I shoot JPEG for weddings, and raw for basically everything else. JPEG forces you to get everything right in the camera, and the smaller file sizes quicken your workload when you're dealing with 700-1000 pictures. For all other applications I still like RAW.
I hear this so often, but here's the thing I don't quite get about it - if you're shooting something as important as a wedding wouldn't you want the ability to fix something if something doesn't come out "right" in the camera? And if you're exposing everything correctly, couldn't you simply apply a custom camera profile set up to get all you WB and lighting nailed either on import or in one fell swoop afterward? Yes, your file sizes are significantly larger, but other than import time I just don't see the risk/reward benefit lining up on the JPEG side. But that's just me.
There might be little visual difference but RAW vs JPEG is akin to painting on canvas or painting on toilet paper.
When the paint is hardened, you don't really see what material was used and it can look as pretty on both. But once you want to do more than look at it, it becomes obvious why canvas is preferred.
Even the original JPEG that rolls out of the cam has compression artifacts. It's only a pixel here and there and barely noticeable but nevertheless. Once you edit and save the file, you'll introduce more artefacts. If you have to load it into another program to add watermarks or do editing the RAW editor lacks, you'll again introduce artifacts.
Then there's the problem of hard-drive deterioration. All our drives age and it'll result into an inevitable corruption of all our files. JPEG is especially vulnerable because of its "key" which results into worse corruption than TiFF. That's why I save everything as uncompressed TiFF files.
JPEG is toilet paper; you can't use it without staining.
If that's the case, this is some impressive toilet paper. To each his own I guess.
AZS PHOTO BOX | Nicole & Jerry "Grand Cascades"