Originally posted by nnyorkie I never found a use for RAW+ before, but I've done a few family portraits lately, and it's very helpful in these cases. I upload the JPEGs to an online proof gallery, then work from the RAW files when the order comes in. I may have to adjust/crop some of the JPEGs, but not many.
Right, that's exactly what motivated me to think about shooting Raw+ recently.
This approach might work when I do public portrait gigs like I've done at the Dallas Arboretum, where I might have 20 or more different customers in a few hours and where I want to get the proofs online for these clients within 24 hours of their sitting. In these situations, I do not give the clients the digital files. They get sent 1 4"x6" photo (my pick) and they can buy other prints from my web site (which is where I make my money). Next time I do one of these sessions, I'm going to think hard about the possibility of shooting Raw+ and throwing the jpegs online without any post-processing at all. Then I would process only the photos that people order.
But for regular work, in my recent experiment with Raw+, what I've found is that having all those jpegs is a pain in the neck with no real benefit. I have to keep track of which jpegs are the original jpegs (in other words, expendable) and which jpegs are output from processed raw files (in other words, the "keepers").
One thing I've considered is using keywords. I would attach the keyword "proof" to the original jpegs. When I export a jpeg from Lightroom after processing the raw file, THAT jpeg would not have "proof" as a keyword (because this keyword was never applied to the raw files. I'm still mulling it over and trying to anticipate the problems.
My goal is to make things easier for myself - and thus to provide quicker, better service for my clients. The one thing I know is that they way I have been doing things is really inefficient.
Will