>>3855501What do you mean?
RAWs should look the same regardless, but the JPEGs will always look different than the RAW because the JPEG has all kinds of software edits applied.
>>3856745The JPEGs serve as instant previews. The RAW is there if you decide it's worth processing. Even in a proper professional workflow a RAW to JPEG conversion with predefined calibrated settings takes a little extra time and for things such as verifying critical focus you can do that just fine viewing the JPEG so you know you won't need to re-shoot while you're on set and can process it later.
>>3859038At 20MB/RAW you're looking at 1GB for every 50 photos.
This means 1TB can store 50,000 photos.
An 8TB drive can store 400,000 photos.
You can buy an 8TB drive for under $140.
To follow proper storage methods, you need redundant storage for protection from hardware failure. This means 3 drives minimum. 8TB now costs just under $450.
The cost to store perfect archival quality RAWs is about $0.001 per photo. One tenth of a single cent.
You may be running out of storage but if you actually care to keep your photos you have no excuse to not buy storage to keep them. People spend way more per-photo on prints and sleeves for photo albums all the time. Storing digital files is essentially free due to the astronomically low price. Yes, it's a lot of data, but storage is affordable.
If your photos aren't worth at least a tenth of a cent to you then I guess you can delete the RAWs after making shitty JPEGs from them. You'll likely regret deleting at least some of the RAWs later on in the future but again we're talking about photos that have been deemed as worthless so do what you want.
Also for the storage look at WD Easystores. Best Buy almost always has a sale on them, they're $135 for 8TB right now but tomorrow that may change, next few weeks they'll probably be on sale again or another capacity (6TB, or 10TB) will be on sale so just shop smart and go by Dollars/TB around same value.
