RAW v. JPEG shooting for weddings

[photobymarkdavey]

<p>Use your handheld meter get it right in camera and it doesn't really matter which you use. It is a bit like transparency v negative, both are useful but if you aren't good at getting exposure right stick to neg film.</p>

[ed_te_pas]

<p>If you take yourself seriously as a pro photographer, there is no other way then to shoot raw. The quality of my 8-bit jpegs SOOC are no comparison to the high quality raw files. Especially detail in the high lights and shadow area are easily lost in a high pace wedding and of course the K-temp in various situations is easily adjustable. I've been telling this since the beginning of the digital age when there were many strong opposed. Believe me, if Ansel Adams was still alive, he would be shooting RAW.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you everyone, I think you've pretty much sold me. If I think it's a really fast set of images I'm going to need to take, I'll probably switch to JPEG. Otherwise keep it in RAW. What really got me was the "I fought the RAW and the RAW won."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are going to shoot RAW, you really should just leave it in RAW. It's easier than you think to forget to change it back!</p>

<p>And the buffer advantage of jpeg is not as great as you think. The D700/D300 that I use can shoot 18 frames in RAW before the buffer fills. And as previously mentioned, it's uncommon to fill it during a wedding. I've never done so. (Or if I have, I was way overshooting.)</p>

<p>@MitchW - Can you give more details about how you managed to fill the buffer?</p>

<p>By the way, I think most of the "speed" comments in this thread are oriented towards speed of processing, not speed of shooting. In either case, the speed benefits of jpeg are minimal.</p>

<p> </p>

[art_szabo1]

<p>Craft?? Which famous film photographer didn't practice his craft in the darkroom? There is a huge difference between good enough and excellent. Excellence requires effort and and extreme skill honing, other words for craft. Anybody that uses their photos right out of the camera shouldn't use the word craft. The digital camera of today is no different in the overall process than it was a hundred years ago with film. The camera is a light gathering device, it is a tool used to gather data. What you do with that data is craft. I worked in digital imaging for years before I ever bought a digital camera. RAW is the only format for the crafts person for all of the reasons stated above. Snapshots are what comes out of the camera, photographs require effort.<br>

Art</p>

[jamie_mahoney]

<p> OK for the sake of argument, I'd like to offer an opinion for the 'other side' of what most of the photographers here have said.</p>

<p >Some points by the 'despised' Ken Rockwell: JPEG is a universal format. It will open on any computer in any piece of imaging software. RAW is camera dependent, there is no universal format (DNG is not bad option, but is not native on most cameras). What does this mean? Unless you convert your RAW files now to a universal format (JPEG or TIFF) you risk not being able to open them in 10, 15 or more years from now? Far Fetched? I was backing up some old zip-disks a few weeks ago. I had some old video files from my first Win95 computer that I could not open with Windows Media Player, Real Player, or Quicklime. Backwards software capability is not guaranteed.</p>

<p >Also, in many cases... you will need to pay to get your current software updated as you get a new camera. I run Photoshop CS2, and have a Nikon D90and I am required to either pay for an upgrade to CS4, or convert the original RAW files to TIFF or DNG before editing, adding another step to the post processing. I often now use Picasa 3, and thankfully this free software supports D90 RAW when I do use it.</p>

<p >It also would appear from reading these post that there is no way to adjust color balance in JPEG's. This of course is incorrect, many of us were adjusting color balance and levels long before RAW was a common format.</p>

<p >RAW does have more data, and certain things such as shadow detail can really be groomed from the image. But I am not sold on the marketing hype that because the “Professionals” use RAW, FF, all pro glass, etc, it makes the rest of us less of artist or 'craftsman' because we are gear, computer or software challenged. It is the result that matters, not the tools to create it.</p>

<p >And with all due respect Art, 100 years ago... wasn't all film black and while? Didn't it require quite a bit of handling to make a good image? And a bunch of expensive equipment and chemicals to produce great results? So the ability to create great images was pretty much reserved to those with a good technical knowledge AND a large financial investment to make these images. Color film changed many things, and Nikon and Canon produced some great relatively inexpensive 35mm cameras that put the ability to create great images within the hands of the average consumer... without the huge investment in a darkroom. (and thanks to Kodak for also bringing photography to more than the elite). Even then... the 'Professional' elitists touted MF as the only pro format, and anything lesser wasn't art.</p>

<p >Todays digital cameras (adjusted correctly) produce wonderful JPEG files right out of the camera. So now I know that the pros define out of camera images 'snapshots'! It could be argued that the only true photographic craftsmen are those that create their final artistic images right out of the camera! :)</p>

[William Michael]

<p>

<p><strong><em>"Anybody that uses their photos right out of the camera shouldn't use the word craft</em></strong><em>. . . I worked in digital imaging for years before I ever bought a digital camera. </em><strong><em>RAW is the only format for the crafts person</em></strong><em> for all of the reasons stated above. </em><strong><em>Snapshots are what comes out of the camera, photographs require effort."</em></strong><br>

</p>

<p >Well that made me giggle . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >An interesting collection of strong words: this could be interpreted as quite a spray of vitriol. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Why do you not show some of your own Photographs which "required effort" – perhaps a set spanning the last 40 years or so, as evidentiary support to your claims.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>

<p ><strong ><em >“And with all due respect Art . . . [paragraph leads to concluding] </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em >“ So now I know that the pros define out of camera images 'snapshots'!” </em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >With all due respect Jamie, this conclusion is flawed in both logic and fact: </p>

<p >in logic – Art has not established that he is a Professional Photographer.</p>

<p >in fact: - If Art is a Professional Photographer, he does not own the option of offering statements or opinions on behalf of all Professional Photographers. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

</p>

<p > </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Oh I seem to be the only sucker for attempting the more easy questions posted here . . .</p>

<p><strong><em>"Craft?? Which famous film photographer didn't practice his craft in the darkroom?"</em></strong><br>

<em></em><br>

<em>"Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks."</em><br>

 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="760">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2" width="760" align="left" valign="top"><strong><em>Henri Cartier-Bresson</em></strong></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

 

[cherubinphotography]

<p>RAW always.</p>

[jamie_mahoney]

<p>Sorry William... <strong><em>“ So now I know that the pros define out of camera images 'snapshots'!” </em></strong>is to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek examination of Art's statement!<br>

<br /><em>"Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks."</em><br /><em><strong>~Henri Cartier-Bresson</strong></em><br>

<br />Perfect quote for the last part of this discussion! Thanks William! :)<br>

 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="760">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2" width="760" align="left" valign="top"><strong><em></em></strong></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>What? We haven't had any recent RAW vs. jpg debates? Try a search of the past threads, this subject has been beaten to death..........</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This question was semi-valid in 2005 -- 5 years later it's a no brainer. Modern Raw files are 14-bits of data, while JPGs are 8-bits of LOSSY! image file data.</p>

<p>Are you a Pro or not? Shoot JPG only and Throw Away tons of usable data. Shoot JPG only if you really do not care.</p>

<p>Raw v. JPG doesn't come down to you can "nail the exposure" or white balance. Even if it (will, it will!) saves your butt every now and then raw is worth it.</p>

<p>There is not one single JPG out of any camera that can be improved upon by YOU starting in its native raw format. Thus: ALL raw image files are better than every single JPG; it's logically impossible that the camera can produce a better starting JPG then even a moderately skilled post processor with the raw.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em><strong>“ “ So now I know that the pros define out of camera images 'snapshots'!” </strong></em><em >is to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek examination of Art's statement!”</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p >Put your apology back in the box – my retort to you had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, also</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also as you mention: “<em >to adjust color balance in JPEG's</em>” and similar matters . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have mentioned before when this question pops up (regularly) . . . that 99% of the time I shoot RAW + JPEG (L). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >For many of the Events (not Weddings) I do cover now, I use the JPEG straight out of the box (only with some Sharpening and that is usually a preset). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I had, a few years ago, run several tests with Picture Styles and the other JPEG <strong >in camera</strong> processing functions and I have a template of what <strong >in camera</strong> processing I use and when I use it, based upon Subject Matter and Lighting Conditions – my template now has been refined and comprises Four different settings.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Should I require the RAW file it is always there for me to use.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >However, that said, I can understand and also design several business models for <strong >Wedding Photography</strong>, whereby JPEG shooting (with or without the safety net of RAW) would be more than suitable, and profitable, with a skilled *craftsman. <br /><br />WW<br /><br />*(or craftswoman . . . but, having an 18% Photographic grey beard I would parse that noun “craftsman” as <em >common gender, </em>so please no politically correct knickers in knots, please). – that’s more of tongue in cheek, or perhaps just plain, cheeky. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Shoot what works for you and be happy with your choice. You should not be relying on RAW processing to save your butt shot after shot. RAW is great and offers more creativity and more data to with with but if you can produce a decent wedding album shooting JPEG than you have more things to worry about.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I always shoot everything in RAW. They can be more easily post processed if necessary.</p>

<p>A topic of conversation that often accompanies these kind of threads is what happens if the customer want's your RAW files instead of .jpg's. Here is my take on it. The client hired you to do a job and it is your responsibility to deliver a high quality product. I am a film guy from way back and shot many weddings on film. Think of your RAW files as your <em>negatives</em>. They are <em>YOUR</em> intellectual property, not the client's. If the client wants a CD/DVD of the images, and most of them do nowadays, DO NOT agree to give them RAW files, they get high quality, high resolution .jpg's. Wedding albums are not as popular as they used to be for some odd reason. People are getting cheap and would rather go and get your images printed at the local WalMart or whatever. For me, a full album of 8X10's comes as part of the price. If the family wants reprints they pay for them, just as in the old days.</p>

[rt_jones]

<p>At a recent wedding, the bride asked me what format we shoot in (I'm a 2nd shooter). When I told her RAW and she said, "well, that's good!". I asked her if she dabbled in photography because she was familiar with the term. She replied, "No. I read somewhere that I was supposed to ask but forgot." </p>

<p>I'm quite certain that every photo we took that day looked 10 times better in her eyes simply because it we shot in RAW. :)</p>

[ed_te_pas]

<blockquote>

<p>@Jamie M It could be argued that the only true photographic craftsmen are those that create their final artistic images right out of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True for compositon and captureing the moment, but there's more to it. You'd better do some serious reading about the true masters like Ansel Adams,Cartier Bresson, Bill Brandt etc. and don't quote half of their statements. CB trusted very good craftsmen to develop his images. He was only interested in the moment and captured truly great moments in time, but knew he could not do it without his friends who developed his vision and enhanced his images. Look at <a href="

to see how they are developing his images. Others like AA en BB used extensive darkroom techniques to show their images.<br />Ansel Adams: You don't take an image, you make it.</p>

[anthony_zipple]

<p>Necessary? No. helpful? Definitely. I often (10-20% of shots) tweak color balance in RAW. Hard to do that in a jpg.I always shoot large jpg+Raw. It takes more space to shoot both, but with 1.5 TB drives selling for $130, it seems like a cheap way to preserve my options.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>I realized the amount of memory it takes up to do RAW+JPEG is negligable compared to just RAW, so I figure go for the gusto and use both.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>i will shoot jpeg on my weddings when jpeg will hold as much information and will be as flexible as raw files are. until then, raw for me.<br>

i pay premium for a good sensor, and i am NOT willing to throw any excess away. jpeg simply does not work for me.<br>

and by the way, if you are a canon shooter, jpeg detail might work for you, but the D700 i use visibly reduces detail while shooting jpeg, especially in the high ISO's. that is not acceptable.</p>

[kdrews]

<p>When I get so good at my craft that I'm confident that I can nail the white balance and exposure on every shot then I'll switch to just jpegs. Until then, I'm sticking with RAW+JPEG. I keep trying to get better every day, but it's a never ending task. Cheers!</p>

[ed_te_pas]

<blockquote>

<p>I can nail the white balance and exposure on every shot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been shooting for 50+ years, forget it! You can guess some WB situations and exposure, But with mixed lightning varying circumstances indoors/outdoors, you have to have the eyes of Batman. Certainly not recommended on a paid job.</p>

[dave404]

<p>I have written a lot of imaging software, 3D rendering, etc. and I can appreciate how difficult it must be for the the guy the wrote the camera software to decide on what is the most significant highlight, bias his exposures to make that be the most significant object, drop a few stops of exposure latitude based on that highlight and attempt an auto white balance assuming the brightest object must be white! A bride on a dance floor with a nearby disco ball will demonstrate what the camera's algorithm will do - a white wedding dress at 100 Y 60R 60G.The camera software is all biased towards average scenes and does not know what a specular reflection is, it assumes it must be a highlight that you want to preserve. That is the risk with JPG. But hey, if you want to put your faith in that mysterious software engineer that wrote all the camera algorithms go ahead. If you can do it, you can do it.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Let's be real here. In the 20th Century all those great photographers employed professionals to print their images. Sorry, they did not spend hours in the dark room. A short reading of the history of photography will dispel any glorified vision of photographers laboring 2-3 hours over each photograph. This is really a debate between computer lovers and photographers. Sorry, if I sound a little angry but recently I read an article about a non-photographer winning a photography award. He combined two very mundane images and computer enhanced them afterwards to make them look spectacular. Raw is only good when you intend to alter the image that you produce with the camera. If you can not produce a decent image in jpeg you need raw or if the bride has warts on her nose then you need raw to remove them. Simply stated: If what I see is not good enough then I need raw. </p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Steve: you're being disengenuous. Who cares who labored over the prints? Whether the photographer did the tricksy darkroom work or the photographer paid an ace darkroom guy to do it for him, the <em>photograph</em> was produced using both of those disciplines. Now it's easier for one person to become adequately skilled in both. Your either/or scenario pitting "computer lovers" against "photographers" is a silly false dichotomy, and you know it.<br /><br />Your anecdote about some contest someplace rewarding a post production specialist's skills doesn't have any more bearing on the practical realities of the situation than does your assertion that shooting in RAW is all about fixing blemishes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Simply stated: If what I see is not good enough then I need raw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense. It isn't about what you see, it's about your ability to record it on the fly - especially in an event-shooting sitution where you're moving from one lighting scenario to another in seconds. RAW provides color and exposure latitude lacking in a shallow JPG file. Period. It's got nothing to do with superimposing pixies into your images or being a virtual dermatologist.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"@Jamie M It could be argued that the only true photographic craftsmen are those that create their final artistic images right out of the camera." . . .</em></strong><br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<strong><em>You'd better do some serious reading</em></strong> about the true masters like Ansel Adams,Cartier Bresson, Bill Brandt etc. <strong><em>and don't quote half of their statements</em></strong>. <em><strong>CB trusted very good craftsmen to develop his images</strong></em>. He was only interested in the moment and captured truly great moments in time, but knew he could not do it without his friends who developed his vision and enhanced his images."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Ed, I think it was I who quoted CB, then I was quoted by Jamie. <br>

There is a difference at least that's how I read it. </p>

<p>My answer was a direct response to this question: <strong>"</strong><em><strong>Craft?? Which famous film photographer didn't practice his craft in the darkroom?"</strong></em><strong><br /></strong><br /><br>

And essentially CB did not "<em><strong>practice his craft in the darkroom".</strong></em></p>

<p>Notwithstanding my answer and quote - I was being a tad cheeky - if you read my lead that would be obvious.</p>

<p>Yes my quoting CB, was made after doing significant reading, and teaching the subject also.</p>

<p>You might still have issue and further discussion with Jamie - I don't know - but I did NOT “quote half of CB’s statements” - he said what he meant and followed with actions accordingly and he is an example which answers the question which was posed, i.e. <em>show me a Master who did not practice his craft in the Darkroom.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

WW </p>