Raw or Jpegs?

[picturesque]

<p>Back to the OP's question--I don't know that we will ever have a definitive answer to the question about what 'most' wedding photographers do--JPEG or RAW, particularly since the numbers change pretty often. I guess it might be nice to know the answer to that question, but it is really not of any consequence to what you decide to do yourself.</p>

<p>One can make a good case for each, but when it comes right down to it, you need to use <strong>your</strong> personal criteria to make the decision. And that criteria can change quickly. I know that new digital wedding shooters who have come from film pretty much have the same or similar vague fears about having to spend a lot of time post processing. I know I did. The first few weddings I shot, I shot RAW until the reception, and then I shot JPEG. I did some IC work, and the studio wanted all JPEGs, so when I did jobs for them, I shot all JPEGs. I know it can be done, and well enough for a lab to do the final tweaks. But after I started processing my own RAW files, I discovered that I could go pretty fast, and it was worth it...<strong>to me,</strong> and I don't really care about what someone else does. You can make any work flow-to- product financials work out, if you care to.</p>

<p>Theory doesn't matter either...to me. Whether I *should* be doing this or I *should* care about that is all beside the point. I test things out for myself, make decisions on my own criteria, and I am happy. If I read or hear about some new method, or better method, I test that, figure it out, make a decision and I am happy again.</p>

<p>I would suggest that you shoot the upcoming wedding with film until you have reached a point at which you know you want to start shooting digital. Then, work into it gradually. Do the reception with digital--start with JPEGs if you want to. It should all be transparent to the client anyway--they should be getting your good work regardless of medium.</p>

[timages]

<p>Thanks for all the info and feedback, iv been using digital nearly a year now (wish I had got into it a lot sooner) im confident processing raw files, I use Lightroom. Neils comments made a lot of sense to me, as my main concern regarding wedding jobs is the time involved sat at the computer processsing files. With film its not even an issue, as the Lab does all the work for me. I might stick to film for weddings and use digital for everything else. It was not my intention to start a raw v jpegs thing, rather it was specific to wedding work. Thanks again, Tim.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Yesterday, I went to a one-day LightRoom 3 training in South San Francisco. There were about 600 attendees. The instructor Matt Kloskowski asked how many people shoot RAW and how many shoot JPEG. Practically everybody shoots RAW now. I only saw one hand raised for JPEG; there might have been a few others, but the fact of the matter is that by far the majority of people shoot RAW in these days.</p>

<p>If you are new to digital and find RAW processing challenging, by all means shoot RAW + JPEG. You don't have to deal with the RAW files now. However, you have them available should the need arises, be it next week or next year. As Marc points out, memory cards are cheap nowadays and so are hard drives. There really is no reason not to shoot RAW any more. If you shoot JPEG only, you are throwing away valuable information at the time of capture and you will never get that back. If you have the RAW files around and later on you determine that you indeed don't need them any more, simply delete them; there is no penalty for having some extra RAW files.</p>

<p>Even though you shoot RAW only, there are many programs to automatically covert them into JPEG. However, once you throw away the additional information and capture JPEG only, you cannot recover the RAW files any more.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>One last note on the <strong>"That was then, this is now"</strong> theme.</p>

<p>Not only has the post processing software, capture and storage media, and operating systems exponentially improved ... so have the print drivers.</p>

<p>For example, the relatively affordable 8 color Epson 4880 includes 16 bit print drivers. Not 8 bit like a jpg ... 16 bit color fidelity.</p>

<p>So, when you input RAW files to Lightroom, you can output 10" jpgs for client DVDs, and return to any image and output it as a 22" 16 bit tiff for a display print. I sell at least two 17"X22" display prints with every wedding shot ... even for shoot and burn jobs. Once they see it, they buy it. In my case, they buy it every time.</p>

<p>Just saying.</p>

 

[markonestudios]

"It was not my intention to start a raw v jpegs thing, rather it was specific to wedding work. Thanks again, Tim."

<p>Tim, the very title of your post made a RAW vs JPEG debate inevitable :) And yes, a large number of them (I daresay the majority) have been in relation to wedding work...

[dzeanah]

<p>I've decided to edit my comment a bit. Here's someone else's opinion (DPReview's) on the S5 cameras I was talking about:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<h4>Dynamic range and contrast</h4>

<p>One of the inevitable consequences of squeezing so much dynamic range into a single exposure is that unless you are shooting at noon in the sahara desert JPEGs can often appear quite flat (lacking in contrast).<br>

But the important thing to remember is that this is the beauty of the S5 Pro's out of camera JPEGs; to get this much tonal information out of most other SLRs you have to shoot raw (and even then you're likely to have to employ some kind of HDR technique). What S5 Pro files give you a huge amount of latitude when it comes to post-processing, allowing you to make decisions about contrast and highlight clipping with the convenience of a JPEG workflow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, that's an ancient camera by modern standards, but that's the equipment I was using the last time I made a "buy" decision. Lightroom 1.0 was new, CS3 had just come out -- like I said, ancient.</p>

<p>At the time, JPEG workflows worked better than raw, and you didn't give up much latitude or flexibility unless you were printing larger than 11x14, in which case RAW was the answer. However, I'm in the process of upgrading Lightroom from 2 to 3 and the speed difference when processing Fuji RAWs versus JPEGs has reversed. I'm seeing multiple raws processed per second, versus multiple seconds per jpeg.</p>

<p>With this change the workflow advantages I noticed in 2007 are now gone. If I were shooting with that camera today, and processing in Lightroom, I'd go with raw if I could handle the buffer issues (7-9 raws max, if I remember correctly.) At the very least, I'd use raw by default instead of the other way 'round.</p>

<p>This isn't to say that my impression of the S5 in today's world is relevant. The tools have changed though, and I'd hate my support for the better workflow that jpegs offers to be taken for more than it's worth (in hindsight, it's not worth as much as it was 3 years ago...)</p>

[steven_crist]

<p><em>"Okay. I dropped 28 rolls of film into the lab on Tuesday and the film was processed, the files scanned, retouched, uploaded and ready for the client, and all the materials in my hands, on Friday."</em><br>

With digital (assuming you keep backup files) there is no worry about the lab fouling up or something getting lost in the mail. 28 rolls of film is a lot of eggs in one basket. I'll admit that in over 25 years of shooting film before converting to 100% digital I never had a lab accident. However that was because I hand carried the film to the lab and they were a pro quality lab - not a one-hour place. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I've had the lab botch some rolls of film before. It happens, just like memory cards can go south for no reason. Doesn't mean one should count that as a plus on the film side or digital side. No matter how careful you are with any process, things can go wrong.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Steven, yes, that's true. But I pick up and collect my stuff in person too, for similar reasons, and use what many people consider to be the main pro lab in London. Plus I shoot a range of emulsions needing different processes so it never gets done in one job. The risks are within my tolerance level -- no different from any number of things that can go wrong, whether with film or digital.</p>

[maile_lani]

<p>Shoot raw+ jpg... When I go through all of my images its easier to flip through the smaller jpg files and cull the images down. I have a super computer but it still takes forever to go through 500+ raw files. Plus it's a lot easier to fix a RAW file if you forget to change your white balance :)</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Modern cameras CMOS sensors are now at 14-bits of information captured. RAW is lossless. YOU are in charge, like a rock star.</p>

<p>JPG is 8-bit and ** lossy **.</p>

<p>Why shoot JPG only? Never. So many other good answers here already, case closed forever one would think (and hope).</p>