Raw or Jpegs?

[timages]

<p>Though im an experienced photographer, I am fairly new to digital, (iv been dragging my feet regarding trying it) I wish to ask Digital wedding photographers if they shoot in Raw or Jpegs modes. I have yet to do a wedding with my digital equipment, I have one coming up soon and am debating which to use film or digital. If I shoot it in raw I know it means spending a lot of time working on the files, whereas if I use film I can let a pro Lab do all the work for me. Anyways I want to know what most wedding photographers use Raw or Jpegs? Thanks, Tim.</p>

[art_tatum]

<p>RAW, RAW, RAW.</p>

<p>The discussion starts and ends there. Although I am sure others may make the case for JPEG. So all you J-Peggers what is your rational? And to think that I was anti RAW and pro JPEG at one point. I was such a fool.</p>

<p>The <strong>best</strong> option is RAW/JPEG which most good cameras offer the option to do.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Interesting. I haven't responded to this question in perhaps six months. ;-)</p>

<p>I won't tell you whether to shoot film or digital. But if you are shooting digital, you should shoot raw—or raw + jpeg.</p>

<p>There is only 1 serious disadvantage to raw files these days, and that is their size: they may be 50% larger than the associated jpegs, perhaps larger than that. But storage is cheap, so this really should not be a significant problem for anybody any more.</p>

<p>A second very minor disadvantage of raw: on many cameras, shooting raw slows down the burst rate. This is less than minor for me, at least, since I've never needed to shoot so many shots in quick succession that raw became an issue.</p>

<p>On the other hand, raw has a very big advantage: it contains more information. Actually, it's useful to remember that you ARE ALWAYS SHOOTING RAW WILLY-NILLY when you shoot digital. Raw is what the sensor sees. The question isn't whether you want to SHOOT raw, the question is whether you want the camera to convert to jpeg for you and throw away all the info it decides is unimportant, or whether you want to keep all the info and be able to decide for yourself.</p>

<p>Dealing with raw requires no more effort than dealing with jpeg these days. When I use my compact cameras I sometimes shoot raw, sometimes jpeg. I can't tell the difference between one file or another while I'm in Lightroom without looking at the file name.</p>

<p>And why do you want the extra info in those raw files? Several reasons.</p>

<ol>

<li>Shooting raw, you can put your camera on auto white balance and leave it there forever. If the picture does end up with white balance that's off, you can fix it on the computer.</li>

<li>If you have a raw file, you can pull more detail from almost-blown highlights, or from shadows that are almost but not quite pushed all the way to black.</li>

<li>Even if there are no dramatic exposure or color problems with the shot, working on a raw file, you have more post-processing options than you do working on a jpeg.</li>

<li>If you keep the raw "digital negative", you can make fresh conversions to jpeg using different programs and get different results OR you can reprocess your "negatives" in the future when better raw converters appear. Adobe Lightroom 3's conversion engine does a better job with my raw files than Lightroom 2 or Lightroom 1 did, and as a result, I've gone back and reprocessed a number of old photos. But a jpeg is a kind of digital "print," and once the raw data has been converted to jpeg (printed) and the raw file (the negative) discarded, well, you're stuck.</li>

</ol>

<p>Will</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Allow me to echo.<br>

"RAW, RAW, RAW".</p>

[timages]

<p>I had an idea most would shoot Raw, I use it all the time, But I was just curious regarding Weddings, and wanted to know if any did use jpegs and why. Thanks, Tim.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>RAW. Did I mention RAW? Also, RAW.</p>

[savagesax]

Shoot with film since you are good at it. At the reception play around with digital in RAW format.

 

The reason for suggesting this is film behaves differently, if you are under exposed with film you are pretty much dead. If you are under exposed with digital, perhaps 2 stops, you can still make a decent print.

 

With digital, even in RAW I find that 1 stop over, or more, you can blow out the whites, such as the wedding dress, so no detail will show. With film I was almost always 1 stop over, because of the clean saturation. I also rated film on the low side, for example if the film was rated at ISO/ASA 400, I rated it at 320.

 

Anyway, shoot both formats until you feel good with digital.

[frolickingbits]

<p>A few years ago when memory cards and hard drives were expensive, computers were kind of slow, and programs such as Lightroom and Aperture didn't exist, there was a case for Jpeg, but I think at this point there really is no good reason to not shoot RAW. An 8GB card that can hold about 400 files from my 5D Mk2 is only $25, so $100 gets me plenty of storage for a wedding, a 1 TB external HDD that can hold about 30 weddings is $75, get a second drive for backup, only $5 a wedding in storage space.<br>

All that aside, for working with RAW files, I think either Aperture or Lightroom is a must, and it's very useful if you go jpeg too, although with Aperture several editing options aren't available with jpg files.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Another RAW vs. jpg thread..........why not do a search of prior threads and you'll hear the same old re-hashed arguments on either side of the issue. Qualified pros make the choice for themselves regardless of online forum opinions.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Bob... there is actually a good reason to overexpose the Raw file:</p>

<p>http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html</p>

<p>However, in the earlier days of digital I daresay that wasn't the case. As far as Raw vs JPEG, I can't think of any reason for a wedding photographer not to shoot Raw. The Raw file has 4096 times (12-bit!) more information than an 8-bit JPEG file.</p>

[ed_te_pas]

<p>Difference between raw and jpeg is the same as negative film and polaroid.</p>

[peter_cohen]

<p>To William's point above about burst rate, I suggest you buy the highest-speed memory cards you can afford. They will accept the image from your camera to the card and then from your card to your computer faster. SanDisk has a card that does read/write at 90MB per second.</p>

<p>The other factor is your camera's buffer which is where your images go before they get to the memory card. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, please.) I read that the Nikon D200's buffer could store up to 21 RAW images and shoot at 5fps. Since the camera is continuously dumping the buffered images to the card, it really shouldn't be a problem.</p>

[dzeanah]

<p>I don't care to get into an argument here, but among wedding photographers shooting with Fuji S5 cameras (back when they were new), most of us shot JPEG because the results were more than good enough and the workflow improvements were nothing to sneeze at.</p>

<p>Of course, at the time JPEGs from the Fujis showed about the same range of adjustability as raw images from Nikon, so this was the exception. In general raw only shooting is probably safe advice.</p>

<p>But test for yourself. If you tend to get it right in-camera, don't need the flexibility, and have a workflow more suited to jpegs than consider that route. If you just can't decide though, shoot raw.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>Raw just means the exposure data in it's most unprocessed form. Even with the camera set to jpeg it's shooting raw, then processing it into a jpeg. The choice is processing. If you like the results you get from the manufacturer's in-camera software shoot jpeg. If you think you can do a better job with your choice of software then shoot raw. To me it's the same difference as one-hour, uniform, auto- developing and printing vs doing it yourself in the darkroom. Is the darkroom better? It depends entirely on the skills of the developer/printer.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Do what you want, or at least what you can make work.</p>

<p>I use RAW, probably will until jpegs offer non destructive recording... oh, wait.... that would be RAW. Never mind.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I hate to go against the grain but when shooting (wedding) outside under good lighting condition, I shoot JPEG. I don't always shoot RAW, even at a wedding. Inside shots, formals and more critical shots, I use RAW. I know I'm the exception here. v/r Buffdr</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Buffdr,<br>

Why? What is your reasoning?</p>

<p>Tim,<br>

The last film wedding I did cost $450 in developing and printing, the first digital I did cost $50 and was printed by the same pro lab.</p>

[markonestudios]

I think sage advice would be to stick to what you're used to (film) and then experiment during the non-critical portions or the more trigger-happy portions) with RAW+JPEG on your dSLR. That way you'll have the best of all worlds.

<p>There are also myriad postings on this topic. Do a search and you'll see that it has been an ongoing discussion for seemingly eons :) Oh, for the record, I currently shoot JPEG :) I've toyed with RAW for a few shoots but have not yet been convinced that I need to switch over.

[fotografz]

<p><strong>While the principle difference in formats remains the same, many of the archived threads dealing with this RAW verses Jpg subject have become outdated ... in some cases significantly outdated.</strong></p>

<p>As already mentioned, file size is not a reason to avoid RAW like it once was ... capture media have increased in capacity and read/write speed while significantly dropping in price. USB-2(3) or FW400/800 7200 rpm storage drives in terabyte capacity are a fraction of the cost they once were. Card readers have improved ... I now use 4 daisy-chained Lexar Pro FW800 readers, and simultaneously download an entire RAW wedding shoot in 10 minutes or less ... <em>usually less now that I'm using the newer Pro spec CFs ... another fairly recent improvement. </em></p>

<p><strong>Perhaps the most important advancement that didn't exist just a few months ago, is the introduction of Photoshop-5 and Lightroom-3 ... and <em>Adobe Camera RAW 6.1</em></strong></p>

<p>Both these Adobe post programs have significantly improved camera RAW profiles ... as well as noise and color controls, speed of operation, and added additional post processing tools. While some of these improvements apply equally to any capture format, it is the RAW file using ACR-6.1 that has benefited the most because it holds the most data to use these improvements in image processing quality.</p>

<p>With these newer post programs, my RAW processing time in LR has been cut by 60% ... I'm now done faster than ever, without sacrificing any of my established quality standards. </p>

<p>What is amazing about these RAW post programs is when you revisit some key RAW shots done in past. I've redone 1/2 of my samples since acquiring LR3. </p>

<p>The other thing to consider are the advancements made in many cameras themselves. Many digital cameras have gone to 14, or even 16 bit data capture ... where an in-camera Jpg is 8 bit data output. My question is: going into post work, why throw away what you paid for?</p>

<p> </p>

[angkordave]

<p>I see an analogy between RAW Vs JPEG and Slide vs Print .<br /> Negatives contain more info than the paper you are printing on which is only around 2/3rds the dynamic range what you can get out of a JPEG file and 1/2 what you can get from a RAW File. There is more tolerance from negative film than slide film which the exposure has to dead on.<br /> Until I migrated to digital in the early 2000s I always used slide film; producing prints from scanned slides. I predominantly shoot JPEG unless I have any specific reason by way of specific lighting or other requirements to use RAW. ( I have been a Fuji user which has influenced my decision) <br /> Shooting RAW all the time is pointless waste of computer memory.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Dave, I come from a slide background, I can nail exposure. RAW is all I shoot. Why would you not shoot a slide that could be printed like a neg? Storage space is no reason when 1TB HD's are under $80, my last rolls of Velvia cost me $1 per shot without scanning, printing or storage costs.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>If you go with RAW make sure you take sunscreen with you.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>Why DO so many PEOPLE spell raw in capital LETTERS? It's just A normal word!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>In my camera manuals it is written RAW not raw or Raw, so that is how I write it. TIFF is how the ISO refer to tiff files. Why do Americans use the word normalcy instead of the identical meaning and predating normality? Chill Ty :-)</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>One never needs to make up excuses as to why to shoot raw. One always needs to make excuses when shooting with jpg. I've seen plenty of the best wedding pros who talk about using jpg....only to see clouds blown out, or wedding dresses blown out because they couldn't be salvaged. I guess they saved a few bucks on hard drive storage though.</p>

<p> </p>