Shooting JPEGS only.

<p>(for the record, I always speak from my own perspective and opinion, and try never to make declarations. The original poster asked to hear from each of us on what we do, and what our own policy is on JPEG/RAW)</p>

<p>Choosing JPEG is about whether or not one can see significant difference in the outcome of what one does, or not. I KNOW RAW can capture more highlight detail in high contrast situations. Most of the time, other than such a situation, I can see no meaningful difference, if I auto-convert RAW with the supplied software which preserves the camera image settings for contrast, WB, etc. If I do not auto-convert, and attempt to do all my own adjustments, I can fool around for-everrr and the camera's JPEG looks BETTER to me out of my camera model, than my efforts with RAW. Other camera models may not be so.</p>

<p>Some photographers are not computer/darkroom people. I am one. I am not trying to be Ansel Adams, though I admire the kind of work those who do this are sometimes capable of. I am satisfied with trying to capture the moment as accurately as possible right up front with no post-processing, or as little as I can get away with. That is the way I like to work, but I can understand how others feel differently. I generally dislike having to manipulate volumes of images at a computer, while others enjoy doing it. A high-quality JPEG can undergo moderate adjustments post process if needed, but not to the degree of RAW. For me, the most satisfying post process is no post process. </p>

<p>I bought Adobe CS pro and rarely use it. It wound up being a waste of money. If I must, I use PSE. It is easier, quicker, and more efficient. I am not likely to invest in Lightroom because most of the time it will just sit there unused. I'd be better off putting the money into an outboard hard drive with a good storage filing program. </p>

<p>For me, I use RAW when the situation indicates I may benefit from doing so. If unsure, I shoot both. My camera has a dedicated RAW button for instant access. 90% of my shots are JPEG, require little or no post processing, and I am happy with the results. That is all that counts. Other people, who have other shooting interests, other equipment, or enjoy doing volume image manipulation, may well have another outlook and that is fine. </p>

<p>I shoot RAW, it works for me. You should try RAW and Jpeg and see if you can find a difference. And then do what works for you.</p>

<p>RAW all the time, even on non-wedding assignments where i am on deadline. I just convert using Aperture, and get better saturation and vibrance. Not really too much longer of a workflow. Since I bought a 5D MKII, I always travel with lots of cards and space on my laptop to transfer. Last wedding I shot took up 20 GB of storage. But then afain, I have 2.5 Tb of storage at home.</p>

<p>All I know is that I just got in from a wedding. I shot from noon until 9pm, and have about 12 gigs of images to deal with, and all but a handful are JPEG. Most of them will need little or no processing. I'm so glad I don't have 30 or 40 gigs of RAWs to contend with, each one having to be batch or individually adjusted and processed as JPEG.</p>

<p>When I put them in a slideshow at the reception and projected them on the wall, the slideshow was able to run smoothly. With 19 meg RAW files, it is sluggish on the transitions. Everyone loved it!</p>

<p>You know what, ya gotta keep an open mind. Some cameras do a respectable job at converting to jpgs in camera, some don't. It's best to try it in different conditions to see what works for you with your specific camera.</p>

<p>If you investigate the different post processing programs and the plug-ins or pre-sets available for them on the internet, you may find that your computer is more powerful than your in-camera processing. In other cases, it may be that jpgs from the camera are all you want or need.</p>

<p>I tend to shoot RAW and use Light Room Presets to batch/sync process whole sets of images in similar conditions. <br>

However, Lightroom will process jpgs and or tiffs in batch/sync also.</p>

<p>There is no right or wrong, only personal preference and habits which are hard to break once you have them down pat.</p>

<p>I also use all three types of file formats ... I save all keeper images as corrected LR RAW files which the client never gets; All those corrected keepers are processed as jpgs for the client's use. Of those Keepers, I select maybe 200 to 300 prime images in a LR collection for light retouching like obvious facial blemishes, and perspective corrections, application of actions, etc. ... those are saved as tiffs to preserve the 16 bit color ... these are the images most likely to be ordered by the client as enlargements. The final step is selection of the album images from the prime grouping ... 100 or more may be in this selection depending on what album they choose.</p>

<p>However, I have a super powerful computer and 15 TB of Firewire-8 off computer storage designed for our commercial photography using 39 meg digital backs. So speed and storage of wedding images isn't an issue. </p>

<p>I couldn't possibly read all the above responses, but here's my opinion on a couple of things.</p>

<p>First, in response to Bob's comment that "12-bit and 14-bit RAW files have <strong>significantly </strong> more information than 8-bit JPG files." This is true, but once you convert your files to jpg to send to your lab you're back down to 8-bit, so it's a mute point. And no one sends their lab 12-bit or 14-bit TIFF files for printing. Even if you did, the results would be exactly the same since labs only print in the sRGB color space, which is very small and will not accommodate the color range of an Adobe RGB color space.</p>

<p>As for whether to shoot jpg or RAW files, it mainly depends on your experience and confidence level. I've been shooting documentary-style weddings for 18 years and shoot jpg's 80% of the time at weddings. Unless you have a tremendous amount of extra time on your hands, it is much more efficient to shoot jpg files when you ultimately want jpg files. But when the lighting conditions are mixed, or difficult, it's definitely best to shoot RAW files and fine-tune it in the lab. So I often shoot RAW files during the ceremony and occasionally at the reception.</p>

<p>Basically, time is money and processing requires time. So if you ultimately want jpg files, shoot jpg files, unless you're not able to get the exposure and light temp fairly close. Here's a great article from one of the best (Will Crockett) when it comes to getting advice like this:</p>

<p>http://www.shootsmarter.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=118&acat=16</p>

<p>By the way, I shoot primarily corporate and commercial photography and shoot exclusively RAW for that. But that's because my clients want RAW and/or TIFF files. And as a result I now have six 750GB HD's on my desktop and another 6 at a friends house that mirror them!<br>

<br /> Happy shooting!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And contrary to what some of the above people have said, there is no more information in a jpg that was converted from a RAW file and a jpg that was shot in-camera. None. They are exactly the same.<br /> <br /> Even if you want to crop from a "landscape" to a "portrait" there will be no difference in the quality.</p>

<p>And the bride & groom are not getting an inferior product because their photographer shot jpg's rather than RAW. Because in the end, they are getting jpg files, regardless of how or when they became jpg files.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And contrary to what some of the above people have said, there is no more information in a jpg that was converted from a RAW file and a jpg that was shot in-camera. None. They are exactly the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually - every RAW processor is different. Some apply curves, so the colors will be different. Noise reduction. White balance schemes, etc are all applied differently. <br>

True - there is no MORE information in one jpg vs another (assuming loss-less compression), BUT the information that gets thrown away between RAW & JPG will be different based on what did the conversion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>once you convert your files to jpg to send to your lab you're back down to 8-bit, so it's a mute point. And no one sends their lab 12-bit or 14-bit TIFF files for printing. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> Maybe I'm spoiled because Matt has been involved in printing, print shops, and presses for so long that it's part and partial to how we process things around here. ALSO - this may be the "art" side of things coming out also, as opposed to someone who is more concerned about the colors and exposure.

<p>YES, we are sending 8bit JPG to the printer, BUT... It's what can be done to those jpgs BEFORE they become jpg. Without as much information, you can't control as much, your final result IS different.<br>

Two examples - first recent in our portrait experience. We've been shooting some rather large groups lately - 12+. We go ahead and use a backdrop because we're inside where there just isn't a good space to use existing decor. But, there's maybe 2 of the grand kids who's shoulders JUST came off the edge of the backdrop, or you can see our stands, but cropping is only going to remove 80% of the problem....<br>

Exporting (from Aperture to Photoshop) TIFFs, keeping the 16bit color is going to allow Matt to clone and expand the backdrop and the wood floor in a way that will look much more natural. Can it be done in JPG? SURE!! But it looks much better done in TIFF & compressed down after.<br>

Ok, 3 examples. I want an art print - just for me even, not with the thought of going into an album. I'm going to keep the colors at 16bit and play. A lot. The difference in control means I can put that print just exactly where I want it, not just something close. And it's that control that is all-important. Obviously there are people who don't care about having that much control, or don't miss having it. There are plenty of us who do, and aren't scared of "storage" sizes or "speed" (because the software isn't slow to start with....).</p>

<p>Last example - equate this to the world of sound. Ever see the sound board in a recording studio? Ever ask a sound engineer why they need so many controls?<br>

I'm sure their results would be "just as good" if they only had generic control over bass, treble, and mid-tones. Surely they don't need to control each level depending on it's Hz... surely they don't really need to record each voice, each instrument individually and control their volumes and mixing individually. I'm POSITIVE that the end result would be just as good if they "did it right in the first place."</p>

<p>What people seem to be forgetting is that we're documenting weddings here. And capturing beautiful & important moments is by far more important than deciding what will be a better file; a jpg shot in-camera or a jpg processed from a RAW file in the lab. I can assure you that in the end you can make an 11x14 print from either and even a professional won't be able to tell the difference. And the client definitely won't see the difference, or care.<br /> <br /> The real reason so many wedding & portrait shooters choose RAW as their primary file is because they are too far out of control to shoot JPEGS. This will offend some people, but it's true. You need to have exposure and color under control to shoot in JPEG, you don't in RAW. If you can learn to master exposure and color balance before the shutter is released, you can shoot in JPEG and get great files in a fraction of the time to shoot and process RAW.<br /> <br /> If you can shoot jpeg, you will make more money. It's that simple. The less time you spend in the RAW file processor the better, right? Well, if you can get in control of exposure and color balance, you can shoot jpegs and get GREAT print quality"<br /> <br /> As for being able to do so much more with a file BEFORE it's converted to an 8-bit jpg and sent to your printer, well, I would suggest you do a comparison sometime and see for yourself. Shoot something in RAW+jpg, tweak the RAW file all you want and convert it to a jpg. Then tweak the jpg file shot in-camera as much as you'd like and have prints made from both. Stand at 3 feet and see how many times out of ten you can point out the print made from the jpg that was originally a RAW file.<br /> <br /> Then decide if it's worth spending 16 hours editing a wedding or 8 hours. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The topic of of RAW-vs-JPG is certainly not dead, as made evident by the recent responses in this thread. Well-thought contributions continue to make my visits here worthwhile.</p>

<p>In the meantime, technology marches on. As noted before, RAW work flow was a more a time-consuming and storage-consuming process just a few years ago, but the process has become remarkably streamlined by faster computers and better software. My output may ultimately be an 8-bit JPEG destined the photo lab, but it <em>all goes through Lightroom</em> whether it began as a Canon CR2 or an in-camera JPEG. <em>My effort is the same.</em> The difference is knowing I have more headroom and latitude <em>when I need it or want it</em> . If I don't want to bother with any special effort, having CR2's instead of JPEGs on my NAS causes no pain. I export to a web gallery or disc and the job is done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The real reason so many wedding & portrait shooters choose RAW as their primary file is because they are too far out of control to shoot JPEGS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sooo.... Was Ansel Adams out of control? Is that why he did so much "post-processing" in the darkroom?<br>

<br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you can shoot jpeg, you will make more money. It's that simple IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You use a $600 PC, don't you? 5 years ago, RAW was a pain in the butt. I agreed with David Ziser when he said "RAW is Wrong." Today, if processing RAW files takes you appreciably longer than jpegs, you have a serious workflow issue.</p>

<p>My bottom line: The time and cost related to shooting RAW over JPEG is negligible. The only time I notice is when I'm capturing images from one of my class 6 SD card into Aperture. That's it. No other drawbacks for me. Hardly a reason to voluntarily throw away my 'negatives.' If I were shooting JPEGs, I'd still own the same Macs that I own today, I'd still use Aperture for organizing, editing, and archiving photographs, and I'd still have 2 8 gig cards in each camera. I haven't spent a dime extra to support RAW shooting.<br>

<br /><br>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, I shoot primarily corporate and commercial photography and shoot exclusively RAW for that.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I see my wedding customers to be as important as any other customers. I think they want me to treat them in the same manner as well. Interesting that we can determine that corporate and commercial is more at an importance level that dictates we use on RAW for them but for a wedding we can downgrade to shooting jpg. </p>

<p>Why not offer the same service given the ease of processing for RAW these days? I understand that the day is long and some photos aren't deemed "important" by wedding photographers but I'd be willing to venture that the families who spend good money for wedding photography do see thier photography as important and if educated they would ask that their wedding photographer shoot using the best image files possible if the photographer is using the same camera. Obviously, most photographers feel it's important to use RAW for imporant customers so why are the wedding customers seen to be "less than". </p>

<p>Not at all being argumentative: not my intention ... it's more a thought in how we seem to decide our process based less on what our wedding customers might want as opposed to what our corporate and commercial customers might want. Shoot the way you want ... the way that works for you but if you use RAW for commercial and corporate all the time there must be a reason you do it that way: it's a better process to insure good results. That's the reason, right?</p>

<p>William, the criteria for commercial work is a bit different than for wedding photography. An image may be used on the web one day, and be cropped and sized for billboard the next, then used as a wall display to be viewed at arm's length the next. This is partly why clients require larger, higher resolution files with full bit depth color space. Many of these shots are done with Medium Format Digital systems up to 60 meg.</p>

<p>What IS revealing when using commercial work as a comparison is that none of the MFD cameras shoot jpgs. They are all proprietary RAW files that have a final destination of lower resolution printing in the truncated CMYK color space ... yet are originally shot as RAW and processed as 16 bit (or more), in the large Pro RGB color space. The argument that we shoot more images is not correct either ... many commercial jobs yield thousands of shots also.</p>

<p>The fact is that the processing engines inside a camera are no match for the much more powerful RAW processing programs and computers available today. There is only so much they can stuff into a small camera body, where that restriction is all but eliminated with-in a modern computer.</p>

<p>In a sense, color fidelity should be of as much concern to us as a fashion shooter. Brides spend endless amounts of time selecting Bridesmaids dresses, flowers and accents ... not to mention skin tones. More bit depth going in helps preserve true color. And even tough the end result may be sRGB 8 bit prints, what is being worked with going in is more accurate. There is a reason that Canon and Nikon offer the choice of 12 or 14 bit & Adobe RGB capture ... better color accuracy. And those MFD systems I mentioned are all 16 bit capture ... there is no other choice until you get to the processing engine in the computer.</p>

<p>Just some food for thought if one is NOT satisfied with their image fidelity and color reproduction ... if you are satisfied please ignore the above : -) </p>

<p>Posting here and getting informative feedback is valued, thanks Marc for clarity. I want to advocate for bridal couples when I "think" they are being shorted.</p>

<p>(I am just coming off my Saturday wedding ... I'm carrying residue from observing a DJ and venue operator run the timeline in order to serve their own selfish interests instead of thinking of the bride and groom and the families; it makes my day shorter but it really doesn't serve the bride and groom and the families and it burns me to no end. I shouldn't have let it pour over into this thread.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sooo.... Was Ansel Adams out of control? Is that why he did so much "post-processing" in the darkroom?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Not a good comparison. Ansel Adams did not have digital technology. He HAD to do all his enhancement work in the darkroom by default. Plus, most of his work was B&W. But, I'm sure he did get it as "right" in camera as possible.</p>

<p><em>(I am just coming off my Saturday wedding ... I'm carrying residue from observing a DJ and venue operator run the timeline in order to serve their own selfish interests instead of thinking of the bride and groom and the families;</em><br>

Did we shoot the same wedding?? I had a similar DJ issue.</p>

<p>Isn't interesting that most of the JPEG shooters say, "I shoot JPEG because it works for me." Many of the RAW shooters insist that RAW is the "only way to work". I always get nervous when someone says that their way is the only way . . .</p>

<p>it is more interesting that this thread has become a jpeg vs raw thread. and THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS ASKED BY THE OP. he wanted to know which of the 2 formats is the way to shoot a wedding. period. not which is better based on a pile of preducies.<br>

i wrote my reply far above based on which i would use to shoot a wedding and why, and not which i shoot all the time. and that is jpeg by the way. i stated at the outset in my reply that i get jpeg images that as good as anybody's raw images and i am a dedicated convinced jpeg shooter. but i answered the op's question based on the situation of shooting a wedding which is not the same thing at all as a raw vs jpeg debate.</p>

<p>Most readers should be able discern the mostly-JPEG team from the mostly-RAW team in this discussion. Learning a shooter's RAW/JPEG ratio, however, answers only a simple question. The OP asked for <em>what</em> , and most of us have also responded with <em>why</em> , providing a far greater and more useful amount of fact and opinion.<br /> <br /> Answering the OP's questions <em>only</em> , with no exposition, I submit the following:</p>

<ul>

<li><em>What percentage of Raw vs. JPEGS do you shoot?</em> <br /> <br /> <strong>100% / 0%</strong> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><em>Have we reached a stage where JPEGS are "good enough"?</em> <br /> <br /> <strong>No</strong> (or, if you prefer a gracious response, "No, in my opinion")</li>

</ul>

<p>Without a healthy debate, all we have is a poll. ;-)</p>

 

<p>I don't see where the OP asked 'which of the 2 formats is the way to shoot a wedding'. I just answered the questions, way above. However, since we do seem to be having a healthy debate, I would like to say the following.</p>

<p>I am tired of hearing the JPEG supporter's line about getting it right in the camera (if you shoot RAW, you must be a sub par photographer). I am also tired of hearing the RAW supporter's line about shortchanging the client (if you shoot JPEG, you must be a sub part photographer). I am also tired of hearing the line about 'so and so using JPEG/RAW so it must be the best way'. Ditto for the person who stands on his or her supposedly illustrious background (either for or against).</p>

<p>If you go back and read through this thread, leaving out all the proclamations based upon ego, you will find a bunch of facts and a bunch of workflow options that a thinking photographer can use to construct a valid workflow suitable for his or her particular quality standards--with either JPEG or RAW. I sincerely hope that the OP's intention was just to conduct a poll, as I stated above.</p>

<p>Well Ed, some on both sides of the debate sound pretty shrill to me.</p>

<p>It is pretty much a well established fact that photography is a blend of science and art. Perhaps more today than in past because many of us are doing the job the labs used to do. </p>

<p>Some offer claims that their jpg work is as good as anyone's RAW processed files ... which is a subjective answer from a jpg user and has zero mathematical or scientific facts to back it up. Were is there scientific proof that an 8 bit s RGB jpg from a camera processor holds the equal amount of data that a 12 or 14 bit RAW file processed in a program such as C1 or Lightroom?</p>

<p>If we look at the progress of photographic processing programs, a vast majority of innovations in recent years have been to squeeze more and more Image Quality of each file. More and more Photoshop Tools have been made workable in 16 bit which is not available for 8 bit jpgs. </p>

<p>It is also interesting to note that if you create a correction layer in Photoshop on a jpg file it cannot be saved ... the file is flattened or a second copy has to be made. With a RAW file the original is always preserved, and if worked on in Photoshop the correction layer is preserved separately.</p>

<p>So, if one wishes versatility they can have it ... it's simply a matter of preference and choice. I personally think it is nice to have a choice. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nadine, that was a very well thought-out and lucid statement, and one with which I concur. Well said.</p>

<p>Marc, I concur with you as well, that we all have a choice based on our own needs.</p>

<p>There is really no need for sarcasm or elitism in this debate, we simply use what works best for each of us.</p>

<p>I used to shoot both and used raw for the tough lighting photos that I had trouble balancing in jpeg. I found that I didn't use the raw much so I went to jpeg only. When I changed from CS2 to CS4 I liked the ACR better and I am able to do a better job of raw processing with it, so I am shooting raw only. I don't think it takes my anymore time than strictly working jpegs and more importantly I am producing better looking images.</p>

<p>Now those of you with a lot of photoshop-fu should know the answer to this, regarding bit depth.</p>

<p>JPEGs are an 8-bit logarithmically scaled image, yes? And RAW (as nonstandard as they are) are either 12 or 14 bit linearly scaled images, yes?</p>

<p>So it seems to me, then, that the benefit of a RAW vs a JPEG is not so much in recovering blown highlights, where most of the information in a JPEG is "stacked" anyway as it is in recovering the underexposed shadows, where the JPEG might have an arbitrarily low number of levels (say, 4) whereas the RAW might have several (an order of magnitude more).<br>

I can see that maybe RAWs have more resolution all around, but the ratio of RAW levels vs JPEG levels is much higher in the dark portions of the photograph (again, unless I'm backwards and turned upside down).<br>

I suppose the real interest in highlight recovery would be to see how many RAW levels there are between the highest JPEG color (or is luminance the word I want?) levels (say, JPEG 254 and 255). Any mathematicians in the group?</p>