RAW versus JPEG for weddings. - advice needed

Hey everyone,

 

I usually frequent the Nikon forums, but this question is better here.

 

So I work as a newspaper PJ during the week and shooting weddings and formal

portraits for my own business and I have a few coming up.

 

All the formal work I shoot, I shoot RAW files, but my second shooter and I had

a drink last night and were talking and his work is great and I look up to him

as a shooter, but he says he has never gotten into RAW and shoots weddings with

JPEG's and they're fine.

 

I shoot D2H's and RAW files don't pile up overly quickly being at 4mp, but who

has had experience shooting with both at a wedding?

 

What works, what doesn't, etc?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

~ nic

Yikes. This has been discussed many, many times before. Just check the archives. You will get multiple, opposite answers and if you're lucky, a fight or two will break out. Do what works best for you and clients. That's all. Either one works if you make it work.

 

For the record, I shoot RAW. I've shot JPEG before. It is do-able and fine. I prefer RAW. It fits me, my workflow and my products.

Raw, raw, raw. If nothing else it's a CYA thing. and it is soeasy to automate batch processing --the auto tone feature in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom does a good basic job on a per image basis.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00P69U

I'm a RAW shooter myself - I'd be happy if there wasn't even a JPEG option on my camera, so I'm biased - but - my take on it is:

 

- If you're confident of nailing your exposures everytime - and your white balance is either spot on or you have an easy way to adjust it (ie "CS3 RAW converter!") then there's no overly significant benefit to shooting RAW.

 

- On the other hand, if you need a bit of lattitude in exposure or white balance adjustment then RAW gives you that.

 

Think of RAW as being like a safety net. I would suggest that it would be a very brave professional circus performer who performed daring feats without a safety net - on the other hand, if you're only performing a low-rist and low-consequence trick then it may not be needed.

 

Do you feel lucky today Nic, well do you?

 

One of the greats once passed the comment that ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) (Adobe's RAW Converter) had evolved in power to the point where photoshop was merely a host for it to run under (rather than it being considered a plugin for photoshop). Not as critical for wedding photography, but personally I like to have a safety net at all times - and it's saved me on many occasions.

What if one just used Jpeg; and one's exposure meter was abit flakey? Plus the brides dress is pure white; just washed with Salvo tablets and a double load of Tide; plus grandmas bluing? what if the bride is a black belt; the father a hitman; the groom a fullback; the mother an attorney and photographer? What if your your images of the dress have too much 255's here at the printer; a sea of 255's; one giant overexposed desert of white? :) RAW can help with the sins of wrong exposure; then we printers can thus only focus on whether Aunt Marthas hair is really blue; white; grey; blue grey; blue white grey; or olive color. If one HAS to use a JPEG only camera in a dire emergency; then at least bracket!

I currently shoot in JPEG and I was just wondering what the benefits of shooting in RAW might be. I'm ashamed to say that I was tought in JPEG so I've always shot JPEG. How is RAW different and what are the advantages. Is there anyway you could post a photo taken in RAW and one taken in JPEG? One consideration for me is that I currently do simple back in editing, color balance, change to B&W, etc. I don't tend to do alot of work in photoshop, I only own elements, and I due a lot of work in Picasa believe it or not. If I were to shoot in RAW do you have to do something "special" to them to view them/print them. Thanks for all your help.

 

Sincerely

Jonathan Edwards

RAW gives you the most control and flexibility with your files.

Many cameras such as my Epson rd-1 have a raw + jpeg mode where it makes a raw and a jpeg file. I use this where I want the quickness of printing/emailing a jpeg; but have a raw file if the lighting conditioans are abit difficult; or the subject matter. With the raw file I can back out the vigneting of my 15mm VC lens; or fix a goofed overexposed area better. For sports on the same camera i often use just jpeg; to get more shots; to not breach the cameas buffer. I am not sure if raw is supported in elements or Picasa; i will punt on this one. There is also Raw support often in the higher end digital cameras software that come canned with the camera.

Shoot whatever is less work for you while giving you enough quality.

 

Not all older cameras like raw and not every camera can produce a decent looking jpeg while some cameras produces excellent jpegs. Some cameras have better metering and better flash than others and some shooters and camera/flash combinations can't consistently nail the exposure to shoot jpegs without quality problems. Same thing with WB.

 

If you get good results shooting jpegs with your gear and workflow, I can't see any reason to shoot raw. Not for volume work like weddings, portraits or whatever.

 

Peter

Raw files are larger because there is more information. I tend to believe that the dynamic range increses somewhat with a raw file too. Can this amount of information be overwhelming.......of course. But the potential of a better shot is ALWAYS going to outweigh the alternative. Mark my words....." The future of digital photography will be in the dynamic range more than the ISO "

 

TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!!!!

 

Mike

I shoot RAW and JPEG. If i like the pic in JPEG i am good. If it needs adjustment, I have the raw file to work with.

To help clarify something, here:

<br><Br>

<b><i>Every</i></b> digital camera shoots in RAW, essentially. If what you get out of your camera (by choice, or because it's your only option) is a JPG file, it's because the software running in your camera has created a JPG-format file from the data that was collected on the camera's sensor. When you "shoot in RAW," you're just putting off the rendering of that JPG until later - and you've got a lot more options to do it right. If you reduce the larger amount of information present in that RAW file to a smaller, less-rich JPG on the fly in the camera, you can never go back to the richer data that was originally captured.

<br><br>

Of course, RAW files, by themselves, do not "look" like what you're going to want a finished image to look like... but your choice of post-production software can do that as easily as your camera, or under your careful supervision. And then you can do it ten more times, ten different ways.

I'll toss is my .02, which is pretty much what everybody else has said: RAW because of the

latitude!

 

Just recently our bride's dress was blown out in a couple shots (WHOOPS). I saved the

shot - taken in RAW. Our intern took almost the same shot, and also blew out the dress.

He shoots in JPEG. Unsavable shot. The information just isn't there.

 

I also love the details I'm able to pull out of the shadows of my RAWs, and those details

just aren't there in the JPEG. That's just part of the compression loss.

Another angle, purely business:

 

At the moment I have a personal goal to master JPEG capture, to get it as perfect as possible straight out of the camera (20D and 5D).

 

And I note that the JPEG artefacts of each camera have subtle differences notwithstanding the different options each camera also has.

 

BUT I still do a few contract Weddings: I am not willing to bet my skill at getting 100% (or close to it) on a `JPEG only` coverage, when RAW will allow me a greater margin of error: why would I?

 

I understand a business model for `JPEG only` based in a shoot, burn and copy disc to client, never see client again: and recently I (successfully) used that model for some pro bono work I did a swimming meet: to test my skill level under a real application and up the pressure on myself, at the gig.

 

But (for the Weddings) I contract to a more conservative studio, which is looking at larger (i.e. the package and then reprints), print sales, so I think using the technology available as a safety net is prudent, no matter what I consider my skill level is.

 

WW

I think we need a 4 questions of raw simialr to the 4 questions of Passover!

 

1.) How is RAW different and what are the advantages?

 

A Matt points out; all cameras shoot RAw, even point and shoots. If you choose the JPEG option the processing software in the camera is doing the processing to the parameters you have set on the camera: color space , white balance, sharpening, resolution and file size, JPEG compression levels, and possibly other manufacturer determined parameters like "vivid", or high ISO noise reduction, etc.

 

Using your camera's raw output function (if it has one) lets you record the raw data as recorded by the sensor (well almost raw, all cameras I've come across do some preliminary processing). In that raw file the camera records the JPEG parameters that are the camera is set to. In general these are for the most part these are only respected by your camera maker's proprietary raw processing software. But in fact they are treated only as suggestions and you can actually "retune" the results in the raw processor of your choice. The big general parameters- white balance primarily is respected by every raw processor I've come across. becasue the processing instructio ns are not hardwired to the date this allows you a great deal of flexibility when processignto either correct mistakes in exposure or white balance, to use a more refined sharpening approach --tuned to the content of the image and to choose a color space of your choice to work in.

 

The next big difference is the form the data is in. In-camera JPEG processsing alogrithms output only what is recorded as 8 bit per channel files. that is, the information recorded in each red, green and blue color channel is divided up into only 256 (0-255) steps per channel while raw files have the capacity to be output by your raw processing software in either 8 bit or 16 bit per channel form. 16 bits means that instead of 256 data steps the same information is divied up into over 64,000 micro steps. Translation; the transitions in tone are much smoother. This becomes important in at least two ways which I'll get to in a minute.

 

More later.

Scott B., I think you are gettin' it more than anyone else in this thread.

 

Mike

at a wedding i shot a couple months back, i had some lighting issues, the space was really

small so i was getting some background shadows, so i flipped the flash up to bounce it,

which helped the shadows, but i didn't notice at the time that the ceiling was not white, it

was a funny light blue color which threw off the white of the dress, but since I was shooting

raw i was able to fix the cast when i got back to the computer. i don't have any confidence

at all that if i had been shooting jpegs i would have been able to fix it.

When people post to look at there websites or look at the latest weddings and engagements I see a lot of blown out images, which is pretty much useless in jpeg. Getting those details back is close to impossible, but in RAW you have an excellent chance of recovering the image/images.

 

If I'm shooting portraits and using a background with strobes then the lighting will always be the same and I will shoot jpeg under these conditions.

 

Another reason for shooting RAW is often I may save the files as TIFF. When you shoot jpeg you can lose a lot of digital information.

I notice that Jeff Ascough after a spirited defence of jpg and saying that he can't notice any difference during the Q&A session here and other threads - is now shooting RAW eventhough his 1Ds mkIII's have huge file sizes. Another one who has seen the light!

Which is better at weddings? Vanilla or chocolate cake?

JPG............

to nic- there are 2 issues here. on the jpeg vs raw subject. and the answers are for YOU to know then decide. i am a jpeg shooter always have been though i tried raw and got no improvement in the images. this brings me to the first issue-how good of a photog are YOU? are consistantly bringing pics to your pc that need heavy and constant pp? do you find yourself fixing the exposure and wb on a regular basis? if yes then you should be shooting raw. raw simply gives more ability to adjust in pp. also more ways that it can be adjusted. with jpeg you pretty much have to get the shot very close to right in the field. jpeg puts a burden on the users knowledge skill and technique. this is because you will not have the massive ability to change the shot in pp. the jpeg CAN be adjusted but not as far or as much in terms of type of adjustment. only you know the level of pics that you are bringing to your pc; make your jpeg vs raw choice based on that.

 

second. is the circumstances that you are taking the shots. if you have very little or none time to properly setup the shot or a constant set of changing lighting conditions then you or i need the versatility of raw shooting. or at a location in which your no idea of what the lighting is or it is a wierd mix of lights; you should be shooting raw so that you have a chance to get a proper wb later.

third. which may be part of the second issue. this is a factor that you find yourself constantly adjusting for the same thing in pp. since you are pp anyway, you may as well shoot raw and only have to make the adjustment once in the raw conversion.

 

for myself, it is a very rare time that i find myself in circumstances that require me to shoot raw, so i do not do it. i would if the lighting conditions required it but so far it has not. i have shot weddings in the past but i do not any more. for me photography is a fun hobby, not the prelude to an ulcer.

RAW is a pain in the jacksy! Jpeg is more like the 'feeling' of film...you take the pic and process the film and you have your neg. RAW is a whole 'nother dimension! You need a whole separate processing, you need to change them to Jpeg/Tiff anyway, and they are massive in size. Not too mention that horrible name...RAW..."I shoot in RAW".

 

But RAW gives you flexibility, and with the smaller latitude of digital...having more flexibility is crucial. Such as white balance, or exposing to the right, or having more information in the shadow detail [12-14 bit] etc etc etc.

 

I can do all the necessary messing about to correct things in PS that I can do in RAW...except one thing, and probably the most crucial. If I don't have detail in her white dress with a Jpeg, then there is no amount of effort on my part that will get that puppy back! In RAW, the chances are you have retained a lot more information [detail] within these areas. Or in other words more latitude.

 

Surely this is enough to make you want to use it?

 

What seems to be the issue is that people can perfectly expose a Jpeg and this makes shooting RAW irrelevant to them as they assume that their Jpeg's are always going to be correct. But you have to bracket and constantly fine tune your exposure...with RAW you can be near enough with your exposure and bring it back in post processing...so less photos, and less time. In the long run that is...such as a wedding.

 

For my Press work with my D2Hs I use Jpeg...for convenience. For weddings I use RAW...as Jpeg doesn't give me enough latitude or confidence in being more creative in post processing. And plus it's upto you what you do, but there will come a time when you realize if you had used RAW that one pic you really wanted would have been fine...but in Jpeg you lost it because you didn't get that exposure 'nailed'.

I've read many many photography magazines and forums and RAW is always the best choice. Yervant uses jpg that I know from his video. Some uses both jpg and raw. They use raw when they are not so sure about the light... Shade, tungsten, fluorescent, etc... Personally though I would use RAW inside the church and outside shots where there is a shade. However, I will be shooting RAW if I have enough memory cards. BTW, I have about 30GB but just don't want it to ran out because I'm shooting RAW... It is always good to have a spare...