I just wanted to suggest, that it is a very personal decision how much time investment in an image is „worth it“. If you need to develop 2000+ images, you might not even have the time to do it and you may be inclined to compromise for the bulk of these images.
As Jonas said: a few of your pictures may be dear to you, in these cases you will most likely be grateful if you still have the raws available to pull the most out of the raws. Sometimes it will make a huge difference, many times it will be more subtle and at times the automatic procedure in-camera gets it just right.
As gdanmitchell has indicated. There is more to developing than pure raw processing. When you develop your image you take decisions:
- Do I want a light, airy high key rendering?
- Do I want a dark, moody rendering?
- Do I want contrasty, gritty look?
- or a dreamy soft rendering?
The camara just cannot know which rendering is most appropriate for a certain image (and your artistic view will flow into the way you process a certain image as well). Importantly all these things are best done on a raw image since the standard jpeg will most likely not have the latitude to allow for more excessive adaptations.
@OP:
I believe the profiles he needed for a certain lens were not available to him at the time he posted the somewhat frustrated (and a bit to general) original post. In the meantime the profiles appear available and as mentioned, the original alternatives appear moot.
Feb 10, 2026 at 10:49 AM
Previous versions of Knut.'s message #16984219 « Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses? »
