Is it just me, or is 16Bit RAW REALLY inconvenient?

[NewG2]

I had planned to use only RAW mode for my images, but data transfer takes too long to be practical when we take @5-10 pictures DAILY that we want to keep.

Guess I'll only use RAW mode for portraits or serious shooting, not for family outings and kids...

I haven't noticed ANY compression artifacts on superfine mode anyway.

Anyone else have observations, or perhaps tips on how to make this less of an annoyance? I could go to 8bit RAW extraction....am I giving up any color quality by doing so?

[justincase]

i only use RAW for setup portraits or important shots or where the lighting is tricky. i've been very happy with the highest quality JPEG setting otherwise.

[Don Ellis]

The only inconvenient part of 16-bit RAW is that you can only do a few things on the file in Photoshop before you must convert it to 8-bit. If the photo isn't properly exposed, the additional data can be helpful, but if it is properly exposed, there's not much reason to convert to 16-bit -- use the smaller 8-bit files.

My workflow page (http://www.kleptography.com/notes-workflow.htm) will give you an idea of how I approach RAW to make it comparatively easy.

I typically take 20-100 pictures or more at any one time and still use RAW mode, but you seem concerned about the extra time for 5-10 photos at 15 seconds apiece for conversion. If you can't spare the time and are happy with JPG, keep using it.