jabra

Nothing at all if YOU like it, or if you don't want to take it to the next level.

Spoondude Loc: Mid coast Florida

Great thoughts on subject. I like Lightroom as well but never thought of using is a a library

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

No - - I did Not read all 6 pages of this thread - and I will not watch it after this post.
I ALWAYS shoot Large RAW + JPG with my 80D (unless I shoot a 5-shot series for later HDR processing)
The images I can produce in Post from RAW are almost ALWAYS better than the in-camera JPG rendition.
-
Do NOT limit yourself to just shooting JPG. Shoot RAW + JPG - and if you are happy with the JPG, delete the RAW

Stash Loc: South Central Massachusetts

I shoot jpeg all the time since my camera does not do raw files. I rely on pp to tweak wherever I think it's needed.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

A lot of disagreements stem from differences in how words are interpreted. In this instance, I think the word "photographer" is at fault. You seem to be in the camp of those who think the photographer's job is over once the shutter is released. That interpretation probably became the common usage with the introduction of color film. With that innovation, most photographers abandoned doing their own developing and printing. The only control left to the typical photographer was setting up the camera with the appropriate filters, exposure settings and perhaps some lighting modification using reflectors or artificial lights.

But in the days of Ansel Adams, serious photographers had their own labs and did their own developing and printing. I've read that Adams would often spend several weeks on printing a satisfactory image, making trial and error adjustments to get the print just right. That was not because he lacked skill, I suspect we would both grant that he was quite expert on setting the camera up just right. But in his view there was still much work to do. Most likely he did consider the developing and printing as important parts of his work as a photographer.

With today's digital cameras and digital editing technology, I doubt anyone spends several weeks on just one image but once again, as in the past, many photographers would again include the post-processing to be an important part of their photography. But it all depends on how broadly or narrowly you interpret the job of a photographer to be. You could still interpret this word narrowly, to mean that the photographer's job ends once the exposure is taken. In this interpretation, the photographer would simply transform into a photo editor rather than a photographer once the editing begins.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.

jabra

That's a good one!

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

So if you were to carefully set up exposures, white balance and ISO values, then bracket exposures, Photo Stacking options could allow for processing of smaller files than dealing with (huge) RAW files.

Not the BEST of options, perhaps . . . But doeable.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Lightroom Classic is an image database (library), plus a raw image editor (ACR), plus a photo book composer, plus a geo-mapper, plus a printing system and an export render engine. It is also a hub that connects all your imaging apps.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Same here. Occasional tweaking is about the only thing needed.

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

Same here. I only do JPEG and am perfectly happy with it. I use Lightroom to post-process and generally can do anything I need to. I'm not overly fussy, and have posted many photos here on UHH and seem to have pleased a lot of viewers.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

The small amount of post processing I do is thru Apple Photos. Does the job for me.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

While there is nothing wrong with converting the JPEG to TIFF just for the sake of converting it, there is no gain either. Nothing will magically appear and be added to improve the quality of image.

Give yourself a reason "Why do you need to convert the file?".

It is in saving edited images with the intent of re-editing it again is what TIFF is good for.
Think and use TIFF same as a PSD file. A single TIFF file can contain many images & adjustments as layers.
Imagine a book binder with different contents on every page or a bucket where you can put the jpeg and other images or instructions together and still be able to pull them out and rearrange individually again. TIFF is like that.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Re your first para. Bob did say that the first pic was what his camera would make of a JPG - I can only presume with all settings at default. Therefore it does need scrapping. (MHO)