Poll: Do you shoot your weddings in RAW or JPEG

Okay, so everyone knows that RAW gives you more room for error in your pictures

but JPEG requires less work in post processing (considering everything is

exposed properly). So do you prefer shooting weddings in RAW or JPEG and what

is your reason for doing this?

Hey Andrew,

you'll probally find that it's about 50% shoot raw and 50% shoot jpeg. I shoot about 90% jpeg and the balance in raw if I'm in really difficult light. For those images i can't repair they invented black and white :) Happy shooting!

Lots of pros make raw+JPEG files and use the raw only if the JPEG does not work. Why throw away data?

 

Raw conversions are fast and easy with Lightroom and CS3 and you can batch run them in ps and Bible and let them run in the background as you edit completed conversions.

"If you can't control all of the lighting in a situation , absolutely that is the best situation to shoot raw and not jpegs."

 

This is a summary of the advice from very high end wedding photographers Dennis Reggie ( http://www.denisreggie.net/) and Joey Ikemoto (http://www.gotpics.com/ )

 

processing raws out to Jpegs actually takes very little time -- unless you are dumb enough to do it frame by frame because most of these situations can be handled by batch processing in either Adobe photoshop Lightroom, or Bridge + ACR, or your raw processor of choice (Bibble Pro, Capture 1 , raw Developer, Capture NX, Canon DPP, etc. -- and not wanting to do so just reveals ignorance and laziness on the part of a photographer.

Ronald, I have lightroom and I have noticed that when I import Raw files the initial preview changes once I click on it. Is this the ACR Profiles doing their work? What adjustments are needed to make raw files look like the same JPEG that comes out of the camera?

Even when you can nail your exposure RAW has the big benefit's with WB. Lighting conditions are constantly changing when shooting a wedding. With RAW I don't need to worry too much about WB when shooting. I can do that in PP. As long as you batch process its really not much more work.

 

IMO the benefits of shooting RAW out weight the minimal extra work to process.

 

Remember there is a lot you can do to a RAW file with out degrading the image where as almost anything you do to a jpeg file will.

 

Andrew, it will be very hard to process an image in LR to match that of a jpeg straight out of the camera. You're using two different programs to process that image. Just like if you go to two different labs to have your pictures done they will not be the same. You might be able to get them close, but not the same.

JPEGS. I'm not anti-RAW (wouldn't that be WELL-DONE), but jpegs have always worked well for me for wedding photography. Your mileage may vary! -SR

I shoot the wedding in jpg but I do the formals in RAW +jpg, just in case, but I've never had to use the RAW files yet.

 

Jim Marby

We shoot RAW for all of our weddings. Being able to salvage EVERY image no matter what the lighting conditions happen to be. Lighting situations in many churches and reception venues can vary greatly from one part of the room to the next.

 

During a fast moving wedding - WB changes can get missed - but in RAW everything can be corrected very easily and quickly.

 

Process first in Capture NX for selection of "keepers", levels, and crop. Batch convert to high resolution JPEG and so some final work in Photoshop CS3 - cloning, saturation and blemish removal.

 

For the last wedding - we shot over 1200 images and it took about 12 hours to process them down to the final 322 that we presented to the bride and groom.

JPEG. Learnt my lesson when i shot only film. Get it right as much as possible in-camera...

I always shoot raw just for the flexibility of it, down side is it takes longer for editing and for a 2 gig card only fits 150-200 shots.

I shoot compressed raw because I can do minor density adjustments, white balance tweaks and select photos faster in Capture One than I can with jpegs in bridge/photoshop. The selected images are then processed in photoshop afterwards for artistic reasons.

 

Peter

Between Bridge/Lightroom/cheap memory cards neither I, or any of the other wedding photographers I know shoot JPG any more.

Hey Andrew,

 

You can process a RAW image to look EXACTLY like a JPEG from the camera if you use software tools that are identical to the tools used by the camera internally.

 

And yes, those tools exist, at least under Windows.

 

Canon cameras run a multitasking version of MS-DOS (yes, it's true), boot a program called CAMERA.EXE, and use a library of DLL's that are also used in the ZoomBrowser tool that they sell with the camera. Since both the camera and Windows are 80x86 platforms, the same routines can be used either in the camera or in Windows programs.

 

Blows the mind, doesn't it? ;^<)>

 

There's one other Windows program I know of, called BreezeBrowser, that uses the Canon DLL's, and can convert a RAW file to exactly the same JPEG that comes out of the camera. It's a fun program, and I use it for a lot of things.

 

The reason Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. don't produce JPEGS that are exactly the same as those from the camera is because Adobe uses it's own proprietary tool called Adobe Camera Raw, rather than the Canon DLL's. It's designed to work with a wide range of cameras, not just Canon cameras, and therefore is more generic (and oftentimes more useful).

 

So which is better?

 

Each has it's own pluses and minuses. I have abandoned that quest, in favor of which is more utilitarian. The most useful and flexible tools

are all in Adobe Camera Raw. Therefore, I use tools that use Adobe Camera Raw, and I have learned how to configure it to give me the look I want.

 

Does this make things clearer?

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

Oh yeah, almost forgot.

 

100% RAW, convert to JPEG afterward. Even the Canon tools have that capability.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

Meant to say, even the Canon tools have the capability to do that as a Batch job.

 

But Adobe does it easier.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

100% RAW no matter the gig.

 

It's my workflow.

Always RAW. There is absolutely no reason not to these days.

 

"JPEG. Learnt my lesson when i shot only film. Get it right as much as possible in-camera..."

 

- yes but your white balance wasn't constantly adjusted in camera. It was done at the printing

stage. Why make things more complicated at the taking stage, when it can be more easily

and more accurately done in PP?

 

Free yourself to spend more of your effort on your subjects.

Modern raw image files have 14-bit image depth; JPG files have only 8-bit image depth and fixing WB in JPG is destructive.

(...14 bit raws: the sensor records 16,384 different brightness levels, or 2^14).

 

Why would anyone ever shoot JPG only in this business?

 

An old PN resource article:

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/

RAW, for maximum flexibility while retaining quality in post processing, NOT for error compensation, although on occasion, it can save an otherwise throw-away image. For me (may be different for others), JPEG does not save post processing time, as I can't resist making the images perfect. I don't care how good you are shooting JPEGs--they aren't ALL going to be perfect all the time. It also depends on how you shoot. If you can control situations and have the time, JPEGs are fine, since you have the time to make them perfect (if you're going to shoot any JPEGS, the formals are the easiest). If you can't control things and don't have the time, you can mostly get them perfect or more than acceptable, if you know what you are doing, but even the best photographer will have that smaller percentage of uncontrollable situations and/or human error, where shooting RAW will save you, or at least put you in a better position to end up with quality files. Considering that RAW processing doesn't take me very long, and for the possibility just mentioned, I shoot RAW. I've shot whole weddings in JPEG before, so I know it can be successfully done. I choose to shoot RAW.

RAW... just not worth the risk of not being able to have complete control over the image in post-processing, especially when it comes to wedding photography.

I used to shoot JPEG but this year I'm all RAW. My reason is the detailed adjustments RAW allows you to make. In JPEG if I adjust contrast the results are a bit harsh. To give you an example I use Lightroom and if I select Direct Positive on a JEPG the results are way to contrasty and saturated. Make the same adjustment on a RAW file and it's not as harsh.

This sort of question will invariably cause a split down the middle. Use what works for you. JPEG works juuust fine for me :) I don't mind dealing with WB at the taking stage, because it saves me time on the back end during post-processing and printing. I have nothing against RAW. I've just never shot a whole wedding in RAW. I have shot a few model portfolios and still-lifes, if that counts ;)

I'm 100% RAW...

It is interesting to look at the answers above in this thread.

 

The few people who shoot JPEG say (think) that the split between JPEG and RAW is about half and half and yet nearly EVERYONE in this thread (with only one or two exceptions) shoots RAW.