BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

I'm not a pro so I don't need jpg for that, and I only rarely need to share immediately. I don't need unprocessed photos cluttering up my hard drive. When I started using Lightroom it was so handy for file management, and I can convert to jpg those images I want to share. I was a little nervous at first but it's nice to have only one set of photos to go through per shoot.

Traveller_Jeff

Another important use not yet covered:

While learning how to send the jpg's to the cloud on my D500, I realized that the shots in the jpg slot are the ones that provide the data. By setting that system up as described in the instruction manual, the jpg's are going to "the cloud" whether the camera is on or off, and others who need those shots and who have the required permissions and passwords can theoretically download them for their purposes. I'm not a full-time pro, so I haven't actually done the following, but I see no reason why if you are, say, in London, and the NYTimes back in the USA needs your shots asap, they can't be downloading your photos almost as you shoot them. I would just check my camera battery in the morning and be ready with fully charged ones. Responses always welcome.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If you have no need for .jpg files, it is really useless to record them. I've dual cards in my camera, but really only use one of them. That's due to the transfer rate being much faster. To this day, I have no idea why I even bother having the second card in the camera, other than to just fill the slot.
--Bob

cyclespeed Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada

I did before Capture One became my go to post processing software as a time saver. I sorted by type, then opened the jpeg's only and looked only for good composition. Then I would in turn upload those "savers" by recording the image number from the jpeg viewing session in raw to LR and edit from there. Occasionally I would send an unedited jpeg via email to people who wanted to see soon like almost as fast as a social media images goes. Otherwise I delete both all the jpeg's and the culled raw from the shoot.
Now I shoot only raw and C1 uploads and opens my raw as fast as preview could do jpeg's so no need for duplicates and remembering numbers to be saved etc. The bonus for me is C1 does an excellent job ROOC and I spend much less time in PP all together.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Yes, that is the definition of redundant.

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

99.9% of what I shoot is raw. It is just that personally that is the way I like to do it. I am a very patient person. I process with digital photo profesional and then finish with tif. I don't use jpg that much. I think it all depends on what you want and need for a final image.

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I did the same thing when I first started using Lightroom. After I learned LR quite well, I realized I didn’t need the JPG, so I stopped. I don’t like giving a JPG SOOC to someone and I rarely send an image from the camera to social media. I prefer to edit the raw, then export the best as needed to post elsewhere.

If you want a backup, your backup can also be raw, on a second card, if your camera has that feature. That’s how I have my camera set up.

You have a common question, so don’t feel foolish to want to hang onto your JPG for a little while. Once you get used to Lightroom, you’ll realize you don’t need your camera to save a JPG.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Hi Henry - your post tells me that you have plenty of time to be patient - have you ever considered spending some of that time really getting to be at one with your camera and using all it's settings? You can of course up-load JPGs and still save as TIFFs.
A month ago one of my JPGs was awarded photo of the week by Panasonic's Lumix G Experience forum.

photodoc16

Linda,
Talk to me about Fastone Image Viewer. Why the move from Picasa - what does Fastone offer that Picasa doesn't?
Thanks,
Photodoc16

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

That is entirely up to you, I personally never had a reason to do that, I have always shot in raw, I have no need for jpeg. Both have their advantages for certain workflows!

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

There are people here who have hard drives full of images (? do they look at them again).
LR is a great organiser for those than need to pinpoint similar images or a particular image out of their catalogue for different clients or purposes. For those who shoot and forget or only use their images once or twice: then stockpiling 'photo's ' is bit like keeping all of the books that you have ever read.

Be selective about what you keep - at some point 'someone else' will glance at them. If bored they will dump them !

Nef and Raw files are larger than Jpg. depending on your need decide which is wanted more often.

as an aside...Who exactly goes back to their original files and reworks them in light of their long experience? (one of the most often quoted reasons for keeping every image ever shot)

have fun

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Not foolish...

There are perfectly reasonable reasons why you would record both types. Usually, JPEGs created in the camera are used IMMEDIATELY, or for security or anti-tampering purposes. Raw files are used for images that need to be adjusted after photography for best use cases. Some forensic agencies insist on JPEGs from the camera. Some news organizations insist on JPEGs from the camera so they know they are unretouched (i.e.; not faked in Photoshop). School portrait companies (who sell MILLIONS of portrait packages each Fall) use precisely controlled, all-JPEG workflows to reduce the need for processing power, network bandwidth, processing time, and labor.

ON THE OTHER HAND,

Those who are making images for critical applications probably use JPEGs ONLY for proofs. They process raw images for maximum image quality, flexibility in post-processing, creative control, etc. Unless they need the JPEG for a specific reason, they save raw files at the camera, then process them afterwards. The result could be a TIFF, a JPEG for a lab or the Internet, or a print "converted on the fly" from the raw file.

Personally, I have a JPEG workflow for some applications, and a raw workflow for others. They're just tools.

Raw workflow example:

Record image, saving raw file in camera.
Open raw image in Lightroom. (Image is converted from the camera raw data to a 16-bit bitmap image in the ICC color space, ProPhoto RGB)
Adjust image in Lightroom, in reference to a Lightroom proxy image, on a calibrated, custom-ICC profiled monitor. Use soft-proofing with printer profile for final adjustment.
Print from Lightroom, converting the raw file on-the-fly to a bitmap, which is then converted to printer input for a directly-connected Epson printer, using the appropriate paper/ink/printer profile.
Export image from Lightroom to a PSD file for Photoshop or a 16-bit TIFF file for other use or other conversion.
Export image from Lightroom as a JPEG in sRGB color space for printing via a conventional wet-process photo lab.

For my JPEG workflow:

I rely on exposure and custom white balance targets, plus carefully-controlled camera menu settings based on previous tests.
I tend to use JPEG camera capture when making large numbers of images of the same sort of subject matter, in controlled, consistent lighting environments.

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

That is exactly what I do! my digital is a T5i and after several yeas I still fimd myself going back to my Dummies book to improve my use of the camera. The flexibility and power of any digital camera is in reality mind boggling.
Bty the way I still frequently use my 1972 Mamiya RB67 film camera.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I shoot RAW for control and JPG to have a quickly available image to use for e-mails and viewing as taken.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

If you have a reason for including jpeg then do it. The last thing I need in my work flow is two copies of the same picture. I use jpegs after editing but create them with two keystrokes in lightroom, then delete them as soon as I have sent them off.
...Cam