Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

It has been easiest for me to shoot both JPEG and RAW at the best qualities the camera will allow.
• The JPEGs are handiest to review and some/many can be used as-is for quick re-size & e-Mailing or other web use
• The RAW files are a better starting point for very fussy touch-ups or other preparation for display

My cameras don't produce files so large as yours (and I don't shoot video), but I believe storage is actually cheap.
• Buy the largest camera cards within reason that you can afford or use well
• Same goes for hard drives or whatever other "permanent" storage devices for multiple backups, cloud, whatever that you prefer to use
• I've got to the point of not making much of an effort to "weed out" files except for quick/obvious. My time is worth more than the saved space.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Shooting raw is a PITA. Save memory, save time, simplify your life - shoot properly exposed and processed JPEG ......and concentrate on the important parts of image making.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

God! Why is everyone saying that you have to shoot in raw for crying out loud? If you know how to use your camera, you really don't have to. I can work the daylights out of a Jpeg in lightroom than slam it over to photoshop to do even more work and not lose enough information to even notice. I do it all the time and I post them all the time. Oh, and sometimes I even print them. But to answer the OP's question, just carry plenty of memory cards if you feel the need. Don't bother shrinking them down to a smaller size in lightroom, do that in photoshop when you are ready to save the final product.

And don't get me wrong, folks. Raw is wonderful tool to have and to use. It does give one more latitude in post, but this was not in the OP's original question.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Shoot raw then use a viewing program like Fast Raw Viewer to cull your images. FRV will display your raw images and allow you to grade them and delete the ones you don't want to keep right off your SD card. Then import the keepers into LightRoom. Edit them in raw and save as TIFFs. Then any time you need a smaller image for web use or whatever, just export it from LightRoom with the right settings. I also carry a Macbook when I am travelling to review and edit my jpegs. I keep the ones I might need on the trip for comparing notes with other photographers or sending home by email on the Macbook hard drive. I delete the others.

tsilva Loc: Arizona

shoot the largest file possible. resize on export depending on your needs for the final result.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

What camera do you have? Yes, both cameras can shoot raw only.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's faster and you get better results when making large adjustments. If your images are of average contrast, you are less likely to see a difference. But I find it easier and faster to edit a single file for color and white balance, for instance, then apply that setting to all the images in a set that were taken with the same light, than it would be to edit each individual jpeg. Raw saves time and preserves quality. And yes, the topic got hijacked.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's only a PITA if you are not comfortable with a raw workflow. Regardless of how careful you are with exposure and composition, I have yet to see an out of the camera jpeg image that couldn't be improved by post processing. And in the same vein, an image that could be taken to a higher quality standard if the editing was started using a raw capture as opposed to a jpg.

I can shoot a wedding with 4 different cameras (I use two, and a second shooter will use two), and end up with 1200 images. Each of us will use a color checker passport. I can cull the images, do some quick editing to sync the color and white balance for all the images from all the cameras, then edit groups of images for black and white clipping point, shadow/highlight recovery, sharpening, noise reduction and all the other parameters, and upload a set of around 900 proofs to the client section of my website before I go to bed after the wedding ceremony - about 3-4 hrs of computer time. It is hardly a PITA. What would be a major PITA would be if I had to do this with a bunch of jpegs. And I know I'd never get the quality or consistency I get when starting off with raw files.

I know that for your method of shooting, jpegs are sufficient. But that really doesn't work for me. Time is money, and I prefer to spend just 4 hours to generate proofs from raw images, not 4 days (or more) to do the same with jpgs.

I know you don't believe me, but if you want an illustration of this - shoot a test image, using your very best camera settings for jpg, and also capture the raw file. Send me the raw, you can keep the jpg to finess it as you wish. I will do my thing, editing the raw, exporting to PS for finishing, and I will send it back to you, so you can post the results. I'm game, and if you have the time an inclination, I'd love to put this argument to rest.

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Lol. Hijacked big time!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Guilty as charged!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

We AGREE here 100% !......

"I can shoot a wedding with 4 different cameras (I use two, and a second shooter will use two), and end up with 1200 images. Each of us will use a color checker passport. I can cull the images, do some quick editing to sync the color and white balance for all the images from all the cameras, then edit groups of images for black and white clipping point, shadow/highlight recovery, sharpening, noise reduction and all the other parameters, and upload a set of around 900 proofs to the client section of my website before I go to bed after the wedding ceremony - about 3-4 hrs of computer time. It is hardly a PITA. What would be a major PITA would be if I had to do this with a bunch of jpegs. And I know I'd never get the quality or consistency I get when starting off with raw files."

I am afraid your situations are in the minority here on UHH - and I am sure it works very well for you - a totally experienced pro/instructor living/working in NYC. As an instructor, maybe you are also one of the ones who makes money off others shooting raw ? ( by instructing it)

Especially for beginning amateurs however, , their are many MORE important things to worry about in photo-imaging than somehow feeling guilty about not using raw ! IMO, more attention should be paid to perfecting JPEGS and your knowledge in general before moving on to raw - and only if you still feel shortchanged in some way by using JPEG.

IMO, any benefit to raw can only be realized by careful and proper (optimum) exposure and processing/workflow/software utilization. There are definitely resource commitments to be made also!

The reasons for shooting raw should be objective - not political - but appears to me to be VERY political.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

But all for a good cause! Gene, I usually learn something from your posts, even those that "stray" from the original topic...

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Yeah, that is why I also stopped. Lol.

BebuLamar

I have a Nikon Df.