Photography advice:

I don't believe in shoot raw as a beginner's rule myself. I'll concede that it's good to learn when shooting raw will provide benefit, but I use it for less than 10% of my photographs. I won't pretend that I've never looked at an image after the fact and wished I'd shot it as raw. I use those times as a learning moments for future situations. It doesn't happen with enough frequency, or urgency, that I feel the need to change my practice though.

These are words filled with wisdom 😇

I guess your experience has been different than mine. Sure there is a place for just doing a lot of shooting. In fact I spent 2 full years touring the National Parks and shooting all day, every day. I also learned a lot from online sources, workshops, camera clubs, books, formal art school courses, and viewing the photographs, paintings and other works of art and being mentored by others. The problem with being self taught often means not knowing what you don't know.

I should mention another resource on this website. There is now a critique forum. That is a great place to present a photograph for discussion and to understand how others see it.

I'd like that feature, too -- if the AF were really "sticky" on the subject I chose. I'd like it even more than what I proposed. But, I want both features. I don't think my R can do what you suggested, though. : (

You know, that is weird, right? JPEG is an acronym whereas "raw" isn't, yet it is common to reverse it. I think the reason is that "raw" is an actual word, whereas JPEG isn't, so "raw" is capitalized to distinguish RAW as being an unprocessed file (the "raw" file, as it were). If you say, however, something like, "I shoot raw", as opposed to "I shoot RAW", well, some NSFW imagery pops up. Or is that just me? : )

Like I said in the OP, you may never use it. But if you do use at some point in the future, you can't get it for photos that were not shot in that format. Myself, I greatly regret not shooting RAW for as long as I did -- huge mistake. But, for you, no big deal (although I would say even 10% is a big deal -- at least, 10% would be a big deal for me).

This is why I advocate shooting RAW right from the start (aside from the times when it adversely affects the performance of the camera, of course!). Storage is cheap, and you can't get back what you never had.

Cat stalking lizard? : )

I'll add my thoughts, FWIW and IMHO, one of the least discussed aspects of photography is probably the most important - composition. All the dynamic range and resolution in the world won't rescue a poor composition. Similarly l'll take a great composition from a low-fi camera over a technically perfect dull photo all day long (both would be ideal obviously).

I'd also add that some cameras do superb jpegs and it's very hard to beat the jpeg output using raw files (Assuming you nail the shot technically). It may be possible to improve a shot in very minor ways but the effort and time involved just isn't worth it/noticeable enough (My original Fuji X100 is such a camera). That being said, l shoot raw and jpeg simultaneously, many times the jpeg is easily good enough, and raw processing will not demonstrably improve things, but not always.

In conjunction with my previous point, and mentioned elsewhere, know your camera intimately, everything gets much easier and more enjoyable due to consistent and repeatable results.

I'll add l mine too. When shooting stuff like events, landscapes, structures, etc. where you take different angles (shots with a lot of sky and others with little or none at all), or where you zoom in and out to get general views and details (full-length and close-up portraits), the auto exposure settings may vary a lot and create discrepancies. So in many cases it's best to manage to keep roughly the same settings across the shots.
My 2 cts.

Is this a real thing?
Nick

Yep! I'll often use manual mode in such situations.

It is. Might be the next big thing for school photo "shoots" in the US. : (

Sad to see these things since long forgotten :)

I think most people take that as a given.

We need to have a thread on that. People post the OOC jpg and a link to the RAW file, and then people post their RAW conversions to compare. But really what we need is a blind poll. A RAW file is made available, people do their best with it and send it to a third party. The OOC jpg is also sent to the third party. Then all the photos are presented and people rate them all on a scale of 1-10. Would be interesting to see the results.

Let's hope the camera and lens are "weather" sealed. : )

The problem with that approach is that it takes a purely objective approach to a subjective opinion. For instance, l know in terms of resolution and dynamic range you can always squeeze a bit more out of a raw file, colour can definitely be more tricky.

Now for many photos l'm not looking for ultimate technical perfection, l'm looking for 'good enough', as in it will print or display to the desired size and still look great. Plenty of photos don't need more dynamic range or resolution, they may actually need less than a jpeg gives you in terms of dynamic range. So whilst a raw file may technically give you a bit more, if your artistic vision is already satisfied by a jpeg, then in reality a raw file is not going to give you anything you want or need.

Colour is usually the big win on certain jpeg processors, and this is where Fuji in particular excel. Yes l know you can go down the whole colour gamut/calibration/chart route but why bother if the camera does exactly what you're looking for? And in that sense a jpeg can definitely be better.

Not everything needs scientific rigour and extreme analysis to simply be 'better', some things just are to some people, and yes that can be subjective, and in terms of photography, invariably is.

Avoid distracting backgrounds.

If you got a new telephoto lens and take a photo of just the moon and want to share it with the world...don't. If you can see astronauts' footprints or put it in an interesting context, then it's sort of OK.

Don't share the photo you took of someone else's art...taking a photo of a work of art is not art unless you do something creative with it or you can sell it for a lot of money.

Don't think that because three people said "great photo" on your Instagram page or gave it a like, that it's a great photo. It requires at least 12 likes to conclude that.

Don't buy "better" gear thinking that it will make you a better photographer. Buy it because you have more money than you need. Your photos will still be boring but at least they will be sharper.

Excactly how I work. Don' t use any joystick. Ever.
And....always raw...

I usually prefer to tweak the Exposure Compensation wheel as needed, poor little thing. I use manual mode when shooting wildlife.

Great idea. Imagine rehab boot camps for gun addicts after the US had finally banned lethal weapons (probably in the next eon). They would have to storm dummy schools with that thing and they would get rewards according to the number of school girls and boys they had shot. The best shots would be posted on-line.
Nick