Starting a church directory business, should I shoot RAW or JPEG Fine?

[matthew_neale]

<p>I'm not new to professional photography, but I am new to digital. Things have fallen together to allow me to restart into professional photography specializing in volume family portraits. Without going into great detail, my plan is to do church directories with the directory itself hosted online. The families will pay a reasonable session fee and then will receive the digital images which they can have printed where ever they choose. I plan on using chroma key and then inserting backgrounds in post production. I will need to process about 5-10 images per sitting and normally I would have an average of 25 sittings per day. I would anticipate most families will not print anything larger than an 8x10, while some will want larger prints.<br>

<br /> At present I have a Nikon D70s, although if the response is positive this could get an upgrade quickly, along with my studio lighting. I am looking at delivering the images within 48 hours, either online, or by photo CD. With this volume and time constraint would it be best to shoot JPEG Fine and how would this affect families' desire for enlargements? Keep in mind I would anticipate most will either use a department store lab, or their home inkjet printer.<br /> Comments and thoughts would be appreciated. I've done directories in the past, both on my own and working for others, so I know how the industry works. I'm looking to blaze a new trail.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

If your lighting set up and portrait set up is fixed, and you can do a custom white balance in camera (itsbeena really long

time since I used a D70) JPEG large/fine can work.

[andylynn]

I would shoot in raw+jpg until you get your system down. Do a few test runs.

[owen_omeara]

<p>I agree with Andy 100%</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>+2 for what Andy said.</p>

[matthew_neale]

<p>I was planning on setting things up at home to get the setup the way I want it. String can be a photographer's best friend if you don't have time to meter every pose. My concern is that I want to give customers a large enough file that they can at least get an 11x14 and maybe a 16x20. If this goes according to plan I'll be upgrading to at least a full frame with a minimum of double the pixel count.</p>

<p>I am planning on delivering the images in jpeg, but I wonder if RAW might be better to do the chroma key swap and any other correction first. White balance should be straight forward since I'm using daylight balanced studio strobes. What I have to keep in mind is that I'll be processing and editing around 300 images for every day I'm in a church. For now the chroma key will be done in Paint, so I'll have to edit in something like Elements and convert to something that is loss less, change the background and then do cleanup.</p>

<p>I know a lot of studio pros won't like what I'm going to do, but they aren't my competition. I'm competing against the corporate photography businesses. Very few of the people photographed through a church directory would ever go to a portrait studio for a family portrait.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>My concern is that I want to give customers a large enough file that they can at least get an 11x14 and maybe a 16x20. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>your limiting factor here is the 6mp of the D70. could be a little shaky for a 16x20.</p>

[matthew_neale]

<p>The less than full size sensor and 6mp are why I consider this an entry level camera. I was able to get it off Ebay for less than $70.00. If I'm right and this thing grows then I can step up to something like a D90 or newer. The photography part of this I just need to shake the rust off. The digital part is all new to me. I've never done a lot with digital photography, but this project has taken on a life of it's own. I've always enjoyed darkroom work and what little digital work I've done has been fun. That is really the point of this thread, learning what RAW is all about. I understand the idea that it is the WYSIWG off the sensor. I need to know what I need to do to it. I assume it's kind of like film, that if you get the lighting and posing right, then you don't need to do much darkroom work. Of course I could be wrong.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I used to use a D70s, and then bought a used D200. The D200 can use AI lenses and meter properley with them. The D200 is getting close to $200.</p>

<p>For full-frame, used D700 are getting reasonably priced, too.</p>

<p>As far as I now, JPEG should be fine if you have enough bits in one. 6MP is not enough nowadays. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I wouldn't mind RAW. The batch conversions can run and be done while you have dinner.<br>

Usually one dares JPG, if one is 125% sure to have everything right and is rather confident about the camera's capability. - I'd be reluctant with something of the D70's vintage. I'm inexperienced with image tweaking software too but believe a lot of RAW converters do a quite decent job. At least to me they seem easier to handle and more intuitive than getting similar success in a JPG editing program.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The lens is an important factor that has not been mentioned, and is probably more important than the megapixel count or body. What lens will you be using?</p>

<p>Lighting is also a critical factor that will make or break your images. Do your homework on lighting for portraits.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Should I shoot RAW or JPEG Fine?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not both? Most DSLRs give you the option to shoot RAW+JPEG simultaneously, and large capacity SD cards are so cheap that memory space isn't really an issue.</p>

<p>JPEGs are convenient as a quick 'n' dirty way to use pictures that have been camera-processed, but if an image needs to be printed large or to have extensive processing done to it, then the raw NEF file is there for that too. The two file formats aren't mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>Having said that; Chroma-Key matting needs a good clean outline around the subject to look convincing. JPEG sharpening and compression artefacts may well create a less-defined outline than a well-processed RAW file. The lighting needs to be front-heavy and reflections well-controlled to prevent the Chroma-Key colour from contaminating shadows as well. Just look at the hideous shadows and flesh tones you get with some newscasters and weather presenters on TV when they're obviously standing in front of a green-screen. Personally I'd just use a well-lit white BG and eliminate the possibility of green or blue shadows. A blue tint is usually more acceptable than green though.</p>

<p>I agree with Elliot that what you do before pressing the button is far more important than worrying about the non-issue of which file format to use.</p>

<p>Professional portraiture on an ancient D70? That's not the way to go IMHO. Paying customers deserve the use of a better camera than that.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>If you want to be able to make 16x20" prints on the D70 you have to shoot in raw. It's a must. The in-camera jpeg generator makes rather low quality images, not suitable for large prints.</p>

<p>On newer cameras (D3 and newer) the difference between the in-camera generated jpeg and a jpeg generated from a raw file is not significant for most uses - when you are shooting in controlled environments with controlled lighting.</p>

<p>Also raw + jpeg is a waste of resources, both while shooting and while processing. There is a full size jpeg embedded inside the raw file. So if you shoot raw shoot raw only. For newer cameras it makes no difference but for older cameras like the D70 the buffer is very small (4 raw files) and it takes a long time to write to the compact flash card so shooting just raw (not raw+jpeg) makes the camera faster and more responsive.</p>

<p>Also any decent file viewer can extract the jpeg from the raw file if you want to use jpegs without having to generate it from raw files - for instance for previewing. Pro software like photomechnic can do it but also free/shareware software like Faststone image viewer can do it.</p>

<p>Using a image viewer like photomechanic for selecting which files to use is also a lot faster than using something like lightroom. It's because these programs uses the embedded jpeg inside the raw file so you can fly through your images at lighting speed and select the ones you need, look at critical focusing etc. A tremendous time saver when you're working with many images and looking for the best ones to use.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Pete, shooting RAW+JPEG gives a higher level of security through backup and redundancy. I've had file corruptions on a few very rare occasions, but never had both the RAW and JPEG versions corrupted simultaneously.</p>

<p>The free Irfanview also opens the embedded JPEG inside a RAW file, so previewing images is very quick. It's also totally camera model agnostic when it comes to viewing RAWs.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>Pete, shooting RAW+JPEG gives a higher level of security through backup and redundancy. I've had file corruptions on a few very rare occasions, but never had both the RAW and JPEG versions corrupted simultaneously.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes that is a point, but then you're better of shooting raw to two memory cards on a dual card camera like the D7000 or higher. For studio sessions redundancy is usually not that important but of course it depends on the situation.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthew_neale]

<p>I spent 20 odd years doing church directories, before taking a 10 year break. If you are printing a hard copy like my competitors your lighting has to be "spot on." I'm using a Tamron 28-200 that I have had since I last had my studio and I've been happy with the film images. Keeping separation from the background is important, no matter what background you use. The clientele is different in this environment than what comes into a studio and frankly is usually less artistically minded. You don't get to do any type of pre-sitting consultation so you deal with whatever walks through the door. My demands for quality are usually much higher than their's so usually if I'm happy, they're happy.</p>

<p>Like I've mentioned, I'm starting cheap in case I'm wrong about the demand for my product. If I'm right, I'll be upgrading cameras in a hurry. I also don't like working without lots of backup equipment anyway. I'm starting as a cash business and no debt. That means I can turn a profit quickly, which also means I can upgrade quickly. </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I can't see any reason not to shoot RAW, especially if you want the best results and time isn't a huge factor. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I would absolutely shoot RAW. Even if you can get perfect jpgs straight out of the camera it gives you that extra protection for the day when you accidentally move the white balance setting or shutter/aperture and don't notice it for half a day. If the D70 can shoot RAW and jpg at the same time, perfect. If not, doing a batch process for a straight jpg conversion doesn't take long and it can run by itself while you have lunch. As far as the customers, you're going to give them jpg and they aren't going to know or care whether you shot in raw or jpg.<br /><br />My far bigger concern here is the green screen idea. That is going to cause you more problems and slow you down far more than shooting RAW and converting files. You would be much safer shooting with an ordinary backdrop. If need be offer a couple of colors for the family to choose from at the time of shooting (and make them choose one or the other, not shoot everthing twice).<br /><br />Are you really sure you want to give the clients files and let them print it themselves? If you use a site like SmugMug you can let them order online but buy the prints from you at whatever price you want to charge.<br /><br />You've got a used D70 but what is your backup camera?</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Interesting, I'm from Australia and as far as I know directory photography isn't a big thing here but a very quick web search led me to believe that this is a very competitive activity in US and Canada. My gut feeling is that you are substantially under powered with equipment, I'd question the wisdom of working from home instead of setting up in the church or associated room.</p>

<p>I'd put a lot more time into studying this on the net if I was you, looking at your own capabilities very objectively, whilst I would know that I could take the pictures virtually with my eyes closed I'd worry a great deal about my people skills and my ability to be continually, consistently and exceptionally efficient. </p>

<p>Again from an Australian perspective, I'd suggest that this kind of photographic activity is always under threat these days from well meaning enthusiasts with top quality gear who are happy to do it all for free.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>My suggestion, as a Midwesterner who has a some experience shooting portraits for $$ and being a bit "practical" with money:<br>

Camera: used D7000. ($320) Has dual SD slots so you have a back up in case your only card gets corrupted. Has enough pixels to make the enlargements you want.<br>

Lens: Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, ($250) used from ebay<br>

Flash: x2 Alien Bees B400, ($400) 8 ft. lightstands ($80), 45 in. white umbrellas ($40), used from ebay<br>

Triggers: one Yongnuo transmitter & receiver ($20.) You only need one--use the optical trigger on the other B400.</p>

<p>The above is an excellent value but is still highly reliable gear. It's all good quality that will give you years of pro results. Buying used you will get more for your money. Virtually all of my camera gear was bought used, no problems.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[elliot1]

<p>A fast prime lens will probably give you the best result for your application, although based on what you said about your clientele (which is typical), you should be fine with both the body and lens you have. Shooting RAW + JPG is your safest bet, but JPGs should be fine and likely all you need very soon after you start. Good luck!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Why would a pro shoot anything other than Raw, except at a live event with an editor taking a WiFi feed of your work and posting it immediately? Batch Raw conversion is simple and quick. Shooting in various churches you'll face variable lighting and need to adjust WB routinely. Take a Grey Card with you and get it right.</p>

[matthew_neale]

<p>Actually lighting won't vary much once set up the first time. You always want to limit ambient light as much as possible, and you always want to make sure your strobes are working properly. I always metered my lights at the beginning of the day and occasionally during the day when I used film. With digital I'll have instant feedback and can dump the images onto the computer at the conclusion of each sitting. I have found that some light is a good idea so that a scary monster isn't coming out of the darkness to scare the kids. The problem with fluorescent overheads is that they give off a green cast if you're not careful. If your strobes are powerful enough they will overcome this, but then they blind your customer, so you have to find a balance. My preference is to have some table lamps rather than overheads to chase away the total darkness. A grey card at the start of the day is never a bad idea since it gives a nice reference point for everyone. Even with film consistency was important, you could save a lot of money in printing if exposure was consistent. In that respect directories are like school pictures.</p>

<p>If you have never seen what happens during a photo session for a directory, let me explain. You set up a complete studio in the church, which means at a bare minimum 2 lights. If you are using traditional backgrounds, then you want a 4 light setup. That means a main, fill, background and hair light. Each sitting will be a shortened version of a full studio experience. Singles will be about 5 different poses, couples 5 together and 2 of each individual. Families can be anywhere from 3 to the Duggars in size. Usually when I had a family it was 5-6 shots of the family with 2-3 different poses. I then did a couple shots of the parents and then a couple poses of the kids. You will deal with newborns through Centenarians. You will deal with this during a single day and almost none of them will have ever darkened the door of a professional photography studio. Your goal is to get to know these people quickly and give them a portrait session that goes beyond just a picture. You want to get at least one pose during the session that captures an image of the soul. The basic studio is pretty straight forward, props are another thing entirely. You need posers and props for every age. Your posing has to be efficient since you only have an average of 10 minutes per session. Even though you are moving quickly, you don't want people to feel rushed. One more thing, if you don't like kids and don't know how to play, this is not the business for you.</p>

<p>What I want is to make sure that if the client takes their file to a good lab, they will get a good print.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Matthew said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What I want is to make sure that if the client takes their file to a good lab, they will get a good print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Shoot Raw and correct WB in batch Raw conversion. If you're worried about quality, why would you even consider shooting JPEG?</p>

[matthew_neale]

<p>It looks like my best bet is to shoot RAW, stay in something like tiff during processing and then convert to jpeg for delivery to the customer. Thanks for the advice</p>