RAW vs. JPEG and when to shoot either?

[nathan_ellzey]

I have been stubornly sticking to shooting jpegs at my weddings. I understand

that most digital photogs say it's foolish to shoot anything but RAWs. I'm

concerned about storage, though. I take 2 cards each w/ 2GB of memory. I will

shoot 350-600 photos at a given wedding (primarily depending on the amount of

time they book me). If I shoot that many RAWs, I'll run out of memory on my cards.

 

What if I shoot the formals and the ceremony (and any tricky lighting

situations) in RAW, but shoot the candids (usually most of the reception) in JPEG?

[rickvandenberg]

Why fool around? Spend a couple of hundred dollars and get a few more cards.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Nathan,

 

You can do that. I did exactly that for the first few I shot with a digital as the pirmary.

 

I prefer to shoot all RAW. It does yeild a better result and has a little better DR.

 

I currently use about 12-16 gigs of CF for my stuff (down from 16-20gigs on the 1Ds2) and my assistants use up to another 30 gigs if the day is long and good things are happening.

 

I would reco. getting more CF and HD space and switch to RAW, but then again, you have your own ways, :-)

 

Best, D.

[libbie_mistretta]

RAW is so helpful, though. It takes a while to learn how to manipulate them, but once you do, it's so nice to be able to save otherwise good shots that just have minor exposure flaws. RAW processing is the equivalent of a good pro lab processing your film. If you know how to do it well, you can get gorgeous results and save some crummy situations. With .jpgs, you're stuck with what you've got, and the best you can hope for is to do some Auto Levels or Auto Color stuff in Photoshop.

 

Yes, I think it's a great idea to shoot RAW all the time, especially at weddings, where you may not have the chance to set up a shot in absolutely perfect conditions. Post-processing is something you really have to get good at (I'm nowhere near good yet, myself, but I'm still working at it!) but it's such an invaluable skill. As digital photographers, we don't have the luxury of finding a really excellent lab guy to have a professional partnership with - we're "it." RAW is your best friend in post-processing! :)

 

I'm still new to wedding photography, but when I do my farm and kennel shoots for animal breeders, I get as many photos as at an average wedding if they have several animals to feature. I presently have four 256MB cards and one 3GB. I use the smaller cards first for the most important subjects. I just don't trust that a large card will stay sound - you never know what could happen. If one of my smaller cards corrupts, I've only lost about 26 shots, not 100 - and with animal photos, this means I can schedule a time to re-shoot just that one horse (or dog, or bull, or whatever) and not the entire farm.

 

With weddings, you might lose key moments that can't be re-shot later, but at least you've only lost 26 of them and not ALL of them!

 

In RAW, the smaller cards hold about as much as an average roll of film. And they cost so much less than the larger cards. They're also dropping in price (at least in my area!) because people are so into the increased capacity of the bigger cards. They're just a better deal for a professional photographer, in my opinion!

 

Anyway, enough about small cards. ;)

[jim_marby]

Nathan,

 

After shooting wedding for the last 5 years in .jpg I've recently converted to RAW. I like the better control I have over the final image and there is really no extra work involved for me, however there is nothing really wrong in using .jpg as long as you expose accuratly and keep up with proper white balance.

 

Too many photographers depend on RAW because their skills are lacking. Far too often today, someone buys a digital camera and presto.. they are now a wedding photographer, with no real knowledge of photography.

 

It has even come to the point where they claim you are not a 'real' photographer if you use .jpg. Bull...

 

Try this for yourself, take a .jpg file and re-write it 10 or 12 times then compait the original to the copy, you'll be hard pressed to see any real difference. That's not to say you should do that all the time but if you re-write a .jpg file once ot twice it really won't make any difference.

 

In any event which ever format you choose I suggest you use it throughout the entire wedding, it makes things easier.

 

I've been photographing weddings for over 35 years, I'm a full time studio owned and I've been all digital for over 5 years, I know what I'm talking about.

 

Good Luck,

[kari douma]

I started doing exactly what you are talking about. I started shooting JPEG. Then, I added raw in tricky lighting situations. I liked the RAW so much that I decided to buy 8 more gigs of cards so I can shoot the entire wedding in RAW. This weekend I plan on shooting the majority of the wedding in RAW. It will be my first where I am shooting primarily in RAW, and I am looking forward to it. The only downside is that my camera is slow to write RAW files, and I am a quick shooter. We'll see if it is a problem.

[nathan_ellzey]

Thanks for all the advice. I'm going to start adding RAW this weekend. One more question: Should I set my camera to shoot both RAW & JPEG or take the leap and shoot just RAW?

[chris_s___hampton_roads_va]

Unless you immediately need the jpg for outputting, I'd stick with RAW only, to save a litle extra space. What camera are you shooting with? I normally get 600 or so one ONE of my 2G cards(using my D2h)...! Yikes!

You'll be happier doing it all in RAW, if for no other reason that in greatly accellerates the workflow (at least it did for me)!

[nathan_ellzey]

I'm shooting with a Canon 20D. I figure to get 200-250 RAWs on one 2GB card.

[jmichaelc]

RAW if you do your own processing and you shoot on the fly.

 

JPEG if you just send them in for printing and you are mostly in controlled settings. I agree with the opinions above to get extra space and shoot RAW. When you are shooting in trickly lighting situations and you begin working on your files......you will then see why RAW will be benificial to you due to the leveage the RAW file will give you v/s that of the JPEG. I do not shoot anything in JPG anymore...only RAW.

[yves_jalbert]

Jim Marby, you are my hero (laughs).

 

I've been waiting so long to see such a comment expressed in the manner you did, that I thought it would never come. You basically picked my brain and put my thoughts on this subject right in the public spot.

 

Reason I'm saying this is that I've been shooting film (amateur) for about 8 years and I've switched to digital about four months ago.

 

I know my camera in and out. I rely on the viewfinder, the settings panel on top, and I shoot JPEGs 9 out of 10 times. I almost never look at the lcd. It's just an occasional safety net. If I take a shot and it's not good, it's either because I didn't control my camera properly, a nice women walked by :) or was working in extremely difficult situations. In almost every case, I know exactly how the photograph will come out since I know my camera in and out, and I've always worked like that in the past (no preview of any kind).

 

Now I know the time will come where I will find RAW very nice just as everybody else. I can certainly understand the advantages of RAW expecially for a professional over JPEG. But for now, I post-process JPEGs, adjust a bit of sharpness here and there, send it to the lab and the results just amaze me, so I'm extremely satisfied with JPEG. I'm less focused on becoming a post-processing expert for now than I am trying to become a good photograph.

 

I'm on this forum often... well ok, probably too much, and I read most of what gets posted. The general feeling I get is that if you talk in favor of JPEG you are basically the devil or recently escaped from a nut house. I'm just glad that a profesionnal mentionned it, as it seems to carry more weight.

[picturesque]

I'd say if you are satisfied and successful shooting jpegs, why are you asking if you should shoot RAW? Do whatever works for you. I've shot weddings all jpeg, RAW and jpeg, and all RAW. If you pretty much nail exposures, white balance, and a have a good lab, jpegs are a perfectly fine way to go. However, I wouldn't make the decision to stay with jpegs based on not wanting to spend the money for more memory cards. I would analyze why you are thinking you should shoot RAW.

[mendel_leisk]

Don't know if this is the best analogy, but:

 

You bring your film in for processing, get prints and negs, and chuck the negs, thinking I can just scan the prints later if I want to adjust color balance, recrop, resize, etc.

 

My 2 cents: it's a non-issue, just shoot raw.

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

I shoot large jpeg on candid and Raw + large Jpeg on formal. Now all RAW + large JPEG becuase I just purchase 2 8GB CF, but use jpeg as my main print file and only RAW file if the picture I wanted got overposed or messup by jpeg.

[rick_helmke]

The only problem I have with RAW is that my D1-X runs out of buffer space too quickly. It drives me nuts, one of those situations where the tool gets in the way of the job. Apparently I don't have the buffer upgrade. Maybe when I get the D200 I'll make the change but for now I just shoot jpeg most of the time. Still, with care I don't have much problem with exposure. I learned how to do that correctly many years ago.

 

Rick H.

[jsipe]

Shoot RAW--you won't regret it. Now, I've been shooting on only 3 1-gig cards, and I don't know where everyone gets all the money to buy their gear when just starting out. Visa?

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

For the Nikon shooters out there, comparison has shown that the in camera JPEG processing is poor compared to RAW output. Defintely detail loss, especially in shadows. This even applies to the D200.

 

My understanding is that Canon has better in camera JPEG processing? :-/

 

Aaron Lee

[larry schaefer - chicago,]

The more things you you tell yourself you need to SWITCH the more things you set yourself up to forget. Leave it on raw.

 

I have worked my way into raw and I'm likin' it. My workflow is pretty clumsy still.

[larry schaefer - chicago,]

Hey Douma? Did you start on RAW after that workshop? Like me? :-}

Dang I still owe you money.

 

Nathan I think the lesson is, keep it alive as a very viable option.

[jennifer valencia]

I tend to shoot RAW if the lighting is tricky or if I'm worried about the skin tones being portrayed correctly. Anything under yellow lights, indoor lights, or even bright sun seems to benefit from RAW. I Loooooove being able to tweak white balance myself. I find that digital cameras in general tend to give that "reddy" cast to skin in many cases with .jpg files, and that is a pain to get rid of in Photoshop. For me, the skin tones look more natural when I shoot RAW and adjust from there. (Of course, correct exposure and white balance can affect skin tone, but I think RAW makes it easier to correct issues!)

 

I'd suggest buying a few more cards so you can shoot RAW for more shots. If you're the kind of person who manipulates every shot anyway, like I do, it's really not much more work to shoot in RAW -- and your skin tones will definitely benefit!

 

Jennifer

[sublimeimages]

I'm going to photography my 2nd wedding (1st Digital) on the 24th of June and I have been working/preparing with raw files for the past 5 months. Compared to my jpegs even with custom white bal the raw files look way better. I use the D2h and the D1x w/upgrade (which I use less because I like the D2h color, and flash consistency.) and 7 gigs of cards. I was always taught film is cheap, but if you know that say, the candids arenﾒt going to see much enlargement you maybe able to get by with jpeg-ing it.

[iskandar_azaman___kuala_lu]

The main reason i shoot RAW is because i hate going into photoshop. I like Adobe Bridge and ACR. It just works for me. Cropping is so much easier with ACR. Plus it doesn't mess with the original file.

 

I was wondering how those shooting jpegs cope with white balance. For me, i just set the camera to auto white balance. So sometimes i do like to alter the white balance a bit in order to give a more pleasing shot. This is easier done with a RAW file. Also, if for whatever reason i mistakenly underexposed or overexposed, i just do everything in ACR. With jpegs i'd have to do the levels and that's just too much extra work.

 

ACR is just superfast to work with. Just open all the files from the wedding and i can browse using acr. And correct it as i go through them.

 

Another plus is that if i need to put some effects on the files like converting to black and white or whatever, i just go through one compression step instead of 2. If you shoot jpeg, the file that comes out of your camera is already compressed. You might convert it to tiff for any photoshop work, but then after you're done you still have to save it again, that's a second time compressing the picture.

 

With RAW i can go from RAW to lossless TIFF and do any photoshop work. And finally convert to a first generation jpeg.

 

I just cannot imagine shooting jpeg anymore. It's just too much work for my style of photography.

[dave_powell1]

Another GREAT advantage of shooting RAW (especially when you are doing indoor existing-light or low-light shots) is that RAW files often have much less digital noise than JPEGs...require much less tidying up!

[jgrim8]

you know what they say....once you go raw, you never go back. :o)

[dave_powell1]

OUCH!!!!