Poll: Do you shoot your weddings in RAW or JPEG

Russ, I think that's because far more people used to shoot jpeg in the past, when available

software meant that it was a lot quicker to process.

 

Things have changed. Now that software is available that means that you can actually process

a full batch of RAW files in less time than it would have previously taken to process jpeg files,

more and more people are realising that there is no real benefit anymore to shooting jpeg.

 

Even card space is cheap nowadays, so even that is no longer a reason.

Generally I don't really give a rip if anyone shoots RAW or JPG.....but, just for the record, I primarily shoot JPGs.

RAW only.

RAW. Shot JPEG when I first start as the camera I was using could only shoot 3 RAWs before stopping. Now its only RAW for everything

how do jpegs require less post processing than raw (assuming everything is exposed properly)? If you expose properly then the format shouldn't matter.

RAW always for me.

I fought trying Raw for a long time..... now I would never go back.

 

Elaine

Mercedes vs. BMW

 

Apple vs. PC

 

Nikon vs. Canon

 

RAW vs. JPG

 

and so forth...

 

All moot comparisons IMHO. Do any of the answers above influence you?

I shoot 100% .jpg but have nothing against RAW. Just never used it.

Never had any problems and happy with outcomes so not changing. If ever I feel the need I will be posting here for raw help for sure.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Blase

You can generate JPGs from RAW, so what good reason would you limit yourself by not shooting RAW all the time?

What's jpeg???<p>Kidding aside, it's all RAW for me.

Results of the above answers:

 

Raw only = 20.5

 

JPG only = 5.5

 

No answer = 5 (but most implied they leaned to Raw only)

 

Fractions are for people who shoot both formats (3 people claimed such).

 

If you have not upgraded to CS3 and seen the MUCH IMPROVED ACR 4.x over the relatively crude ACR 3.7 in CS2, I think the JPG-only shooters might start thinking otherwise. Also, CS4 is in very early Beta already; its likely release is 1Q 2008.

Err... its likely release is 1Q 2009 (oh-nine).

JPEG 75% of the time. Why would I not shoot RAW? [in my opinion] - Third party RAW converters like ACR/Lightroom have bad colors (that no calibration can correct in all lighting scenarios [in my experience]), while the better ones (Capture NX & Canon DPP) are ridiculous to work with on large shoots [in my experience]. I never understood this "if I could control the light" business to be honest. To me it translates to "if I could produce consistent exposures...". White Balance is easy to correct on JPEGs these days. I shoot RAW for personal things, since I may want to do heavy stuff in post, but for weddings and such, no point [for me].

 

Bogdan

Don't understand the part above about "3rd party raw convertors have bad colors..." That's not been proven.

"Third party RAW converters like ACR/Lightroom have bad colors"

 

That's news to me too!

<B>"...Capture NX & Canon DPP) are ridiculous to work with on large shoots..."</B>

<P>

Only for people that don't know how to use them properly.

<p>

When I can process over 1200 RAW rough images down to 322 final images delivered to the bride and groom in around 12 hours - I can honestly say that Capture NX is a GREAT program. But then again - I have put in the time and effort to learn how to use it efficiently.

<p>

Additionally - the latest ACR version does a very good job for those people that are Cature NX challenged.

As Ken tallied the comments in this "poll" on RAW vs JPEG usage - more and more people are realizing that with today's faster processors and dirt cheap larger hard drives - using RAW to get the best possible image out of our digital cameras is the best choice for our customers.

 

Another similiar discussion on flickr was even more lopsided in favor of using the RAW format.

Andrew asked for a poll just to see why people chose what they did. I happen to agree with Bogdan--may not be true now, but when I tried ACR in CS2, I thought the color processing was terrible compared to DPP. I was using DPP until I started with Lightroom. See this is the thing--everyone is entitled to their opinions and do as they see fit for their business and clients. No need to homogenize the workflow.

RAW, RAW and RAW!

"Third party RAW converters like ACR/Lightroom have bad colors"

 

That's news to me too and I'd like to see some proof of that claim.

Ellis, the proof is in one's eyes. However, ACR's reds are indeed problematic. They were under tungsten light until 4.4. They still are under daylight. There is a big compromise. If you calibrate for a good red, the skin tone patch and hence skin tones look wrong. And so on and so forth, but that is the largest problem for me. You can search the web, Adobe's own forums, etc. for examples. There is plenty out there.

 

 

You don't need to be a rocket scientist, or any kind of scientist, to know how to use Capture NX or DPP. They are just not *efficient* in comparison with Bridge/ACR, Lightroom, C1, etc. in how I use them and how many others do.

My point was that Capture NX is NOT <b>"...ridiculous to work with on large shoots..."</b>

<p>

You may not prefer to use it - but I can testify that it can be very efficient. Your way of using Capture NX may not work out for you, but your blanket statement is not true for many others who DO use it efficently.

Weddings I shoot in JPG due to sheer quantity of cards needed (I shoot 1Ds3's), everything else I shoot RAW.

 

Interestingly, I went to a Gary Fong Seminar last year and when asked the same question he responded that he shot his most recent wedding (in 2007) with a 4.1 Megapixel Nikon shooting JPG's.

Who cares, as long as the customer is happy?

 

Later,

 

Paulsky