CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

When I had a two card camera (D300, D7100) I shot RAW on both cards. My D7500 only holds one card but I shoot RAW on it. Everything I shoot goes straight to Lightroom. If I need a jpeg (and I do often) I create one in Lightroom. RAW to jpeg takes me less than one second and using my presets I can make them different sizes for different uses and put them different folders. All done in about one second. If I shoot RAW I do PP on the files. If I was to shoot jpeg I would do PP on the files. Knowing that no one is going to see any of my shots before and until I do some PP, I have no reason to ever shoot jpeg. The Lightroom eye dropper is great for finding white in your file. You would have to do this with both Raw and jpeg to know it was right so you might as well shoot Raw.
Also, I don't want or need multiple files that are basically the same, cluttering up my organizational system. I would suggest setting your camera to Raw right now, commit to figuring it out (it's really no different than fixing up your jpeg) and never shooting jpeg again.
...Cam

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Which is exactly why I shoot both, so add my vote

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

I would advise that you drop the jpeg "crutch" and jump into raw shooting. For most of your images, you will be doing nothing different. But there are times when you want to capitalize on the extended dynamic range inherent in raw capture, and your camera settings will be quite different. The resulting image will look underexposed if it is high contrast (wide range between light and dark areas) or overexposed if the contrast is low - and you are shooting to get the brightest image you can without overexposing anything. Both these situations require deliberate exposure choices that will make truly ugly and unusable jpegs.

At the very least your raw captures converted to jpeg should look just as good, and in the more challenging images you'll see that there is no way a jpeg image will work. So, why bother with two shooting workflows?

I stopped shooting jpeg about a week after I got my Nikon D200 in 2006 -

You can check out some of my work here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/albums

RPaul3rd Loc: Arlington VA and Sarasota FL

I always shoot Raw + JPEG and, as stated earlier, peruse the JPEGs and do a final edit for exceptional shots in RAW. About storage: storage is cheap. I recently returned from a tour of Israel and Jordan and took a half dozen 32gb memory cards, changing to a new one every other or third day. Think about it: you lose one but you still have 5. If you try to cram everything onto a 64gb card or higher, you take the chance of losing everything. Not a sermon, just a thought.

Put everything on your computer for safe keeping. Do not reformat the memory cards until you have finished your project. Then leave all the unedited photos on your computer. External drives for your computer are also cheap.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Go for raw+.

Since you admit you're well versed in raw, i say not to take a chance with raw only.

By that I mean there are times you'll want to show someone somewhere the photos when you're not close to your post processing computer. What would you do?

Show them the stock jpeg images and keep the raw files for a later time.

Sentinel4

I suggest that you consider shooting jpegs and obtain a free trial for Alien Skin X 4. It is non destructive for editing jpegs.

I am much older than you and decided not to waste any more time learning to process with LR and PS.

If your aim is to have fun, cut the post processing time and make images that you like.

There will probably be some negative feedback about my suggestion but you can not learn photography sitting in front of your computer.
Good Luck.
Sentinel4

Malco

When I was much younger and black and white film was the medium, I discovered that pictures were made in the darkroom, not in the camera. The camera only recorded an image, not a picture. I guess you could call PS and LR the darkroom these days.

Sentinel4

You can certainly consider LR and PS the dark room.
You are probably making good images in camera and post processing will make them better.
It's a choice of allocating your time and only you can decide.
Sentinel4

loperR Loc: Medina ,Ohio

gwilliams6

Yes certainly.

RPaul3rd Loc: Arlington VA and Sarasota FL

I've been using Adobe Photoshop Elements for about 15 years (now version 19 for Windows) and here's how you process RAW. Open the program first and then view your images. Click on the RAW image and it will open in the program. But you're not quite ready to save it. Make your adjustments and then open the image in the main program. If you like what you see, save it as a JPEG and move on. Photoshop Elements is fairly easy to learn and grow with. I DO NOT USE LIGHTROOM and although I have the industrial strength PHOTOSHOP program I hardly use it. Last time I checked Photoshop Elements was $99 at BH PhotoVideo. You can buy Elements by itself for less.

Bittmoore Loc: SE Wisconsin

I've been shooting RAW+JPG for years but am considering going with just RAW from now on. Between G.I.M.P. & Canon's Digital Photo Professional I can do pretty much anything I need to. And probably plenty more but have yet to learn about or feel the need to. I don't do much post processing beyond minor hue/contrast/shade/light adjustment. Occasionally a bit of saturation adjustment or stitching multiple images into one.
Creating jpgs is fairly easy and if done after adjustments are made to the RAW image there's no worries about re-encoding loss.