18 Mp and RAW for wedding

<p>I shoot Raw for my important shoots with my 7d. I have a long wedding coming up and I usually take lots of pictures. Eventhough I just got a 8gb/quadcore superduper desktop computer (boy does upgrading that thing make my life better) I am contemplating on just shooting Med Raw, which is only 10mp vs 18mp in large Raw. It also matches my 12 Mp 5d file size better. I am kind of balking at buying more CF cards. I have three 8 Mb cards and one 4Mb. Am I the only one quietly thinking: Why so many pixels? Other than landscape photographers who sells giant prints, does every wedding photographer use the largest file settings on EVERY picture taken at a wedding? (I get the Raw part).</p>

<p>Maybe I am still traumatized by my slow laptop, trying to edit 2000 pictures on my last big shoot was more than I could handle.</p>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong here since I don't shoot Canon ... but isn't the smaller RAW file just lossless compressed for the sake of more storage capacity? So, in theory, there is no difference when you open the file. </p>

<p>Why balk at more CF cards? They've become dirt cheap compared to the past. (I think you mean 8 GB not 8 MB : -) Maybe you should have a few more CFs so you don't have to load up each one to capacity (which can invite card failure). </p>

<p>You ask "why higher resolution?" My question would be: why did you get a high resolution camera in the first place? BTW, 10 or 12MB in a crop frame camera isn't the same as 10 or 12MB full frame sensor. Reasonably decent resolution provides the option of cropping without as much loss of quality. It also provides smoother tonal transitions. Basically, many (not all) shooters strive for as much digital data as possible going into the processing stage, even if the end product is a sRGB 8" X 10" Jpg. End print size isn't necessarily the criteria, fidelity of capture is. </p>

<p>If you are overwhelmed by 2000 images, stop shooting 2000 images ... LOL! (personally, I'd be overwhelmed by 2000 shots myself, and I have a computer that's twice as powerful as yours and am VERY fast at editing in Lightroom, which IMO has the fastest workflow of any RAW processor out there). </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I am still traumatized by my slow laptop, trying to edit 2000 pictures on my last big shoot was more than I could handle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>then maybe weddings are not for you. that type of culling is necessary for this line of job. If you don't really enjoy it, then maybe its time to find another type of photography you enjoy before you invest more money in gears and arrive to the same conclusion years down the road.</p>

<p>I can't tell you how many times in the past I've wished I'd had a larger file! I used to shoot some things in the largest, finest jpeg in order to save memory space and make editing faster (not having to convert from RAW) until I had requests for enlargements that I couldn't fulfill; I also had images rejected by stock companies because the files weren't big enough.<br>

So don't miss that chance to sell your photo for an advertisement on the side of a bus! Use your equipment to it's fullest! Get more CF cards - they are cheap. Get another external hard drive - also cheap - and shoot at the highest quality your equipment allows!<br>

Having said that, I see your point. Many photographers are using 10-12Mb equipment and they are doing just fine. The quality of your work will not be diminished by shooting Med RAW.<br>

BTW - I feel your "overshooting" pain! Just did a long wedding and shot 1700 pictures. Almost all of them are great so shooting that many just makes my life harder!<br>

I'm trying to get it down to 1200 for an 8 hour shoot (150 an hour v. 200 an hour) but not having much luck with that. I swear to god, next time ... LOL!</p>

<p>[[ but isn't the smaller RAW file just lossless compressed for the sake of more storage capacity? So, in theory, there is no difference when you open the file.]]</p>

<p>No, they are of lower resolution. With the 7D you get 3 choices for RAW files:<br>

<b> </b><br /> • 5184 x 3456<br /> • 3888 x 2592<br /> • 2592 x 1728<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page2.asp</p>

<p>[[ I am kind of balking at buying more CF cards.]]</p>

<p>I'm sure your clients would be happy to hear you don't want to have enough storage on hand for their wedding.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Rob ... I wasn't sure. I've used cameras that do a lossless compressed RAW ... and evidently the 7D isn't one of them.</p>

<p>No Mark, I am not changing to another kind of photography. I just like things to be faster. I enjoy editing in LR and PS, but on my old laptop it was a major pain. Rob, my clients would not be happy if I didnt have enough storage on hand. My question was is there ANYBODY that uses their camera at a lower Raw resolution to speed things up? Like Laurel said, 10 Mp used to be enough. I understand about more data is better. Laurel, how many CF cards did you bring to that shoot?</p>

<p>Canon do not do lossy raws. Like Rob said, it's all in the image dimensions going small.</p>

<p>If you nail that one shot or two out of the 100's and shot in low-res raw you will regret. Your PC is fast enough to handle 600 wedding raw images. Just put them in three separate folders or something. Don't throw away resolution (nor would I advertise such under my real name).</p>

<p>So far, I have not. However, I am not yet processing my 5D II RAW files - my first two shoots with that camera are still about 2000 photos away.</p>

<p>I say just get more storage, things are going to get bigger and that's fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just like things to be faster. I enjoy editing in LR and PS, but on my old laptop it was a major pain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>then perhaps what you need is to upgrade your computer. by shooting in sraw just because your computer is not handling it is not fixing anything but the symptom. you are not addressing the problem.</p>

<p>and i don't even know why are you complaining about your processing speed with that rig. i run a 2 gb mem athlon 4200+ and i dont have any speed issues. and i go through 3-5k images per wedding.</p>

<p>maybe its your workflow that needs to be revisited.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have three 8 Mb cards and one 4Mb.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that is so few cards that i just cant imagine what happens if 1 card fails on you. i carry<br /> 1 32gb, 2 16gb, 4 8gb, 2 4gb cards with me for my weddings...</p>

<p>cards are so cheap, i can't even imagine people using costs as an excuse as not to buy more when they clearly need it</p>

<p>No, I just got a new computer, and I am looking forward to cranking away at 2000+ images. Eventhough my original question was not answered, I will get some more CF cards, because clearly I am not ready to shoot 18mp Raw images on my combined 28 Gb (oops, not Mb). Spending some money on them is not the issue, its whether or not I needed them.... clearly I do.<br>

Amazon, here I come....</p>

Buy more cards. Although cards seem to be better in quality, I'd prefer you to shoot with smaller cards, such as 2 gb cards in case of card failure. I beats the chances of blowing away an entire wedding.

 

I have the 1Ds Mark 3 camera and I still shoot in the largest Raw format. I'd rather buy more cards. The main reason for having this type of camera if for safety; these cameras have dual card slots, so if you have card failure there's always that backup card. The 1Ds mark 2 cameras have come way down in price. I'd rather see wedding phoogaphers buy a used 1Ds Mark 2, just for the safety reason. My backup card is a 16gb card! If you are worried about buying a used mark 2, simply have it checked out by Canon or maybe $300 or so. These cameras are work horses and built like tanks.

<p>You have made a significant investment in camera and computer gear. Why restrict yourself to a handful of small memory cards? Big cards aren't that expensive compared to that you've spent so far.</p>

<p>Consider that the 7D takes excellent video if you have the card space to store it.</p>

<p>Why such high resolution? Why not? You can always downsize the images when you convert them to JPEGs. You have a powerful computer; you can do these conversions in a batch process if you want a bunch of small photos to share with friends.</p>

<p>If you shoot at full resolution you can crop a small portion of a frame and still make a very nice 8x10 print from it. This opens up after-the-fact compositional opportunities. If you shoot at a lower resolution you'll sacrifice this flexibility.</p>

 

<p>It amazes me why people need to shoot xxxx files at a wedding. There was a poster, here, who said he takes 8,000 to 10,000 shots at these blessed affairs. No mention if that was RAW or JPEG, but it represents a LOT of time and work commitment, plus tremendous wear and tear on the gear. When I shot film weddings back in the days of ancient history, I was able to get all I needed with four or five 36-exposure rolls of film. With my Nikon DSLR stuff, I can still get what I need with 400 files or less, no problem.</p>

<p>If you find the prospect of buying more media an issue, you could learn to cut back your shooting and make your life a whole lot easier, earn more money, plus your excellent 7D will last longer. Everyone wins.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fry's sale this week, 750 gig seagate portable drive, $80. Get two good 16G cards the fastest you can find they work wonders with the video an in downloading. If you are doing 2000 shots you probably need 4 (16 gig) cards as a 16g is just over 500 raw images on a 7D.</p>

<p>Actually the 2000 images were from a 5 day destination wedding. I am with you Ronald, about less is more. There are 2 coworkers who got married about a year ago who still have not picked their 200 images for their book from the 2000 that were taken. That was an interesting post.<br>

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WZGe</p>

<p><em>...who said he takes 8,000 to 10,000 shots [at a wedding]</em></p>

<p>I'd like to see a reference to that. Sounds beyond outrageous. I doubt it was a regular poster either.</p>

<p>Ken--I don't know about 8,000 to 10,000, but Emin Kuliyev, who posts here occasionally, shoots 6,000-7,000 frames. Here is one thread. There is no question he is an excellent photographer, and I am sure he isn't relying on quantity as a crutch to shore up lack of technical skill. I know he sometimes shoots two fisted (camera in each hand), as I've seen photos of him doing so.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Thu5">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Thu5</a></p>

<p><em>"Emin: Originally i took 6113 RAW files for 14 hours..."</em></p>

<p>There you have it, wow. ;) OMG.</p>

<p>To make things faster in culling I'd check out PhotoMechanic. Cull in that, then import the culled images to LR. It cut my workflow time in HALF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=585199">Ken Papai</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 05, 2010; 10:44 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Emin: Originally i took 6113 RAW files for 14 hours..."</em><br>

There you have it, wow. ;) OMG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OMG is right!!! That is 1 shot every 8 seconds for 14 hours...non-stop. Ridiculous! Time to learn how to see instead of spraying. May a well run a video camera of the event.</p>

 

<p>Dave--go to Emin's website. He is definitely not using quantity as a crutch for seeing or exposing. In fact, he is now giving seminars to other wedding photographers in New York.</p>

<p>Nadine,</p>

<p>I love his work. That said....if he's providing 300 to 400 finished photos of an event to a client.....then can someone tell me why he needs 5000 to 6000 photographs taken if not to rely on quantity to deliver. This isn't meant as an insult to his work.....it's just that if you need 10-20 to 1 to get the image....then maybe quantity is being used to deliver.</p>

<p>I draw no conclusions, Dave. Emin's work speaks for itself, and while I will not be shooting two fisted, I merely admire and that's where it stops.</p>

<p>Agreed Nadine. His work is indeed superb.</p>