I keep seeing people say "always shoot RAW" but honestly, dealing with the huge file sizes and extra editing steps is becoming a pain. My drone photos look pretty good straight out of camera in JPEG. Am I really missing out that much by not shooting RAW?

For context, I mainly shoot landscapes and real estate work. The JPEG files are already big enough for my clients and load way faster when I'm trying to review shots quickly. What's the real-world difference for aerial photography specifically?

RAW files capture 12-14 bits of brightness information (4,000-18,000 levels) compared to JPEG's 8-bit depth with only 256 levels. This gives you far more flexibility when editing. For real estate especially, being able to recover blown skies or lift shadows can save shots that would be unusable as JPEGs.

I felt the same way until I had a client ask me to brighten up some drone shots that were slightly underexposed. Try using RAW+JPEG setting - you get quick JPEG previews for immediate use and RAW files for detailed editing. Best of both worlds and you're covered if you need to make adjustments later.

Look, if your clients are happy with JPEGs and you're not having exposure issues, then keep doing what works. JPEG can be practical for tight deadlines or quick sharing. But the moment you need to fix a blown sky or recover shadow detail, you'll wish you had that RAW file. It's like insurance - you don't need it until you really need it.