Shooting JPEGS only.

<p>This question is for those of you who shoot weddings on a reguler basis. What percentage of Raw vs. JPEGS do you shoot. I know of one very competant and succesful wedding photog who reserves RAW for only the most difficult lighting conditions. Have we reached a stage where JPEGS are "good enough"?.</p>

<p>Storage (in the camera, and on the desktop) is fast and absurdly inexpensive. Shoot both, and avoid having to think about what is, or is not a difficult lighting situation. If it turns out it <em>was </em>a difficult situation, you can fall back to the RAW file with a couple of mouse clicks. If you're otherwise perfect while shooting, then all you've done is used up $3 worth of disk space. You'll never get more important insurance that costs so little.</p>

<p>I've always gone back to shooting JPEG Fine. I shot RAW for awhile and just didn't see the benefits in the long run, except for more work with conversion and having to find a new program to organize and batch edit my files as the one I was using didn't support RAW. I liked my program, and didn't want to switch. So, I shoot JPEG and have no issues with loss of detail or editing. I just have to make sure I "get it right" when I shoot, to avoid too much post-process tweaking.</p>

<p>Matt, thats the best answer to RAW vs JPEG I've seen, Gunna test it out in my next wedding insted of always using RAW</p>

<p>I suspect that I will be chewed up and spit out for this, but I feel that JPEGs have always been good enough. When I am shooting for myself, JPEGs are all that I shoot. It speeds and simplifies my post processing. Means that I need less mass storage which makes my back up easier.<br>

Now, having said all of that: I have been photographing for going on 40 years. I understand exposure and lighting and know how to get it right. When I shot film, the vast majority of my prints where between plus and minus 1. If your exposures are good (they don't even have to be great) you can easily shoot JPEG.<br>

Probably the best way to determine where you are is to look at your current post processing. When you shoot RAW, how many of your images require changes from your standard "processing". If you are adjusting a lot of exposures, white balances, etc, from file to file then you can't shoot JPEGs. If you just let the conversion go and touch up a few images, you might as well be shoot JPEGs anyway.<br>

It will be interesting to see what others have to say . . . this discussion comes up quite often on these sites . . .</p>

<p>Lots of people feel JPEG is good enough and it is if you expose/color bal corectly.<br>

For the formals and service pics, I would add raw files. Table shots and bride dancing, JPEG will do.</p>

<p>Both can always be shot and the raw erased if not needed.</p>

<p>12-bit and 14-bit RAW files have <strong>significantly </strong> more information than 8-bit JPG files. This cannot be emphasized enough. This has nothing to do with "getting it right" in the camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Given the number of automated conversion programs and relative cheapness of media - there is no excuse not to shoot weddings in RAW.</p>

<p>If I'm shooting a sporting event or something similar (where I want to swap memory cards as infrequently as possible) I shoot JPEG fine. Weddings, portraits, team photos, etc... All RAW. I don't even think about it anymore. And yes - it has saved my bacon a couple of times - when highlights were blown out and I didn't notice on the monitor... Much easier to recover from a RAW 12 bit then a 8 bit JPEG.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

The Library of Congress has significantly more information than my local library, but my son doesn't need to go there to work on his papers for school.

 

I can shoot JPEGs and produce beautiful 20x24 inch prints. I don't know if I can produce a billboard, but I have never been asked to.

<blockquote>

<p>12-bit and 14-bit RAW files have <strong>significantly </strong> more information than 8-bit JPG files. This cannot be emphasized enough. This has nothing to do with "getting it right" in the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The question is if the added bits of information is visibile and the answer is that it is normally not (given that the exposure was correct). The reason for that is that the 12-16 bits from the camera is linear and the few bits that are present in the shadows are preserved in the jpeg (nonlinear).</p>

<p>The very same principal applies for the visually lossless compression the Nikon and others use to keep the size of the raw files down. The only type of raw in Nikon's D90 and below are visually lossless compressed.</p>

<p>No use risking wounding a photo when you can use the ultimate fire power for a humane and clean kill. </p>

<p>(Did I just say that!)</p>

<p>RAW always ... they pay us good money so we should give them the best that our equipment can allow. <strong>Not using RAW serves us, the photographer, more than it serves the bride and groom; </strong> why raise the risk factors? Isn't wedding photography risky enough already? </p>

<p>Think of all the products you buy in life and pay good money for ... would you be upset if you found out the supplier had the same product in a higher quality but refused to give you his best quality for the same exact price? Most people would be upset ... <strong>but</strong> , if you've educated the bridal couple on your process then it's a style and product they are ok with so that is the only time I think it's ok ... when you have a <em>fully informed</em> bride and groom.</p>

<p>Heck, the more information you can capture ... the more "creative" you can be with the image file. It even makes cropping a great option as well ... if I later prefer the shot to be in Portrait orientation then a quick crop of the RAW file from Landscape orientation to Portrait orientation still gives me a lovely image file. RAW gives the best image file as well as giving you, the photographer, greater latitude in creating a final product.</p>

<p>The talented jpg shooter is an anomoly ... they are rare; yes, the exist but is it wise? And, imo, they do it because it serves their workflow but it denies the client the best possible image file i.e. size and creative tweaking in post processing which is the "after-the-click" part of the photography process.</p>

<p>[[The question is if the added bits of information is visibile and the answer is that it is normally not (given that the exposure was correct).]]</p>

<p>I strongly disagree with such a blanket generalization.</p>

<p>I do what I hope to be "creative" edits to my raw files and have printed large gallery wrap copies that turned out beautifully. All from a JPEG.<br>

So, I think maybe the real answer is you do what works for you, I'll do what works for me and everyone will be happy.<br>

Some of the best "celebrity" photogs still shoot JPEG (Jasmine Star has admitted to in many instances).<br>

This is a tired arguement, much like the Nikon vs. Canon arguement. There are pros and cons to both.</p>

<p>Sorry for the repeat post</p>

<p>Most everything has already been said, but we shoot RAW only. You just can't dicount the control it gives over the images in post. With some of the presets you can get and the control over all the little details, not to mention the easy of workflow within Lightroom. It makes everything easier for us and gives us what we feel is a higher level of creativity with our images.</p>

<p>Being able to sync settings across a large group of images makes everything incredibly faster as well. Ceremony and Reception pictures tend to be our biggest bulk of photos and when you can sync the changes to one across the board it makes everything much easier while still having that control to fine tune your photos.</p>

<p>I leave it up to the B&G ---We charge accordingly ---RAW is always a surcharge ~! With Jpeg there is no editing in our services. Luckily, over half of our weddings : are RAW this year, so far.</p>

<p>See . . . I agree that we should all just do what works for us. When you talk about capturing more information to make cropping easier, you are talking about resolution, not the bit depth of the capture. There is no difference in resolution when shooting RAW vs. JPEG.<p><p>Your brides don't care if you shoot RAW, JPEG, MF digital or with a 1M camera. And they shouldn't care. All they care about is the quality of the prints that you produce. That is your product, not a bunch of bits captured on your CF card. If you convince them that RAW is better (and that is what you are doing by making it an extra cost option) who are you really serving the interests of? You think that it is the best way to work, but you charge your clients extra for it. ;BTW: RAW doesn't capture "more" information. It just doesn't process the information until later.

<p><em>RAW doesn't capture "more" information. It just doesn't process the information until later<br /></em><br />I think you know, Ed, that that's something of a misrepresentation of how it works, in practice. A RAW file <em>does indeed</em> record more information, providing substantially more latitude with which to deal with either mis-exposed or more highly dynamic images. While the actual bit-depth of the image file headed to the printer may ultimately be the same, the point is that with 14-bit files, you have substantially more flexibility to dodge, burn, and color-correct images before sending them to their final destination. If you never take anything but the camera or editing software's default conversion to 8-bit images, then that's another issue. But who does that, or who wants to limit themselves to only doing that?<br /><br />You can still batch process 14-bit raw files, as is, straight through to what the camera <em>would</em> have produced as a JPG if you had shot straight to JPG. But by having those RAW files to work from, there's room for substantially more work (with less damage) as needed. It's not like it's all a placebo effect or something - it's plain as day from the first time you actually do it. To each their own, of course. But when folks who are new at something are asking for some guidance or for other's experiences, it does seem appropriate to be accurate about what those larger files are good for.</p>

<p>We shoot only RAW, and after going from shooting only jpg to shooting only raw, I would never go back to only shooting jpg.</p>

<p>I like the fact that I can open a raw file as 16 bit and with a larger color space than I can with a jpg. I like the fact that raw doesn't clip my file, so if I need to squeeze just a bit more detail out of the shadow or adjust the saturation of a particular color to get the exact final print I want, I can. With jpg there is nothing to squeeze any more information out of- its been clipped. And I'm not talking about fixing something I didn't get right in camera, I'm talking about, for instance, being able to adjust a curve exactly how I want without having the limitations jpg's impose.</p>

<p>I like being in control of my work. I shoot manual focus and manual exposure, so I do not want the camera making any descisions for me, especially when it comes to actually throwing out information that I just worked to get. To me it makes no sense to shoot jpg. We have a very solid workflow, so proofing images that are raw is only slightly more time consuming than it was with jpg. Then when I go in to print a 24x30, I still have the maximum amount of information available to get the precise results I want. To me, that is worth the extra space and the extra 5 minutes that raw requires.</p>

<p>As Matt noted, you capture more dynamic range with RAW files. Even if I set the contrast on my camera to its lowest setting (which generally produces flat, dull-looking images), the jpegs lose highlight and/or shadow detail in high-contrast situations compared to the RAW files.</p>

<p>Consider JPEG & RAW like print vs negative.<br>

Did Ansel Adams not "shoot it right" when he spent HOURS in the dark room dodging and burning the print? <br>

The negative, like a RAW file, contained more information than was visible at any given exposure of the print. Ansel dodged and burned to bring out the details that would not have been visible with a straight ("JPEG") print.</p>

<p>Would you make copies & enlargements from the print or the negative?</p>

<p>I think the same arguments pro and con can be seen in past threads on this subject. So I will just answer the questions. I shoot RAW only, and have for a long time. I don't find the conversion workflow all that bad, and I like the control. I don't think JPEGS are 'good enough' in comparison to the flexibility of RAW files--never did. However, I can see logic in using JPEGS for some kinds of workflow. I just happen not to be candidate for those workflows. Hopefully, Philip, you are taking a poll and not wanting to start yet another war.</p>

<p>Why did we keep shooting film after Polaroids came out? What a great tool for wedding photographers: Shoot it, check it (re-shoot if not good), give it to the client, DONE!</p>

<p>Ever wonder why Adobe called it the "Digital Negative" (DNG)?</p>

<p>I thought we beat this horse to death last year...oh well...thwwwwap! thwwwwap! thwwwwap! thwwwwap! thwwwwap! Yep, he's dead alright.</p>

<p>JPEG mostly, except RAW for critical portraiture or difficult lighting. Particularly, lighting situations with a light source aimed at the camera, or a high dynamic range situation. RAW will capture a higher dynamic range and allow greater adjustment to retain more highlights or bring up shadows. However, with 19 megabyte RAW files, I simply do not need a file that size for every little toast and table shot. I don't want to have to store it, and I durn sure don't want to have to process it unless it buys me something.</p>

<p>No bride has EVER asked for RAW files, and as far as I know, most don't even know what they are, much less have the software to deal with them. No bride has EVER complained there was not enough quality, detail, or resolution in my shots.</p>

<p>Hey, this carcass is starting to stink...</p>

<p>I use RAW all the time as I can ignore white balance issues. The camera white balance setting is not used when producing RAW images. That information is only stored in the RAW file to be used as a starting point for the RAW processor. Using RAW I don't need to worry about the hassles of setting a custom white balance everytime when the light changes. I just photograph a digital target and move on with the rest of the images. One less thing to worry about.</p>

<p>I have also found that some whites that clip in JPG are recoverable in RAW. Once a white area has been maxed in JPG there is loss of detail. With RAW I have some headroom to recover some of that detail. Mixing 12 bits of information into 8 bits is going to result in something that has to give and be lost. I can't always nail the exposure and any extra help I can get is welcomed. It's like using wide latitude color reversal film.</p>