Originally posted by cbaytan Yes, yes, yes, this 'lossy' point is made every time this discussion comes up - problem with that argument is that the 'loss' is going to be barely noticeable outside of pixel-peeping almost all of the time - it's a theoretical difference, effectively, in situations where you don't care about highlight/shadow overhead.
Quote: 2-Yes I do intend to through them in the future, RAW files are my archive-my accumulated work of my life. I don't want any of image files I've taken has any missing data with any compression method like jpegs. If I find any image is not archival, I delete them.
3- BTW I am a member of a local photographical arts association. So I intend/wish to take fine art photos.
Well, for you then, raw-everything-only makes more sense - but most people are not looking to maintain a huge archive of fine-arts photos.
I know what your argument is - believe me, I used to feel the same way - but I've gone the other way now. My time is incredibly important to me, and I want to take advantage of the impressive advances in in-camera processing that's taken place the last couple years.
In 90% of my shooting, my raw workflow (which can be intense when I'm recovering shadows/highlights or something like that) doesn't end up giving me any better results than the straight jpegs - and I know what I'm doing in PP.
The other 10% of the time, it does - but I'm just not going to fashion my entire workflow and swallow the time/throughput/maintenance overhead just to cater to that 10% of images.