RAW versus JPEG for weddings. - advice needed

[david_schilling___chicago_]

This debate can go on and on, and on, and on....

 

I think that it's a bit ironic how many people are taking thousands of images on the wedding day and then delivering less than half or a third of the shots that are captured to the bride and groom. With the emphasis that many place on shooting RAW and carrying high capacity gig cards, I would think those percentages should be alot higher.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...With the emphasis that many place on shooting RAW and carrying high capacity gig cards, I would think those percentages should be alot higher...."</b>

<p>

Another perspective - if everyone shot JPEG - there would be even FEWER images that can be delivered to the bride and groom out of those "thousands of images".

[dave404]

Take a test yourself. Shoot both RAW and JPG and take some of the winners through your post process, preferably shots taken in a difficult lighting environment with mixed ambient and flash lighting, or maybe some bright overexposed lights in the background, maybe near the band. My RAW conversions always seem to win. As a programmer that has done graphic algorithms, I know that when you stick to JPG, you are trusting in some programmer in India or China to have the microprocessor in the camera examine your pixels, determine the object of interest with the brightest luminosity, make this the white point, convert your images from the camera's internal 12 or 14 bits down to 8 and apply a non-linear gamma transformation on them. This algorithm works best in a scene without any bright specular highlights, a good neutral grey and the dynamic range is not too much. Most weddings don't fit this bill, they are frequently a challenge unless you just overpower everything with your flash. Shooting both will give you the convenience of JPG with a safety valve for those cases when the camera's algorithm can't deliver. I designed my import/process/archive around RAW and don't bother with JPGs anymore.

[ilkka_nissila]

David S, it's a different style of photography. If you control the light and the subjects then you can achieve satisfactory images without a lot of post-processing or a high reject rate. But if you shoot events without controlling them and use only natural light, there is a greater need to take more pictures (due to the unpredictability of events) and post-process the images to compensate for the lack of control (over what the subjects do or how the light is) in the shooting stage.

 

I think it would be a good exercise for the traditional posed wedding photographer to shoot a wedding entirely without flash and not saying a word to communicate with the subjects. Also, perhaps those who shoot PJ style would be good occasionally to use manual exposure & an incident meter and see how that changes the editability of the images ;-)

[William Michael]

Michael Polfer: Yes.

 

David Schilling: Yes.

 

I should expand (unclear in my post above): I use RAW + JPEG for Weddings, I shoot about only 400 to 550 frames max.

 

 

WW

[mark_ridout1]

I shoot 100% jpeg because I also nail 100% correct exposure and 100% correct white balance. Okay maybe not :) .... but those failures become black and whites.

[trebor_navilluso]

This is one of my favorite questions here. The other is "Can I shoot this without flash?"

 

I put them both in the same category. This is because they are typically being asked by someone who does not know how to do it.

 

I use both Raw and/or Jpeg only depending on the situation. I do events mostly but this applies in any shooting scenario.

 

If you have perfect light that is not changing. And you know you are going to nail every shot. And you are certain you won't need very large prints, then sure LG JPG is fine and probably even prefered.

 

But, if you have variables, like changing light, mixed light, very large print requirement you need to be ready to shoot raw. You can save much larger tiff files from raw than you get from canned Jpg. Also there's all the correction opportunities stated above by other posters.

 

Now here's the kicker! IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO NOT SHOOT RAW BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW!.. Yes, I know that was yelling, I meant to do that.

 

By the same token it is irresponsible to only use "natural light" because you don't understand flash.

 

I think that if you are charging as a professional, you should know and have at your disposal all the tools and skills necessary to get the job done right. Raw, flash, and even the ability to use film properly when it makes sens. But that would be another whole post. (example, if I'm going to need a 100mb file or larger, I shoot Provia MF or LF and scan it, or when I need seriouse dynamic range, and likewise large size print I shoot Portra)

 

Learn Raw, workflow then decide on a case by case basis if you need to shoot raw or not.

 

Some may say, if you already are comfortable with Raw, why not use it all the time. Answer, Time management. If it is unneccesary, save the processing time and shoot Jpeg.

[russ_konrad]

<b><i>"...Some may say, if you already are comfortable with Raw, why not use it all the time. Answer, Time management. If it is unneccesary, save the processing time and shoot Jpeg."</b></i>

<p>

When you become very comfortable with the software - processing RAW can be just as quick as processing JPEGs. No additional time required.

[john_aceti]

Wow, you guys convinced me. RAW for me from now on.

 

Just installed CaptureNX on my quad processor Xeon server. (Was way to slow on a mortal workstation). I entered 3 changes, brightness, contrast and color and told it to run a batch.

 

The four Intel Xeon's munched through the Nikon NEF (RAW) files like butter! It averages 11 seconds per image and thats is pulling it down off a network share and putting it up to another network share!!

 

Since it is on my server, I can now begin editing them from the workstation as the server spits them out to my hard drive. Wow this rocks!

 

Thanks for helping me "See the Light" guys!

[Matt Laur]

Now THAT, John, is a happy ending to a RAW vs JPG thread. Many of them end in violence, or moderator action, or worse ... so, this is refreshing! And yeah, having Capture NX, running on a fast server platform, watching a folder for files as you dump them in, and them applying batch behaviors and passing them out to another folder... pretty cool. I've done that myself, and it's slick.

[steve_c.5]

John, you seem to have made up your mind about this, which is fine, but I wanted to give you a bit more food for thought.

 

My 12 megapixel RAW images are 19 megabytes. Enormous. I typically shoot 700-1200 images at a wedding. That's a boatload of megabytes to have to deal with, crunch, and store. RAW is a wonderful format, and I use it for critical portrature, creative shots, and formals. I use JPEG for everything else.

 

Question: Does any wedding shooter REALLY need a 19 megabyte file for EVERY wedding image? Sure, the ones that the bride will most likely want enlarged (formals, creatives) might benefit from the extra data, but I've never met a bride who can see the difference. I've never had a bride who wanted anything larger than an 24 x 30 canvas, and even I can't tell the difference between a RAW or JPEG file in such an application, with today's high-res cameras.

 

Question: If a good percentage of your JPEG images are pretty much dead-on, and need few if any adjustments, then why would you need a huge RAW file to have to download, store, and then process as a JPEG anyway? It requires an investment in time and money. If you have plenty of both and don't mind, then shoot RAW. If you have other things to do, then shoot JPEG.

 

Again, I've never met a bride who can tell the difference. The quality aspects we photographers stress and strain over are lost on the majority of clients.

 

So, it's a choice you get to make for yourself. I've said many times, use what makes you happy.

[russ_konrad]

<b><i>"...My 12 megapixel RAW images are 19 megabytes. Enormous. I typically shoot 700-1200 images at a wedding. That's a boatload of megabytes to have to deal with, crunch, and store..."</b></i>

<p>

Storage is dirt cheap these days. We picked up a 320GB external hard drive for $99 last month. And - like John - we also have a quad core processor. It simply flies through the RAW files.

<p>

In a few years - the idea of a 19MB file as being thought of "enormous" will be laughable. Even now - at least with our processor - it is a total non-issue.

<p>

And as always - technology will continue to progress and improve. Having the original negative - in this case - the RAW file - will be advantageous to be able to process it and perhaps even obtain BETTER results than is possible today.

[steve_c.5]

6 months ago, I had the good fortune of picking up a refurbished Seagate 750 gig internal SATA 3.0 drive for $89. It's hooked up to my Asus P5K with Intel quad core 6600, and performs admirably. No matter to me, though, with 25-30 weddings a year, I still don't need that much data to crunch/store or the processing penalties, but again, if others do, it's up to them. RAW is there to use as the photographer sees fit.

[the black rabbit]

[perhaps those who shoot PJ style would be good occasionally to use manual exposure & an incident meter and see how that changes the editability of the images] I think most people [me included] do this anyway...photo journalist or not, I always or at least 9 times out of 10 use manual. And use a spot metering system.

 

[i shoot 100% jpeg because I also nail 100% correct exposure and 100% correct white balance. Okay maybe not :) .... but those failures become black and whites.] Mark I don't know if you are being ironic or just very open...as I don't see how a badly exposed image will look any better in Black and White? If the dress is blown out with no detail...then how will that look better in B/W...as far as I was taught photography that would make it look even worse!

 

John you may want to look at Lightroom as I believe that has more intuitive bulk processing capabilities...I have just ordered it for that reason. Capture NX can be very slow...especially when trawling through a 1000 pictures :)

[charles_stobbs3]

I agree with most of the above, especially Matt and Ellis but I have done most of my film photography with Kodachrome and now Elite Chrome where my involvement with the result ends when I click the shutter. I am very comfortable with this and use Jpeg (my latest digital camera does not make the raw info available) and am willing to accept the misses. I'd rather fill out a 1040 form than post process.

[ilkka_nissila]

The question really is: can any of the shots be improved by skilled use of a raw converter and photoshop? If the answer is yes, then how can you afford to produce an inferior product? Someone somewhere will always be available who is not afraid of the extra work to obtain the best possible image with post-processing. If the bride and groom want a so-so job they can ask a relative or friend with an SLR to do the shooting - no need to pay for a pro to get similar results that anyone could have done.

[markonestudios]

"But if you shoot events without controlling them and use only natural light, there is a greater need to take more pictures (due to the unpredictability of events)"

<p>Really? I shoot film weddings as well, and I find that I will use the same number of rolls regardless of the lighting and come up with similar numbers of pictures.

<p>I shoot JPEG when using dSLR for weddings, because I learnt (sometimes the hard way while using film exclusively ) how to majke use of the lighting to get exposures as spot on as possible...

[ilkka_nissila]

Mark, let's assume a scenario. The bride is entering the church with the flower girls in front of her. Outside, the sun is shining. Inside, the interior surfaces are dark colored surfaces which do not reflect much light and what they do, is colored, e.g. red. The girls are inside, f/2.8 1/125s, the bride's dress outside in f/16 1/800s (ISO 800). How do you expose? How do you handle the fact that the faces of the girls are red because of the reflected light is red, while the bride's dress is lit by sunlight and her face is lit again by colored reflections? Every step they take, the light on the bride changes by two stops. Nail the exposure for every shot, eh? Nail the color, on every subject at the same time, too? Rright. No post-processing needed? Oh yeah ...

 

I got a nice picture, using natural light only and some post-processing. Preserving good detail on the bride and avoiding noise in the faces of the girls would not have been possible with JPG.

With JPG you lose shadow detail, highlight detail, generate a bit of softness in the image, and have reduced possibilities to correct color, exposure, and contrast in post processing. If no one exposure is adequate for all parts of the image, how do you deal with that in JPG?

 

Shoot posed pics in flat light or with studio flash lighting ? I am sure JPG works great. Shoot anything else? Less than optimal results, I am afraid, no matter what you set your exposure to. Granted, sometimes the viewer may not be able to tell the difference. Other times, they will.

[ilkka_nissila]

Here is an example of what natural light in a church looks like on a sunny day. The sun will be striking some areas directly, and others will be lit by colored reflections. Flash? Nope. Can you nail the exposure every time during the ceremony, to the point that no post-processing can improve any of the areas of the image? Great - shoot JPG.<div></div>