There is nothing wrong with shooting JPG if it works for you. I shot JPG when I first got my K100DS and switched to RAW when I took a nice picture with tungsten WB outdoors. That was enough to convert me.
LR imports pictures into it's database, and you work on the pictures after that. I import directly from my memory cards using a card reader, and LR copies the pictures to my hard drive on my laptop. The really nice thing about LR is that it is designed for batch work. If you have a change that you need to make on many pictures, it's as simple as syncing the change across all the pictures that you want to make the change to. Things like WB, exposure adjustments, vignetting, lens corrections, etc. In addition, the tagging and organization tools are worth having. Being able to using tags and metadata to keep track of files and to categorize them is a huge thing that people who don't use it may not realize. On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Brian Walters <supera1...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > G'day all > > First - a confession. > > I know it's a bit Kenny boy-ish - but I shoot mainly JPGs. > > There. > > I've said it. > > I feel unburdened somehow. > > I know I 'should' be shooting RAW and I do shoot RAW from time to time. > And it's not that I don't understand its advantages, it's just that I > struggle with the workflow. So I'm hoping for a bit of enlightenment. > > It seems to me that if you only shoot RAW, you have to have some system > in place to batch process those images. There just aren't enough hours > in the day to process each image individually. I have CS3 and I know > that I can batch process a folder full of RAW images with Photoshop's > File > Automate > Batch command (presumably Lightroom can do something > similar), but here is where things get murky. > > So - I'm interested in how others go about the process while still > retaining a measure of sanity. A few questions, then... > > Do you point your conversion software at a folder of RAW images and let > it get on with the job while you watch the latest episode (or two) of > Mythbusters? If so, isn't this just handing over the image processing > function to software? Do you go back and 'tweak' the images? > > or > > Do you look at the JPG previews to decide which images are the 'Hero > Images' (as the late Bruce Fraser called them) and restrict RAW > conversion to those? > > If you batch convert the lot, do you convert to a lossless format (TIFF > or PSD)? There doesn't seem to be much point in converting to JPG - you > could do that in camera. > > Do you archive your 'second string' images as RAW, or do you convert to > JPG and ditch the originals? > > What's the advantages of shooting RAW + JPG? (perhaps one advantage is > that you could keep just the JPGs of your 'second string' images if you > can't bring yourself to ditch them entirely). > > In summary - if you shoot RAW exclusively (or mainly), how do you manage > the workflow and still have a life?? > > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ > > > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
