Do you really need to shoot RAW for weddings?

[merlin]

I am in the process of scheduling my first wedding. I am experienced

in ditial photography, and want to know what you guys think as far as

shooting RAW for weddings specifically. Is it worth it? Or does the

pro's of JPEG outweigh them? I have found that unless I am shooting

a specific kind of pictures that JPEG fine works well. I would

appreciate your comments.

[casey mcallister]

If you want quality control then RAW is the way to go. The additional exposure latitude and ability to get much better color control make it worth my while despite the additional time to process. When using JPG I've not been able to consistantly get the results I need when shooting in low or mixed lighting conditions.

[lkv]

Jpeg is much easier and faster, and I think it is sufficient for 99 % of the situations. I use

it.<br>

I can always bracket or turn to RAW when needed...<br>

Lenny<br>

<a href="http://www.afimage.com">AFimage - Photographie</a>

[rich_dutchman1]

It depends on how much control you want in post production. With weddings I find that it's easier (with a very fast computer), to work with RAW instead of several different JPEG batching procedures. With RAW, I can set the "advanced" settings is the CS converter and apply to several similar images.

 

However, I just did several hundred portraits with strobes at a company's holiday party. I shot JPEG with all in camera settings preset. My assistant did the same for candid photos during the evening's reception, in a room where the lighting was consistent. The files went straight to the lab.

 

I've compared prints from 20x30 JPEGs to 20x30 RAWs and can't see a difference. So, it's mostly up to your style and workflow. Can you shoot RAW+Jpeg?

[mendonphoto]

If you know what you are doing, and you can control the lighting (or know how to work with the lighting and it is consistent) JPEG should be fine. But, outdoors, you will have to deal with the varying color temperatures of full sun, shade, and clouds. You'll also have to deal with high contrast in full sun. Indoors, you'll have to deal with mixed lighting and tungsten lighting of differing color temperatures.

 

A good color portrait film gives photographers a safety net because it handles these differing situation pretty well. The image sensor in a digital camera, coupled with immediat JPEG conversion, is very unforgiving. RAW gives you back that little bit of safety net.

 

Just the opinion of a non-wedding photographer.

[candice]

I only shoot in RAW. Amazing what you can do , I got a image tank" I dump my cards onto when they get full it hold 20gig. for about 200.00

[latham_portous]

Stephen, I recently shot my first wedding and shot exclusively in RAW. i was pleasantly surprised with the details I was able to bring out in shots that were underexposed quite dramatically (ie: flash didn't fire, etc). I am talking about shots where the subjects appear black could be salvaged. I think at weddings where a single shot that is well timed could mean so much, it is worth the extra memory and time to shoot in RAW. Good luck!

[michael mccarley]

Do you really need to? NO.

 

Dead nuts JPG will usually beat a dug out RAW.

 

Should you? YES.

 

Cards are cheap. Beauty from a blown exposure is priceless. While a dug out RAW image can provide acceptable results (is some cases), proper exposure will always be better. A properly exposed RAW file is the best.

 

Your other option is always film. You don't have to worry about jpg articacts and lost data and your lab gets screwed with fixing the bad exposures. Best of all worlds for some photographers.

[wedding-photography-denver]

NO, but I do.

[chris m., central florida]

Basic Lexar 1 GB cards are only $70 now at Sam's Club (jeez, I spent $249 on mine a year ago!). I'm moving to shooting RAW files for the important stuff. There is a greater degree of control, for sure.

 

You can do fairly well shooting JPG, but you absolutely must have good metering technique because there really isn't much latitude.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

I don't have enough time to shoot RAW at a wedding. I don't want to grow old processing them. If you are using a batch raw converter to convert the file, what is the difference between that and a jpeg in the first place.

There is not a great deal to be gained in using a RAW file if your image is overexposed; you will still lose the information there.

For more information on digital wedding photography check out www.garyfong.com

[todd frederick]

No. With practice you an tweak the Jpeg so you can take your photos in that mode and make minor adjustments to produce excellent photos.

 

My opinion.<div></div>

[todd frederick]

In my opinion, for wedding and event photography, jpeg is the preferred method.

 

You may have 300 to 700+ images to deal with for post oroseccing from RAW. I don't want that!

 

You don't have the time to work with each photo.

 

You might want to do a few special portraits in RAW, but not all the other endless events. Be realistic!

 

Take some time to practice in jpeg to see what you get, and work on simple quick teaking when needed.

 

The nice thing about digital is that you can play all you want around the house and outside, flash and no flash, and LEARN form those simple practices!

 

Attached is a wedding portrait in jpeg I did recently with some very minor adjustments using a Canon 10D plus fill flash (after house testing).<div></div>

[michael mccarley]

Spend thousands on a DSLR. Spend thousands on pro quality glass. Why? For the best image quality possible. Now shoot jpg to save a couple hundred in card expenses that are, like cameras and lenses, reusable.

 

Previous arguments about longer workflow and same quality due to batch processing are bull. I used to shoot jpg and now shoot exclusively RAW. The only increase in processing time is in transferring the images to the computer. Once they are there, processing time is about the same. The reason is that it is easier to correct issues with the RAW data. It is more challenging once that has been compressed. RAW also affords the ability to convert and save as TIF. No loss in the process until all processing is complete.

 

I believe your premise is that JPEG's have pro's that outweigh that which they lack relative to RAW files (quality). My experience is that you justify lower quality because it is good enough and you promote higher quality because it is what it should be.

 

 

In your case, shoot JPEG unless you already have the cards to work with RAW. You will need at least 2-3 gig (preferably 512 mb cards) just to shoot a full wedding and reception with JPG. I would be concerned shooting RAW with less than five 1 gig cards. One for back-up and three for my prime body, one for the second body. That gets you about 520 shots from a 6mp camera. Do not throw money away just to shoot RAW. Grow your business and acquire equipment as your business allows it. Just make sure your clients know what capabilities you offer and price accordingly.

 

Let's see. There was 35mm vs MF. Then Leica vs everything else. Finally, the last great debate was film vs digital. Now we argue about RAW vs JPG. I guess digital has finally arrived.

[jamiew]

Not if every shot has perfect WB and exposure, but it gives you soem semblance of control.

[owen_clarke]

For every wedding i have shot i have used raw. As has been already said the pros are u have much more control in post processing but it is very time consuming. But i feel the pro definitely outweighs the cons

[fotografz]

Hmm, perhaps a wee bit of misinformation going on here. I know everyone is entitled to

their opinion, but some of the opinions are based on a relatively short span of experience.

 

Michael's notion: why would someone spend a sizable amount on assuring quality with

choice of gear, then dumb down the actual images with j-pegs is a pretty smart

observation IMO. I'd add to that by wondering why would anyone select 2nd tier image

quality for such an important life event as a wedding? Basically, in terms of exposure

control, shooting j-peg like shooting a wedding with slide film ... which few wedding

photographers would have ever considered doing just to save on the processing costs.

 

"If you are using a batch raw converter to convert the file, what is the difference between

that and a jpeg in the first place".

 

Well Jonathan, because you can correct a wide range of image issues, or creatively alter

any image before you batch convert to tiff or j-peg ... all while retaining the original "as

shot" maximum 16 bit RAW data much like a film neg.

 

"You may have 300 to 700+ images to deal with for post processing from RAW. I don't

want that!"

 

Who does Todd? The RAW processing programs are pretty deep these days, and do

require that we learn what they can do. If a photographer was actually giving a client 700

corrected images, I'd wonder why they didn't use the really quick "update" and "apply

previous corrections" feature to blow through the RAW files in a few hours. The C-1 RAW

processing program is probably the best for handling that kind of volume (used by many

pro commercial shooters to process huge jobs), followed by PS-CS. While these programs

are expensive and require time to learn, it's a small price to pay in the long run. There

have been recent threads outlining these techniques, but they have to be tried and made

part of the processing routine to become effective.

 

"I just did several hundred portraits with strobes at a company's holiday party. I shot JPEG

with all in camera settings preset."

 

Rich, this is a perfect example of where j-peg is an excellent choice. Controlled lighting

environment, one set of settings for the camera, then shoot away. Weddings are hardly

that kind of "controlled" environment.

 

Just in case some folks don't know this, here's what selecting j-peg means: J-peg

compression is just that compression ... squeezing out data to make the file smaller.

Every time you select J-peg you will be forced to compress the image twice. First the

camera does it, then when you open it, make corrections and re-save as a j-peg, you

dumb it down again. In fact every time you open one, work on it and re-save it, it gets

lower in quality. A RAW file always retains all of the original capture data no matter what

you do to it or how you convert it.

 

RAW is your negative so to speak. If you were shooting film, would you process it, make a

print and then throw away the negs?

 

Finally, Todd, bless you heart, you provided a perfect example to demonstrate why RAW is

often a more efficient processing technique for the ever changing lighting environment of

a wedding ... like your bride shot in the shade. I'm pretty sure her dress and veil wasn't

pale blue ; -)

 

If your shot of the bride had been done in RAW, a click of the white balance eyedropper

on the dress and a slight nudge of the brightness slider would have corrected the image.

As a J-peg, to make those adjustments would involve a far more complex set of

corrections ( maybe even layers to achieve the same result) ... which is what I had to do to

produce the second image below.<div></div>

[stephen_lutz]

I shoot jpgs almost exclusively, but I also a) don't shoot weddings (very often) and 2) usually shoot fast moving events, like concerts, burlesque shows, athletic events, etc.

 

The write times for RAW files are much longer than for jpgs, and it takes a while for the buffer to be flushed. If rapid bursts are your thing, then jpgs might be a better choice than RAW. Obviously, if absolute highest quality is the paramount concern, then RAW is the way to go.

[terry_rory]

Nothing complex used on my version of todds lovely picture..(I hope you don't mind Todd, especially as I am a beginner to PS7)...<div></div>

[fotografz]

There's no eye-dropper WB correction in PS except in the RAW developer. So the above

corrections are complex relative to doing it to 700 images as Todd is worried about.

[william_au]

Marc: I always thought the mid-tone eyedropper tools in levels/curves dialogue boxes had the same WB color correction effect as the one in the RAW developer.

 

I wasn't aware of the automated processes you could apply to RAW files at first, so worked almost exclusively in jpeg because I was faster/more comfortable post-processing them. As I discover the automation possibilities with RAW, post-processing no longer becomes my main reason not to shoot RAW. These are now mostly shooting-related (slow write, small buffer, big files). Cards are getting cheaper, so storage is also getting to be less of a concern. I'll still shoot jpg for easy lighting conditions/snapshots, but once I get a faster camera and/or more cards, I'll probably stick to shooting RAW.

[michael mccarley]

This discussion is kind of like why pro golfers are perceived to be as good as they are. It is not what they do with their perfect shots. What sets the pro's from the hackers is how well they are able to recover from the bad ones (in addition to the fact that they consistently hit good ones). And the best of the pros hit some pretty bad ones.

 

Whether to capture RAW or JPEG really depends on where you are personally with respect to exposure consistency and post capture workflow. One may work better for you than the other. The big thing, however, is what your clientele expects. Typically lower end shooters (cost not skill) shoot jpg to keep costs down. I was there. I said jpg large was good enough because I didn't want to buy cf cards at 350 dollars a gig when I was starting out and shooting for 550-800 per wedding (lost a fortune but built a good base for growth).

 

You have responses from higher end (quality) photographers who have incurred the expense of capturing RAW. They haven?t done this just to throw away all their profit. They did it for the added quality. I have gotten better with each wedding I do. Now, we start out at 1,600 for basic coverage with typical packages going for about 2,600 and 3,600. That's not "high end" but we have moved out of the basement. Our goal in a few more years is to offer a flat package at about double where we are now. RAW capture isn?t the reason but it hasn't hurt.

 

Again, it's not how good the few you nailed looks to the bride, it's how good all the ones that were really good but not perfect looked.

 

For me, RAW helps more than it hurts.

[michaelmowery]

Marc Williams hit it on the nose with his responses.

I have been shooting raw for the past two years. I shoot high end weddings for a very

promenant studio and would trust nothing less than raw. I use PS CS and batch process

and write actions for all my needs.

For my own jobs corp. portraits, headshots, family ect. i shoot raw. I use canon so i shoot

raw plus jpeg. the jpegs i use for quick uploading to my personal website or for a email to

a family member or friend. If they want a print i will go to the raw and go to town with the

tweaks.

 

The best photographer is a well informed one. continue to educate yourself with digital. It

is like playing texas hold em. its easy to learn at first but it takes a lifetime to master.

That said, There are to many photographers who think a digital camera is like a film

camera. they shoot a picture in auto mode and they get an instant picture. There is more

to it than that. I spent the last two years educating my self with anything i could read on

digital. I recomend the same to all.

[Mike D]

You might just want to use raw for the formals and any other photos where quality really counts. However, if you shoot hundreds of candids at the reception, JPEG's should be OK.

[michael mccarley]

The quality of every image should be important! If limited storage is available (not enough CF cards to do the job), either you shouldn't be shooting digitally as a hired professional or your clients need to know that your limitations will likely result in reduced image quality.