[matja]

> RAW vs JPG

Most cameras have an option to save both the raw (which depends on the camera make, probably .dng/.cr2/.nef) and also a JPEG using automatic white-balance and exposure options, so you can have the best of both worlds of a quick workflow (using just the JPEGs) or tweaking exposure/balance/tone in 12/14 bpp.

[ghaff]

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]

I 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]

Probably 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]

Yeah 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

[blitzar]

I would also add that modern cameras can be incredibly opinionated about how they process photos. At times they can make reasonable choices and at times poor choices all with varying consequences.

[alistairSH]

My consumer grade Olympus bodies allow heavy tweaking of the JPG profiles - color and intensity curves, etc (not just selecting from the 10+ art filters). Pretty sure Fuji does the same. IE, anybody who's willing to dig into editing RAWs can also drill into the camera's settings and tweak the JPG output.

RAW is still more powerful, but if you don't want to spend time in post, there are usually ways to get JPG output that's closer to what you want.

[majgr]

I noticed that all my edits lately were lighter and lighter, so I switched to jpeg and I am Adobe free. Thing is, no amount of postprocessing would help if photo is bad, then, when photo is good, tweaking it is not really needed.

[kkapelon]

At least in beginner cameras, this makes shooting really slow and can become problematic for burst photo sessions

Also I believe some mobile phones can do exactly the same thing.