Shooting JPEGS only.

<p>We shoot 99% of the time in JPEG. Only occasionally will we shoot in RAW. It isn't a matter of 'good enough' it's a matter of whether or not the bride can tell a difference. With programs like Lightroom there really isn't much of a difference, if any, except that JPEG is usually faster. If you can NAIL (like 95% of the time) exposure and white balance SOTC then shoot JPEG and save yourself the trouble. We can nail it so we shoot in it. Everything is a tool, so just find which tools work best for you. Even Becker shoots in JPEG. If it's good enough for him it's good enough for me.</p>

<p>Ditto Cathy & David...if it's good enough for Becker I'm pretty set (of course, that could have a lot to do with finding him pretty cute!)</p>

<p>I think we should all nore that jpeg is a lossy format in that no matter how much you try each time you open and save a jpeg you lose information.</p>

<p>Raw is bigger and harder to deal with but a friend showed me the amount of loss after 2 open and saves and it was major.</p>

<p>JPO</p>

<p><em>Even Becker shoots in JPEG. If it's good enough for him it's good enough for me.<br /></em><br />The question isn't "Is JPEG good enough for the photographer?" The question is, "Is the photographer good enough for JPEG?"</p>

<p>i recommend "Real World Camera Raw" i have the edition for CS2, 3-4 years ago was confused about the subject and this book was a good read. Matt is right about storage etc., you can even convert to dng to save some space if ya need...</p>

<p>I just whent back to count how many Raw Vs JPG I shoot.<br>

It seems to be about 40% raw 60% JPG.<br>

I do JPG for getting ready, Raw for ceremony + portraits + romantics, and JPG for the reception except the first dance which I shoot RAW.</p>

<p>As for the storage issue, I was just kicking this around in my head...</p>

<p>67,108,864 images on a 1 Ter drive that I just bought for $140. Actually 2 drives mirrored (instant backup) so that's $280.</p>

<p>Now, If I shoot 500 16 megabyte RAW pix at a wedding, that's 134,217 weddings that I can store on this mirrored pair, costing me a big $.002 (yep TWO THENTHS OF A PENNY) per wedding.</p>

<p>How many of you cheapskates were buying the $2/roll film to shoot a wedding? Not me. I think I was paying about $8/roll and shooting 216 pix per wedding ($48 in film plus another $4/roll for processing with NO PRINTS).</p>

<p>What exactly is too expensive about RAW again? Apple's Aperture or Adobe's Lightroom pays for itself in pretty short order by my math...</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>If I were a perfect shooter, JPEG would be good enough. Since I'm not perfect, JPEG isn't good enough. And since I never know when a moment of imperfection will rear it's ugly head, I shoot all RAW, all the time. In post, I adjust as much as possible in ACR, process down to JPEG using Noise Ninja and Imagenomic Portraiture, and apply finishing touches with Photoshop.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>let me state that i am a convinced dedicated jpeg shooter. my jpeg are as good as anybodys raw images. i put a great deal of effort time skill knowledge and experience into getting a high quality jpeg. and most importantly i have been getting the good results.<br>

however, there are 3 situations where i would switch to raw in an instant without any second thought. they are- 1. where i do not have the time to properly setup the shot 2. where something is in the images that needs correcting and the raw converter is the easiest place to do it. and finally 3. where the lighting conditions are such that the shooter has no idea of what the lighting really is and the type of light is or the light sources are mixed. this means that the wb is very difficult to get in the field at the moment of the shots. under these conditions the wb is best left to the pc and the raw converter. and number 3 is definately speaking about wedding photograghy.<br>

the proper technique would be to use a known white card and take test shots of each individual set of the different light conditions, and later run that test shot in the raw converter to get it right, and then all other shots done under those light conditions. you would need to run them through the converter in batches under the different sets of light conditions. this is precisely what tjhe raw ability to work under different and unknown light conditons that the raw system was made for. i realize that the jpeg is far more convienent but you are talking about a professional paid photographic job, and not a hobby. you MUST get it right and that includes all the colors exactly are they really are/were in the real scene. that is what the b+g or the bride's mother is paying for.<br>

i have been shooting with a slr/dslr since 1970, this is my 39th yr, and i know absolutely how to get a extremely high quality jpeg. so good that you cannot tell it from a raw shot when printed. BUT, we are talking about a paid photo job not a hobby. raw gives you that degree of wb that is needed. under professional conditions and requirements you cannot afford not to shoot raw. ytou simply need it for the accurate wb.</p>

<p>I now shoot raw and max-rez JPEGs simultaneously. I didn't always. Dumb mistake.</p>

<p>I've never regretted shooting both. I use the JPEGs straight from the camera when they're perfect. That's usually my goal. But I've had occasions to regret not having shot raw to accompany my JPEGs. Too late, I discovered the persistent problem with magenta casts and occasionally horrible greenish shadows in faces, from my D2H in some artificial light. Not easy to correct with only JPEGs to work from.</p>

<p>When I first got my dSLR CF cards were very expensive and even with a 4 mp dSLR I could easily fill up a 1 GB CF card, so I occasionally shot JPEG only. It was a practical, if not ideal, compromise then. Now it doesn't make sense unless you're absolutely certain the JPEGs will be perfect right out of the camera.</p>

<p>The only time I shoot JPEG-only now is for experiments and high volume, low quality stuff, like rapid fire sequence shots that will be converted to lo-rez animated GIFs. I don't need raw for that.</p>

<p>Just to keep things in balance a bit ... there are several "famous" photographers out who used to brag about how they can do great with jpg that have more recently converted to using RAW and regret waiting so long. Life is interesting.</p>

<p>One well know wedding photographer, Parker Pfister, used to proclaim loudly that he shot all weddings in jpg. Parker has recently switched to using RAW because he realized there is more that can be done with the file and it's just about the same as dealing with a jpg with very little, if any, downside at all. </p>

<p>Here's some of his work: http://www.parkerjphoto.com/site/home.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p >I shoot RAW + JPEG (L) for everything. It suits me and suits my workflow. I have to make one fewer preliminary decision - in this regard it is set and forget: digital memory is soooooooo cheap: so is digital storage.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >For the Weddings I shoot - the RAW file is usually used. For everything else, mostly I use only the JPEG file. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Although I always capture with the intention of nailing the exposure and the WB 100% perfect, I am human, and, more importantly I am in business. I like the insurance that RAW capture provides for my Wedding Clients - kind of like why I never would shoot a Wedding on Ektachrome Professional but rather exploit the insurance of using a Professional Negative film.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Camera only shoot in Raw. That whats comes out of a sensor. There is a processor in the camera that converts the image to Jpeg for storage on the card. I am convinced that good software on a computer will do a better job of creating a Jpeg. <br /> Couple that with the fact that you have more data available to make post processing corrections. These corrections are made before the Jpeg is made.<br /> And if I'm not mistaken, don't Jpegs deteriorate a little , each time their edited.</p>

<p>For events and weddings I usually shoot a compressed raw format. I do this because I find it much easier and faster to process files and white balance in Lightroom with the raw capabilities. Exposure adjustments look a lot better also.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I hope Philip's intention was not to start up the RAW vs JPEG debate again coz there have been quite a few already.</p>

<p>It really depends, most of the time I shoot in RAW. Because its the closest I can ever get to a film negative, although I still think film is a lot more flexible.</p>

<p>If I'm doing shoot and burn (please don't flame me for this), I shoot in JPEG because I have to burn the images on disc(s) right after the wedding.</p>

<p><em>"One well know wedding photographer, Parker Pfister, used to proclaim loudly that he shot all weddings in jpg. Parker has recently switched to using RAW because he realized there is more that can be done with the file and it's just about the same as dealing with a jpg with very little, if any, downside at all.</em><br>

<em>Here's some of his work:</em> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.parkerjphoto.com/site/home.html" target="_blank">http://www.parkerjphoto.com/site/home.html</a> ..." -William Morgan</p>

<p>IMO Parker is the best in the business, I also defended shooting JPGs because he did as well...... Personally, I won't weigh-in on the RAW -vs- JPG debate, it's all been covered many, many, many times before. I think the reference to Parker is likely the most useful information in the thread.</p>

<p>I think shooting raw is cheap insurnace. So why not do it. You have so much more latitude and editing optoins wiht raw files. I actually shoot raw + jpeg. I use the jpegs for quick proofs and the raw files for editing and prints.</p>

<p>100% Raw. I shot jpeg for the first 2 years after I switched from film to digital, but now all Raw with no regrets. I process all files in Lightroom with no problems. I recently shot a dance competition and processed over 8,000 Raw files in just a matter of days. For me, it just works.</p>

<p>This issue drives me crazy.<br>

We spend a lot of hard-earned money to buy cameras with the very best sensor technology, and lenses that can transmit light to the sensor with the highest fidelity.<br>

Then we throw a great of that information away by only saving a highly compressed jpeg. Even the best quality jpeg has a high degree of information loss compared to a 14 bit RAW image... just look at the difference in file sizes. The jpeg is smaller because it has less information content. Why wouldn't everyone want the most information possible in each image?<br>

Computer technology (especially storage) is inexpensive compared to camera bodies and high-quality lenses. Why anyone who is paid to produce photographs of a once in a lifetime event (ok, maybe two or three times in a life) would shoot only jpegs is a total mystery to me. But then people also spend money for high-performance auto tires and then drive for years without maintaining the correct tire pressure. Their tires perform like inexpensive ones and their safety is compromised as well. Go figure.</p>

<p>I Shoot only Real RAW and Real RAW+ ;)<br>

(Inside Joke - those who have beenh to Ken Rockwells site will understand)<br>

Seriously though, if I were a wedding shooter, I would have a stack of large capacity CF cards and shoot JPEG+RAW. Use jpegs to save time, RAW for important fixes/as a safety net.</p>

<p>My reply to the use of jpegs:</p>

<p>Shooting jpeg is one of those things that makes me say "hmmmm".</p>

"What percentage of Raw vs. JPEGS do you shoot?" 100% JPEG :) For now at least ;-)

When this topic often pops up I cringe! You always get the same responses! For events, such as Holiday parties, when you have a backdrop setup, with strobes and umbrellas set to the proper exposures and you are printing on site, 5x7's and/or 8x10's, jpegs works great for me. With this one exception I shoot everything else in raw. Heck, I have the dang 1Ds Mk3 so why not get the most out of this beast of a camera, or for that matter any camera.

<p>Raw.</p>

<p>Because it is better than jpegs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dismissing RAW for JPEG being good enough is like saying a straight print opposed to a custom print from a negative is not noticeable.</p>

<p>The advantages of a RAW file can make or break an image. If JPEG's are good enough for you, and your exposure regimen is accurate and consistant, good for you. But many photographers come from film based exposure techniques that need more "adjustability" than JPEG will allow. So RAW files can help alleviate that error factor. Not to mention the high bit versus low bit argument. TIFF's from RAW are common, but JPEG's are 8 bit from the get go. Details are lost.</p>

<p>Convenience. Or quality. These choices are the difference. And a choice is subjective at best.</p>