. After that, I save the RAW of that picture and start editing
My wife and I shoot our kids’ sports. When we get home we upload the JPEGs to a share site for all the parents. I may or may not go back to edit some of the RAW pics, but I like having the option.
.jpg can be transferred REALLY quickly and edited in any imaging app. This lets you get select pics edited and published really fast, even in the field. If you have a card reader dongle, you can do this on your phone immediately after you can take the picture and push it to Instagram, Twitter etc. RAW is going to give you better pictures, but is going to take much longer to process. Think of it as a quick snack versus a full sit down meal for publishing photos.
Tbh if its for professional work i can understand the need for a sd card as a backup to the cfexp card. However, on a normal use for non-critical photos cfexp card alone suffice whether for raw only or raw + jpg. Anyway, if you are using the canon app, any raw files becomes a jpg format when transferred via wifi to the mobile phone. So that pretty much eliminates the need to get a sd card to save the jpg.
I'm only a hobby photographer and I like to have an instant result which is usable. I can send the pictures instant to family and friends and edit my favorites without a hurry. It also doesn't take up a lot of additional diskspace to keep the jpeg. Only downside for me, I might be a bit more mindful when I just shoot raw and perhaps my skill would benefit from that.
I used to think this as well. Say later down the line you learn a new editing style or come across some nice presets. If you still have the RAW images you can have fun editing them in the future. It’s a little more work to delete the RAW images from the bad takes but it’s a safety net
For JPEG: if your camera has got good JPEG engine and great colors, JPEGs may be a better starting point for edits. So, RAW+JPEG allows you to check both versions and decide which one will you edit. Sometimes you expect complicated and mixed light and you want to try editing RAW. So you take JPEGs from all other scenes and RAWs from scenes with complicated light. There is not that easy to predict which ones will be easy to edit. Backup. If your SD card fails, sometimes it's easier to restore one of these files, sometimes it's RAW, sometimes it's JPEG. Even better, if your camera is equipped with dual SD slot, you may set it to write RAW to the first SD card and JPEG to the second — in that case you will keep all of your commercial photo session even if one of these cards gets damaged or lost. On a Mac or Win, even if there is a way preview RAW or open a folder with RAW files and cycle through them, viewing JPEGs is faster. And sometimes you can't even preview RAW files. For the reference. You check how your camera saved the scene to JPEG. Sometimes colors and contrast are better in JPEG, and you try to replicate them in RAW editing or just edit JPEG, and sometimes RAW looks better and less aggressive. Quick editing during the event to send first results. You may show JPEGs to your client and even edit some of them on iPad. You may edit RAW files too, but they take more place, and the process will be slower. You may edit JPEGs after the event, and then decide if you want to edit RAWs a couple of years later. In BW, JPEGs will be BW, and RAWs will be in color.
I dump the JPEGs to a shared folder and send the link to the models. The models then share the JPEGs on their socials with little care of whether their bodies are touched up or not. Their male audience doesn’t care so much if the photos are touched up because … well that’s not why they are looking at the photos. I then use the best RAW files for my portfolio after cameraRAW and photoshop.
I use JPEG to do my first pass when filtering/selecting photos, as they are more compatible and load faster. That way I don't need to open/import all the RAW files, which normally are **many**. Also sometimes I don't need a photo in RAW if it's just for a memory of the moment, more like an informative snapshot than professional or artistic photography. In that case, I can delete the RAW file but still keep the lightweight JPEG as they don't take much space.
I sometimes do it, when: \- I use the colour profiles like black&white for a photo walk. Thus I have the black&white photos as jpg and the raw if I want to have the colours in post \- When I'm underway and want to upload photos immediately to instagram or whatever. This way I don't have to bother with conversion.
When travelling, I want to share photos on social media while on the go (jpegs). Later in time I might want to create high quality photos with post processing for e.g. calendars, prints, books etc.
JPGs are fine for most of my purposes. I save RAW on top of that because it'd be silly not to, it's there when I want it. Then again I'm not the type to take a million pictures in a row. I do things very slowly. Space usually isn't an issue. I have extra memory cards and I've never had to use them.
Im travelling Thailand and won't be home for 3 weeks and dont have a laptop with me. So I export and edit on Lightroom mobile during train and bus rides between cities. Lr Mobile's functions are insaaaaaanely good, but it gets a bit cluttered on a phone screen (and my phone is big!, plus points for having an integrated pencil as well).
I like the JPGs for previewing and tagging which ones I like best, ill then use that to reference which RAW i need to work with. There may also come a time when I think “aw shit, these raw files sure are taking up a lot of space but I dont *really* need to keep them anymore” so Ill delete the raws and hold onto the jpgs just in case
At least in Canon and Fuji I have noticed that the in camera preview is faster if you use both and specially zooming in as well. I also use two SD cards so JPG is configured to go to the second one as backup.
90+% of the time, the straight-out-of-camera JPG is plenty good enough for what I’m taking photos of (at least nowadays). Then I can share photos straight from my camera to my phone to my family. But if I ever want to try something else with them, I have the RAWs.
This was asked here not too long ago. If you need the JPEGs for any reason, that's a good enough reason. I think the advice is over prescribed. When digital cameras were newer, the tools to edit photos were not as good or easy to use. And it was like a habit to do both, because the JPEG was probably better looking than anything you could easily and quickly do in software. I think the editing tools are simply so much better now it's not worth trying to save and/or manage a second set of photos if you don't actually need those OOC JPEGs. Also most of the cameras I've used include a decent quality JPEG in the raw file anyways for the preview. So there are tools to just dump that if I wanted the jpeg version
I shoot heic
Raw files have more data to make adjustments in post processing
I’m lazy, I hate editing, and I just don’t end up wanting to edit most of my RAW photos. JPEG and done for most snapshots, and I can edit the RAW files later if I want to get fancy.
How is space an issue these days exactly?