3 ms·
If you import into something like Lightroom and, given the price of modern storage, it generally makes sense (for me) to mostly shoot raw. Pretty much the only
by ghaff 2y ago
If you import into something like Lightroom and, given the price of modern storage, it generally makes sense (for me) to mostly shoot raw. Pretty much the only time I'll shoot both is if I (rarely) may need to hand off the JPEGs to someone in real-time.
- left-struck 2y agoI used to think like you but lately I just can’t be bothered with editing too much and with the raw workflow so I mostly shoot in JPG these days. I shoot in raw when I’m shooting in situations where the lighting is difficult.
- ghaff 2y agoProbably hard to make a general statement. Lightroom is better these days at making automagical editing decisions. And I like heavily culling photos and adding at least some metadata (although with shooting most of my current photos on an iPhone which adds GPS it's less of a big deal). However, JPG on that iPhone is also pretty good. Not a big deal one way or the other. I just bias to not throwing away data rather than not having it or having to make real-time decisions about how much data to collect.
- left-struck 2y agoYeah that’s a good point about the real-time decisions. I’ve been thinking about it since my comment and I think I’ll give raw another shot. It has such a wider dynamic range* than jpg and maybe it’s a way to almost future proof your photos. *jpg photos in sRGB Also bit depth difference is huge