Originally posted by twitch Shooting RAW means less effort in post production than JPEG, not more, if you use Lightroom or Aperture.
Where does this "individually process RAW files" myth come from?
There is no less effort than just resizing usable jpgs straight from the camera.
Any RAW processing is at the very least going to involve a conversion to tiff/jpg, which will take significantly more time than a resize pass.
Perhaps I have different needs and thus a different workflow than most.
I shoot many pictures for "story blogs", so I may shoot 1000+ pictures at an event and use 75 of them as part of a narrative. These are all going to be web only, unless someone wants a print, in which case I will have shot RAW+JPG originally (I know by now when to shoot RAW as well), otherwise working from the JPG is OK 97% of the time. Actually 100% of the time because no one is ever as picky as me.
When I process RAW files I do them individually, because each one generally requires some specific color and tonal correction.
If I just batch processed them using a converter I'd end up with the same thing as the in-camera jpgs, actually many times not as good because Adobe/Apple don't necessarily have the same resources as the manufacturer and thus "best guesses" as to what the colors/tone should be. So to get what I get from the camera I'd have to use the manufacturer's supplied software, but what's the point? I end up with the same thing, perhaps with some more inherent headroom, but at a great cost of time that I don't have.
And with Sony's in-camera DRO and HDR even the headroom advantages of RAW are not as important as they used to be.
Perhaps you should evaluate why you are still wasting time shooting RAW when a proper in-camera JPG will give you 99+% of what the RAW file might deliver after hours of work.