They do look great. But JPEG results SOOC can vary wildly if your shots are changing from direct sun to shade to under a canvas tent to artificial light to etc., etc.

Personally, I found the switch to raw files gave me more control over white balance and exposure. But my experience to post processing is limited to Lightroom Classic and PS.

I'll be the first to admit that there could very well be newer software that can handle JPEGs as well as LR handles raw files.

Color rendition- both accuracy and consistency- is important for my work. I can't show a client 20 shots of a wedding reception and have inconsistent white balance in the photos. I am much happier with the results I get working with raw files than with JPEGs.

But maybe I just suck at working with JPEGs. I'll never know.

If you have spent even a little time on UHH you know that you don’t have a prayer for getting a definitive answer to your question. At least not one that will satisfy your curiosity.
I’m pretty sure that with a little effort you can find an offer for a free trial subscription for some post processing software that can process your raw and JPEG files. Do it when you know you’ll have sufficient time to experiment and learn if you can do what you want using JPEGs only, or if you like the results from raw files better.
Which brings us to the next question, which software to choose? But that will set off a whole new firestorm.

You say you’ve done some PP. Will your software recognize raw files from your camera? If so, start there, it’ll be the shortest learning curve.

Because of the methods I've used for the last 15 years, it's easiest for me to just let bad photos sit on a hard drive an never see the light of day again. 90% of what I shoot is for business. As a precaution, I save three copies on separate hard drives before starting the evaluation/post processing process. Going back and deleting all copies of unused or unwanted photos is more trouble than it is worth to me.

Photos that I take recreationally are of no interest to anyone but myself and will probably never be seen by anyone but me.

Family photos are stored separately.

Given the demographics of UHH, what are the chances that any of us will change our methodology if it doesn't suit us by now?

On a related note, I have to remind myself to set a limit on how long I follow a topic before un-watching.

Time is time. Whether you're spending (wasting) it deleting photos or debating someone who wants you to do things his way because his way is best.

To each his own.

Suppose you're shooting film. You head out and shoot a few rolls. Whether or not you do your own developing, you have the negatives developed. If you do it yourself, you examine and decide which to print. If you have it done, they all get printed.

In either case, do you then get out the scissors and cut the negatives, only keeping those corresponding to the "keeper" photos?

Worrying about deleting digital images is an equivalent waste of time, it seems to me. Black flag them, post-process the rest, and move on.

Seems we've gotten off topic. Can we agree high ISO is no more (or less) an issue than shutter speed or aperture, assuming it's properly managed?

High ISO color shift? As in needs to be considered when setting white balance?

Thanks for the chart. While I generally keep ISO as low as possible, I’ve grown less shy about utilizing higher ISOs in the interest of “noisy beats blurry”.

I’m surprised at the rate of drop off.

Wishing you many years of enjoyment!

Great work!

You have the right to write as you see fit. We all make mistakes, and writing on phones only makes it worse.

On the other hand, I find it tedious when people intentionally write poorly.

I am aware of your prior comment, but none of my comments were in reference to it.

I welcome constructive criticism. Please clarify to what you are referring in this regard.