Shoot RAW or JPEG for Weddings?

[bonneyda]

I have been contacting Printing Labs in the area asking if they print from RAW or JPEG formats. So far, they have specified JPEG format only. I can't seem to find anyone who will use the "RAW" images and make the necessary sharpening and exposure corrections and print the photo's.

Should I shoot in RAW, make corrections in PP, and save them in JPEG format to bring in and have printed? Or should I find a Lab to make the corrections and print from RAW format?

[bpuppy]

I can't see any lab printing from RAW because there would be too many decisions that they would have to make on your behalf. The point of RAW is for you to process the images yourself, how you like them, then export to JPEG for them to print.

If you DO find a lab that will print from RAW, I'd like to know how they work it ... it's not like with film where each film had it's own 'look' ... with RAW, the user decides the look and EVERYTHING about it.

One guy there might like things contrasty and saturated ... another guy there might like things muted ... but those are decisions YOU need to make.

[CyberPet]

I shoot both RAW and JPEG, but not for the lab, I use the jpegs for a quick review and maybe get them up fast on the website. But RAW is most powerful to work with and after I'm done with the adjustments I save the files that should be sent to the lab (who wants them in sRGB and jpeg or tiff) in a new folder.

[jboyd]

Pechman Imaging (http://www.pechmanimaging.com/index.html) will work with RAW files, but you will pay for it! I shoot only RAW, but convert all myself and send the jpg images to be printed. I want my images to look how I want them too, not how someone at the lab wants them to look.

Jackie

[dsze]

I shoot RAW. I have talked to several wedding guys & gals who shoot jpg to save time in processing though. JPGs are faster to work with, when you have a 1000 images to do, but RAW has its own benefits. Here is one recent article by an awesome wedding guy on the benefits of RAW: HERE (http://www.pixmantec.com/pdf/photographers_toolbox/photographers_toolbox_february.pdf)

[CyberPet]

dsze, I actually did link to that article about Gino yesterday, it's great and I swear, that guy was so "anti-JPEG" it was not funny, but when he started using RawShooter, it really changed his work and he now think it's faster. So it's all about finding an application (whatever you choose) that works best for your style of work.

RawShooter is not out for Macintosh (yet - so email them and bug them!), so we Macheads has to do with other applications, and Apple Aperture demands a bit from your computer, so it's not really a choice yet. Although Adobe Lightroom might be the ticket in the future for us Macheads if we don't want to use Camera Raw in Photoshop CS2.

[dsze]

Petra,

Yeah, I saw your post yesterday that linked to that article. I thought it was a good read and worth passing along here. Gino is incredible. I thought he was very much anti-RAW which is why I found your link so interesting, but I wasn't sure. I'm still not convinced that RAW is faster, at least not for me yet....but there are many other benefits. I'm still using PSCS converter though. I should probably try out RawShooter one of these days.

There was another link to a similar article recently. Do you know where that one came from? I can't find it again for anything.

[defordphoto]

Hopefully, if you're shooting properly, there should be very little to "fix" in Photoshop. A wedding is a one-off. You cannot go back. ALWAYS shoot weddings RAW.

[NGrinerPhoto]

my studio shoots raw for the portraits and room shots. we haven't found a need to shoot raw for the ceremony and reception.

[VanceW]

Just did my first wedding last night, and shot entirely in RAW.

With such different lighting conditions, it's the only way to go.

As for answering Dave's question.

My suggestion, make changes to the RAW file yourself, and then save as JPEG, and take the JPEG to the printer. DO NOT SAVE YOUR CHANGES TO THE RAW FILE!

I'm also hoping you save extra copies by burning to CD or DVD of the original files before you ever start working on editing them.

[CyberPet]

Can you really save the changes to the RAW files? I thought most RAW converters saves a file beside the RAW file with the settings you do, so when you open it, you can either reset the whole thing, or just work from your last edit?

[cdifoto]

I say shoot with whatever you're comfortable using. The other may turn out looking like crap if you don't have your post workflow down on it.

[thebrewer]

Shooting RAW and JPG will give a ready to use JPG file and a RAW file that needs to be processed.

The advantage of the RAW file is you have more data to work with when making corrections, there is more possibilty for correcting photographic errors (under/over exposure, WB). You can also make corrections before JPG artifacts are introduced to the photo, giving a better image.

The disadvantages of RAW are time and space, it takes time to process and adjust RAW files, but if the shot can't be redone it can bail you out. When shooting RAW have lots of flash memory handy, the files are larger than JPGs. You can also flood the cameras buffer quicker with the larger files when shooting burtsts.

I shot a wedding as a second shooter this past weekend, I shot RAW and JPG during the ceremony to cover my bases for shots that cold not be redone, after all this was a very important day for the bride and groom! I shot JPG candids at the reception to get the most out of my CF space. If I had another 4GB card, I would have shot raw+jpg all day.

Thank you to all that have shared advice and stories on shooting weddings, this forum was a big help!

Rich

[CyberPet]

Even if RAW takes time to adjust, you can do a batch process on images with the same lighting conditions - which makes it much faster if you've for instance missed the WB on all iamges and need to change them on your JPEG's in Photoshop. You just open 10-15 images or whatever and select them all and change the WB on them all at the same time. Couldn't be easier and faster!

[tim]

You'd be mad to shoot JPG for a wedding unless you're very experienced, or very confident. You can't overwrite a RAW file, it's impossible, most RAW programs save your changes (exposure, contrast, color temp etc) in a database or file - CS2 uses XMP files. You make any required fixes (and I fix/tweak more photos than I leave alone) then batch convert them out to RAW. Labs won't print RAW, if they do you'll pay a LOT for the privledge, but if you want to do that you're missing the whole point of RAW.

[bonneyda]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate your comments. I just need time to work on learning the basics of RAW PP and I'll be fine with this. It's not that I don't want to get started with this, it's just that I travel around the U.S. quite a bit for my job and don't have time at home to practice with this like I should.

You have all been very helpful, as usual.......................

Thanks again.

[tim]

Read this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321334094/qid=1121205803/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9127707-6895351?n=507846&s=books&v=glance), whether you use CS2 or not it's still very valuable.

[ChopstickHero]

definitely shoot RAW for such an important event. it's better to post process so you can make them look how you want. i never knew the potential of RAW until i started using them. there is definitely more control than adjusting a JPG in photoshop.

[BLINN]

My 2 cents, the only benifit to shooting RAW is for mistakes that you make at the time of shooting. If you do not have proper exposure and white balcance then you should beable to correct it before you continue. This is how we learn. If you are charging for your services then you should, as a professional, know what the hell you are doing. If you were shooting film then you would be screwed. Start by not fixing the photo but reather taking a great photo and just enhancing it to make it even better. All you guys should be concentrating on doing it right not on fixing it after wards. There are the few photos that might need to be worked on more then others, but the main focus photos (ie. posed shots.) should be metered and adjusted accordingly. If you rely soully on PS then you can npt call yourself a photographer. Take an SLR film camera to your next event and shoot some rolls with that. You will see what I mean. I am by no means PRO. I do charge for prints, but nothing to make me millions and the customer has a 100% refund if they do not like the photos. I don't care about the money, If I goof up the shots then, so be it. I tell any one who wants me to take there wedding photos this. They like the honesty. Like I said my 2 cents

[RobKirkwood]

My 2 cents, the only benifit to shooting RAW is for mistakes that you make at the time of shooting. If you do not have proper exposure and white balcance then you should beable to correct it before you continue. This is how we learn. If you are charging for your services then you should, as a professional, know what the hell you are doing. If you were shooting film then you would be screwed. Start by not fixing the photo but reather taking a great photo and just enhancing it to make it even better. All you guys should be concentrating on doing it right not on fixing it after wards. There are the few photos that might need to be worked on more then others, but the main focus photos (ie. posed shots.) should be metered and adjusted accordingly. If you rely soully on PS then you can npt call yourself a photographer. Take an SLR film camera to your next event and shoot some rolls with that. You will see what I mean. I am by no means PRO. I do charge for prints, but nothing to make me millions and the customer has a 100% refund if they do not like the photos. I don't care about the money, If I goof up the shots then, so be it. I tell any one who wants me to take there wedding photos this. They like the honesty. Like I said my 2 cents

Hmmm, well - er, no ...not for me thanks! I came to digital from many years of shooting 35mm transparency, where you HAVE to get everything right first time in camera: cropping, colour balance, focus, blah, blah.

I haven't lost the ability to do this ...but with digital I shoot RAW - think of it as a welcome safety net if it makes you feel any better about it? ;)

[RobKirkwood]

...and to back up my preference for shooting RAW, can I ask how you might set about capturing this image on JPEG?

(A bit fuzzy due to having to resize it quickly, but I think you can still see the issue I'm getting at - powerful sky which would normally be blown out if you tried to retain detail in the shadow inside the tower.)

Location is Inverary, Scotland, September 2005.

[buffalophotographer]

I shot raw the first year I bought my Digital but now I only shoot jpeg. I use raw only when I shoot large groups.

[tim]

If you were shooting film then you would be screwed.

But we're not shooting film.

Shooting RAW means less stress for me on a wedding day, as I don't have to do CWB all over the place. Instead I shoot on auto, sample one photo, and apply the WB to all photos. I can also do my B&W conversions in RAW in about 5 seconds, and fix many mistakes - and everyone makes mistakes from time to time. And who really trusts ETTL to get the flash exposure right? Not me.

Each to their own. I know some excellent photographers that shoot JPG exlusively, and some who shoot RAW exlusively.

[sapearl]

Rob, not quite sure what you did since I haven't done any RAW work yet, but WOW - what a sense of DEPTH and dimension you've given to that shot. It's not often that I feel like I want to be sucked into a photograph :mrgreen: .

...and to back up my preference for shooting RAW, can I ask how you might set about capturing this image on JPEG?

(A bit fuzzy due to having to resize it quickly, but I think you can still see the issue I'm getting at - powerful sky which would normally be blown out if you tried to retain detail in the shadow inside the tower.)

Location is Inverary, Scotland, September 2005.

[sapearl]

Dan, I can't recall if you've also referenced Kelby's book on "...CS2 for the Digital Photog", but if so, how do you feel Fraser's Camera Raw book compares to it?

I bought Kelby's book a few weeks ago from Amazon and find it to be one of the most readable texts I've purchased in a while. It's clear, concise, and very "step-by-step." He does an excellent job of laying out specific procedures and solutions to common photographic situations and problems. If the Camera Raw book is similar in readability, then that looks like my next purchase ;) .

Stu Pearl
Cleveland, Ohio

I shoot RAW. I have talked to several wedding guys & gals who shoot jpg to save time in processing though. JPGs are faster to work with, when you have a 1000 images to do, but RAW has its own benefits. Here is one recent article by an awesome wedding guy on the benefits of RAW: HERE (http://www.pixmantec.com/pdf/photographers_toolbox/photographers_toolbox_february.pdf)

[Phil V]

If you were shooting film then you would be screwed.

Just so we all understand we're talking about wedding photography here. How many film shooting wedding photog's do you know who take colour temp readings and then use a selection of conversion filters to ensure the correct white balance gets sent to the (daylight balanced) film. How many take along tungsten balanced film just in case. How many shoot slide film (similar latitude to digital = none), compared to the number that shot colour neg that'll print well from 1 stop under to 2 stops over exposed?

There's not too many slide shooting colour temp measuring wedding photographers, however the world is full of white balancing RAW shooting digital wedding photographers. Shooting RAW means they can manage this properly, it's not a cop-out. Generally the JPEG shooters are allowing the camera software to throw away the information that could've made a good shot great.

In the old days we all dropped the film in the lab and thought we'd nailed it - didn't even occur to us that the lab had saved our ass.

Now when it comes to PS effects to cover up the lack of in-camera skill, that's a VERY different subject. I've seen the use of speed effect filters - to mimic long exposure flash shots, blur added to mimic shallow DoF etc, softening images to hide the fact that they weren't sharp in the first place. I could go on - these people should realise that it takes a fraction of a second to take a great picture and hours to recreate the effect in photoshop.

[bpuppy]

Why shoot digital at all if you're going to maintain the film 'paradigm' in your mind. The point of moving to digital is to take advantage of the new benefits it brings to the table ... one of those benefits is RAW and the latitude it gives you ... both to fix mistakes and be more creative.

If you prefer to shoot JPEG, that's a-ok ... but I HATE the sentiment that some people have that RAW is for only people who don't want to 'get it right' in the field ... that it's a way by which people can take short-cuts.

I shoot RAW simply because the workflow is so great. Try applying exposure, white balance, vingetting, saturation and sharpening tweaks to 1000 files in one easy step. With JPEG, you'd have to build and action and let the computer sit all night to process.

And call me crazy because enjoy worrying about WB after the shoot, instead of during when I already have a million things to think about.

[RobKirkwood]

Rob, not quite sure what you did since I haven't done any RAW work yet, but WOW - what a sense of DEPTH and dimension you've given to that shot. It's not often that I feel like I want to be sucked into a photograph :mrgreen: .

Very kind, thank-you! There are at least 2 ways you can get here from a single RAW file...

1. Use the exposure latitude within your RAW converter (usually +/-3 stops) to output 2 or 3 copies at different exposures. Layer them in Photoshop and then use the eraser to selectively adjust the overall image.

2. Use the levels control within Raw Shooter Premium to 'bend' the exposure, tinker with fill light and the various contrasts, and then output a single file directly.

On that particular image I used method 2, and it's very fast once you get used to what everything does.

The first time you load a RAW image and move the exposure compensation slider to see detail reappear in an area you thought there was nothing captured is a magical one - and for me was the moment when I switched to shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG.

[UncleDoug]

Don't forge that the RAW file will also allow you to print a BIGER image.
What happens when the happy couple orders that 30''x40'' framed print?;)

[tim]

Very kind, thank-you! There are at least 2 ways you can get here from a single RAW file...

1. Use the exposure latitude within your RAW converter (usually +/-3 stops) to output 2 or 3 copies at different exposures. Layer them in Photoshop and then use the eraser to selectively adjust the overall image.

2. Use the levels control within Raw Shooter Premium to 'bend' the exposure, tinker with fill light and the various contrasts, and then output a single file directly.

On that particular image I used method 2, and it's very fast once you get used to what everything does.

The first time you load a RAW image and move the exposure compensation slider to see detail reappear in an area you thought there was nothing captured is a magical one - and for me was the moment when I switched to shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG.

For #1 layer masks are a non-destructive editing method. You could also use curves.

Don't forge that the RAW file will also allow you to print a BIGER image.
What happens when the happy couple orders that 30''x40'' framed print?;)

Really? I thought that a JPG produced by the camera, if you got it right, would print as well as a RAW that was saved in photoshop. I know you're an experienced professional printer, so your experience would be interesting here.

[CyberPet]

I think the interpolation that you get from setting the resolution a step higher than the real resolution is about the same method as using Scott Kelby's trick in his Photoshop CS2 book.

I urge you all... even if you don't use a Mac, to please email http://www.pixmantec.com/ and tell them they *should* make a Mac version. There's NO excuse anymore, when all the Intel Macs are being released. *getting off my soap box* :D

[RobKirkwood]

For #1 layer masks are a non-destructive editing method. You could also use curves.
True - and you could also make use of Adobe's new HDR format within Photoshop CS2.

Just goes to show that there's more than one way to skin a cat, as my Granny used to say ...which is why no-one would eat her chicken pies. :)

[tim]

There's a dozen ways to do most things in photoshop. I find HDR a bunch of crap, i've played with it a few times and never found it useful.

[sapearl]

I confess my ingnorance here - just getting into the intricacies of CS2, what is HDR? Intuition tells me it's something to do with dynamic range.

True - and you could also make use of Adobe's new HDR format within Photoshop CS2.

Just goes to show that there's more than one way to skin a cat, as my Granny used to say ...which is why no-one would eat her chicken pies. :)

[RobKirkwood]

I confess my ingnorance here - just getting into the intricacies of CS2, what is HDR? Intuition tells me it's something to do with dynamic range.
Yep - High Dynamic Range. Have to say up front that I haven't tried using it, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It's supposedly a file format that can contain ALL the dynamic range possible in an image - you take a range of exposures of the exact same scene and PS combines them into a single HDR image which you can then work on.

[ricohcam01]

I have been contacting Printing Labs in the area asking if they print from RAW or JPEG formats. So far, they have specified JPEG format only. I can't seem to find anyone who will use the "RAW" images and make the necessary sharpening and exposure corrections and print the photo's.

Should I shoot in RAW, make corrections in PP, and save them in JPEG format to bring in and have printed? Or should I find a Lab to make the corrections and print from RAW format?

First of all it is always better to shoot RAW for a lot of reasons. I myself have had a hard time with a lot of so called pro-labs that think my monitor is not calibated but I just did two days before I showed with my work to be printed. I think it comes right down to the person at the controls of the printer. Everytone has a different eye me included. If the person printing thinks the images are too warm they will make adjustments or if they think the contrast is off they will make adjustments. So I have come to the conclusion that on all my work I bring to the pro-labs I add that I do not want corrections. So for that matter sometimes I think I can go to a one hour lab and they will not touch them and they come out better because I am doing thier work for them in PS CS2. I found a place that will print TIFF but only large format say 22 X 18 and sizes of that nature. Everyone else prints from JPG because I thnk the average consumer will only print in JPG or thier equipment will not let them print anyother format. Not to mention the format is easier to work with becuase of it's size.

[sapearl]

It almost sounds like RAW on steroids with a sugar high :lol: .

But seriously, I guess this is yet another file format that we may to worry about for the future. If it adds additional features and control I suppose that's a good thing. But if it becomes a proprietary format that will only have limited support, that's cause for some concern.

Yep - High Dynamic Range. Have to say up front that I haven't tried using it, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It's supposedly a file format that can contain ALL the dynamic range possible in an image - you take a range of exposures of the exact same scene and PS combines them into a single HDR image which you can then work on.

[thebrewer]

Shooting RAW means less stress for me on a wedding day, as I don't have to do CWB all over the place. Instead I shoot on auto, sample one photo, and apply the WB to all photos.
Handy for when the Bride walks from an incandescently lit dark end of the church to the sunlight lit altar. Or when you are shooting the Bride going down the aisle (incandescent light) and somebody opens a door allowing sunlight in. AWB just can't cut it, but you get save the shot when converting from RAW.

Rich

[UncleDoug]

Really? I thought that a JPG produced by the camera, if you got it right, would print as well as a RAW that was saved in photoshop. I know you're an experienced professional printer, so your experience would be interesting here.

You can print from a JPEG to 30''x40'' but the RAW will give you a superior image.
If you are taking a JPEG large like that you either need to print at a low resolution or upsample. Either way will not give you the results a RAW conversion will. In most instances you would still need to upsample the file you got from RAW, but the jump will be less drastic. Helping to "hold the image together". You also won't ned to combat any unwanted effects of internal JPEG processing.

[CyberPet]

HDR is not "finished" yet... Mostly becuase most monitors and printers today can't even benefit of it. But the idea is that you shoot several exposures with different apertures at the same shutter speed (sort of a bracketing) and then HDR will calculate the exposures to give you details in every spectra, from the brightest area to the darkest areas and produce an image that would be more powerful than what you can immiate now. (No, you cannot use a few different versions from RAW to immitate bracketing - it's smart enough to read the EXIF and see that the photo's is not actually shot with different aperture settings).

[Wilt]

>>But the idea is that you shoot several exposures with different apertures at the same shutter speed (sort of a bracketing) and then HDR will calculate the exposures to give you details in every spectra, from the brightest area to the darkest areas and produce an image that would be more powerful than what you can immiate now.<<

Hmmm...sounds like water from the Fountain of Youth! Yes, it is theoretically possible, but you still have the limitations imposed by the dynamic range limitation of the device being used to reproduced the scene! Monitors have HORRIBLE dynamic range in terms of discrete steps that can be visualized, and so does hardcopy! I don't care if a digital file can carry it by using 24 bits per pixel for the file, if the monitor or hard copy cannot reproduce it, there is no point in creating the file!!!

[cdifoto]

You can print from a JPEG to 30''x40'' but the RAW will give you a superior image.
If you are taking a JPEG large like that you either need to print at a low resolution or upsample. Either way will not give you the results a RAW conversion will. In most instances you would still need to upsample the file you got from RAW, but the jump will be less drastic. Helping to "hold the image together". You also won't ned to combat any unwanted effects of internal JPEG processing.

Stupid question maybe but how are you supposed to upsample and print from RAW? I know of no one that even accepts RAW files...or are you saying you upsample your RAW, and THEN export it to TIFF or JPEG?

[Wilt]

>>can carry it by using 24 bits per pixel for the file<<

I should have said '24 bits (rather than 8) for each individual color (R-G-B) per pixel'

[BLINN]

WHoa, What are you guys smoking? First off UncleDoug, I have had no problems printing at 30X40 from jpg. most labs only allow jpg format. 2nd Tim you have it right. Personal preferance. As for all this crap that, oh in RAW I don't have to do this and do that, blah! If you know what you are doing, you know what you are doing. If not then you are getting lucky. As for the digital age, yeah it is awesome. This point is to cut costs. Photography prices have not dropped, but in reality they should have. Less overhead. You do not need to continually buy film for a shoot, you can reuse the CF card. You don't have to print out proofs, you can view them on a PC/CD/DVD. PS makes life easy, no endless hours in the dark room trying to correct everything. One click and there you have it. Trust you knowledge when take photos. Try this, grab and old film SLR and fire off a roll or two delevop it your self and see what happens. Are you guys PHOTOGRAPHERS or PHOTOSHOPERS. There is a differance.

[BLINN]

Rob does this answer your question??? It took me less then 1 minute.

[tim]

WHoa, What are you guys smoking? First off UncleDoug, I have had no problems printing at 30X40 from jpg. most labs only allow jpg format. 2nd Tim you have it right. Personal preferance. As for all this crap that, oh in RAW I don't have to do this and do that, blah! If you know what you are doing, you know what you are doing. If not then you are getting lucky. As for the digital age, yeah it is awesome. This point is to cut costs. Photography prices have not dropped, but in reality they should have. Less overhead. You do not need to continually buy film for a shoot, you can reuse the CF card. You don't have to print out proofs, you can view them on a PC/CD/DVD. PS makes life easy, no endless hours in the dark room trying to correct everything. One click and there you have it. Trust you knowledge when take photos. Try this, grab and old film SLR and fire off a roll or two delevop it your self and see what happens. Are you guys PHOTOGRAPHERS or PHOTOSHOPERS. There is a differance.

Instead of paying for film the customer is now paying for the investment in expensive digital cameras, and more of our time to process the images.

[Wilt]

>>This point is to cut costs. Photography prices have not dropped, but in reality they should have. Less overhead. You do not need to continually buy film for a shoot, you can reuse the CF card. You don't have to print out proofs, you can view them on a PC/CD/DVD.<<

For a professional who shoots thousands of photos, digital is a cost saver--potentially. But for the hobbyist shooting on weekends, the initial investment in digital camera alone is FAR more expensive! $300 film camera or $800 dSLR...$500 buys a lot of film and processing!

For the pro, they may have 'paid for the 1DsII' in a year in shooting 40 weddings, but there is many more hours in front of the PC by someone, instead of the commercial lab taking care of imperfect exposures and white balance correction, services which come 'for free' when printing negatives conventionally!

[BLINN]

Tim you yourself said that you can process a wedding in two hour before you go to bed the night of. Wilt you have a point, however so do I. Roll of 24 exposers apporx $4, development approx $7. I shoot 1000's of images to keep up and get up my skills with digital it does not cost me a cent to "SEE" my mistakes. With film it would have cost me $$$ and time. (waiting for development). Do you get my point. I am just commenting on someone elses post. This comes back to my original point. If you have to shoot in RAW to because you don't want to worry about exposure etc...and are only relying on PS to fix your problems then you are not a photographer rather a graphic artist.(ie. photoshopper) My whole point is if you are taking wedding photos then you should know not only what you are talking about, but what you are doing and why. You should be able to correct the mistake in the field that way you don't have to PS as much to enhance the image. I try not to correct rather enhance the image. FYI check out this site both of these guy are photographer that I strive to be like. Not even close yet but I am working on it. http://www.artofphotography.net/ and http://www.hodginsphotography.com/ Oh yeah these guys shoot exclusively in jpg format. Thanks for the great discussion and I hope I did not offend any one.

[tim]

Sure, but 2 hours for me is just proofs. Prints or albums get more processing time spent on them, whereas film shooters have than done for them by the lab. Most of the shots I take are reasonably accurate, though with the oddities of ETTL you can never be sure what it's really going to do.

[CyberPet]

BLINN, don't forget that being a wedding photographer has always been seen as "a second grade photographer". The *real* photographers were photo journalists or artists like Ansel Adams. So in this time of age, it's not just about "process times" it's about more "artsy" photo effects, as well as redefining the status of the wedding photographer. It was bound to happen, even without digital cameras. If you compare 20 years ago with now, things have really gone up in price, even if the cost has dropped (anyone buying a Hasselblad knows that it's not even near to buying a Canon 1Ds Mark II - it's worse!). So photographers might claim they have higher cost in gear, but that only holds true if they buy 35 mm cameras.

So my *very* personal take on it, is not something that's wrong, it's the era for the wedding photographers to come up in the world.

[RobKirkwood]

Rob does this answer your question??? It took me less then 1 minute. [I'll try to be short to avoid derailing this thread much more]

If your edit is intended to show that you would have used flash fill for the inside of the tower, yes it does partly answer my question ...whether you would want to carry the kit up the 4 hour climb we had to make to get to the view is another matter.

If you thought I was unable to bring up the shadow detail, then no - you're answering a different question I never asked. All you have done is lighten some areas of a compressed dynamic range JPEG that I produced from the RAW.

My point was that you cannot (easily?) capture that original shot at that location, in those circumstances on JPEG. I did shoot at the time in RAW + JPEG and bracketed - there was no single JPEG that contained the whole dynamic range of the scene ...something was always lost with JPEG.

You commented that Tim was right in saying: "personal preference" ...and I agree entirely with him.

The reason so many people are taking issue with YOU is because your whole tone implies that anyone who thinks or works differently from you is wrong. I am quite happy for you to do things the way you do - and (while you seem to think otherwise) I am not attempting to criticise you for choosing that route ...but please do show some respect to people who choose to do things differently for their own (equally valid) reasons.

You know, I could shower in ice-cold water in the mornings, but I personally choose to use hot ...it takes time and money to heat the water - but that's the way I prefer it.

[BLINN]

Rob if this is what you think then so be it. But before you use that dagger on someone who was only trying to point out that RAW is not the end all and beall of photography. Consider this, yes jpg and RAW have their advantages and disadvatage. I do however refer now to the dagger a double edeged weapon. All you have yaked about was how great RAW is and jpg sucks. Well I use jpg and I know many pro photographers who do as well, so I was stating that it is not as bad as people think. And for someone who is not as Petra says "ARTSY" then you can still get GREAT quality prints from the jpg off you camera. I think on this topic you are all BULLHEADED. As for the photo post, my point is that you don't have to use RAW (your choice) to enhance an image. Personaly I found that your posted image was too dark around the window. (no stone detail) By taking some of the shadow out you really get more of feeling of being on the tower. Call it depth perception. I did not realize how thick the wall was until I enhanced you photo. The key word here is ENHANCED not corrected. You photo was beautiful. Now for those of you are offened by, well don't be. I am a non bias person, I couldn't care less what you think about jpg or RAW. Petra I could not agree with your statement about this being the era for the wedding photographer. I visited your site you take beautiful photos. As long as we are striving to get it right the first time then we are learning. But as soon as we let a program or camera setting do all the work we are failing as photographer. We should be capturing light is it natural form the way we see it, not changing it to make it look "COOL". The knowledge is out there to do this in the field. Practice and patients is all that is need. We are photographers, we bicker about this crap.(i.e jpg vs RAW, ETTL, FEC...etc.) The final question is.......

....... do the clients love their photos?? If the answer is YES, then we have done our job.

[Phil V]

Have a second here Blinn, before posting links to photographers as 'evidence' for your POV, can you give us links to where these photographers have said they only shoot JPEG?

If not then it's just bull.

Like I said in my original post (you ignored), professional photography is too important to leave to JPEG. The idea that I can control all my pictures because I can chimp, check the histogram and wb (on that tiny LCD) is more professional than shooting and KNOWING I can get a decent picture is nothing short of a joke.

Approaching a bride and asking that she repeats the tearful hug of her dad because the AWB got fooled (professional?). Asking that people 'hold that look' whilst I check my histogram? You are kidding right.

Can I ask; did you ever shoot professionally shooting film, as you appear to believe that it's more difficult than digital - which is again complete BS.

Again I agree that people who manipulate rather than shooting it right are doing no-one any favours, but that's nothing to do with shooting RAW or JPEG.

with all due respect
Phil

[Wilt]

RAW, JPEG...our cameras can store both, so the best thing is to take advantage of that feature. Yes, more data, more storage...but you can buy another 2GB of CF for under $100, and 150GB of harddrive for under $200. None of that is a wallet breaker, expecially since you aren't paying for film and processing any longer...that's what you'd spend in ONE wedding shot on film!
I have shot film for over 40 years, so I can state (with outside opinion to back my claims) that I can nail exposure dead-on. But fast pace and equipment issues (as simple as 'the perfect shot' when the flash has not recycled) can prevent you from getting the perfect exposure all the time. An RAW has frankly saved my bacon in those kinds of circumstances, even when JPEG images look perfect without adjustment in other shots. Had I not used RAW, I would not have gotten all those terrific shots. If I had not used JPEG, I would have spend more time in batch processing RAW-to-JPEG conversions when the camera could have done it for me virtually instantaneously. SHOOT BOTH and get the best of both worlds!

[CyberPet]

BLINN, I've shot three weddings in JPEG, but I find I do have more leeway with RAW since I often find myself in pretty tricky lighting conditions. My mentor is shooting JPEG only and I would never say it's bad or dumb to use.

As for my statement of "this is the era for wedding photographers" I wonder what makes you not want to agree with me about this? Just 20-30 years ago most wedding photographers charged almost NOTHING for their job, often sitting in their studio (where the lighting was completely controlled) and took portraits. Really boring and not very glamorous. Now, the wedding photographer is getting bumped up on the food chain, not only due to the digital cameras, but due to the fact that they got out of their dusty studio and started to shoot more of the day... some PJ stuff, some more "fashion shoots" instead of boring posed photo's like the ones I'm still forced to take - although not in a studio, but outdoors.

Or you think that wedding photographers are still bottom feeders and really shouldn't have their own era, to make some money for once? ;)

[Phil V]

Petra, your take on the 'era for wedding photographers' is a little localised. I share forums with lots of US wedding photographers, who had it good in the eighties and nineties but who feel that their livelihood is being destroyed by digital photography. They see lots of kids shooting digital and charging very little for their work, and feel that the technology is to blame.

Here in the UK, in the 70's wedding photography was a case of showing up and taking a few photo's after the service (sound familiar?). From the 80s we took photo's from before the wedding until the cake cutting (most photographers here still do this). Even now with photographers offering 'PJ' type coverage, it's rare for photographers to offer to work more than 4 hrs.

I'm now working all day at a wedding and getting a real buzz out of recording the entire event.

[Wilt]

>> Just 20-30 years ago most wedding photographers charged almost NOTHING for their job, often sitting in their studio (where the lighting was completely controlled) and took portraits. <<

Petra, I don't know what 'nothing' means in terms of money to you. I can tell you that bottom feeders in film would charge $300 ten years ago and deliver processed negatives (or sometimes raw film!), and bottom feeders in digital would charge $300 now with their entry-level dSLR and zoom lens and delivery images on CD. At the same time, full albums with about 30 photos were delivered for about $2000 and weddings in the $5000 range were not that uncommon. I have two daughters who have been married in past 3 years, and they spent about $3000 to get 2000-3000 photos on CD. So while the deliverable goods were simple, they did get many many hours of coverage (including engagement photo session) and many (in my mind, too many) photos. Given the inflation in 10 years, it does not seem to be a whole new and better world for income, though it certain appears better in terms of in-pocket money after expenses!

[Wilt]

>>Now, the wedding photographer is getting bumped up on the food chain, not only due to the digital cameras, but due to the fact that they got out of their dusty studio and started to shoot more of the day... some PJ stuff, some more "fashion shoots" instead of boring posed photo's like the ones I'm still forced to take - although not in a studio, but outdoors.<<

Certainly 10 years ago, 'photojournalists' like Denis Reggie were very instrumental in promoing the concept of photojournalistic wedding photography and making photographers more visible as a 'celebrity' much like chefs have also become celebrity. But there are also many food professionals who barely earn $25000, which is not far above 'low income' status in the U.S. for a family of 3.

From http://www.adigitaldreamer.com/articles/photography-salary.html, "Statistics show that for a photographer in 2002 the average annual salary was $24,040. The lowest 10% earned less than $14,640, the middle 50% between $17,740 and $34,910 while the highest 10% earned upwards of $49,920. For a photographer employed by a newspaper or periodical the average annual salary was $31,460, while in other professional and scientific services the average was $21,860. "

[tim]

Have a second here Blinn, before posting links to photographers as 'evidence' for your POV, can you give us links to where these photographers have said they only shoot JPEG?

Some things are said in the real world, not online :p I know three successful pros that shoot JPG only. One uses a 300D, the others work as a pair and shoot a bunch of 20D's and 10D's. He said recently he might look into RAW, but if he's been succesful for years with JPG then RAW would kill his workflow for a good while.

[Wilt]

>>I know three successful pros that shoot JPG only.<<

And if you be as careful in shooting digitally as you were with shooting chromes, having a RAW image to process is merely that much more time and investment of labor to create that final file which is needed for printing anyway. Our clients never complained about white balance in the film days, and they are not that much more astute now than then (Altough digicam ownership has elevated their expectations, their own expectations of white balance are still benchmarked against the imperfect AWB results they get from their own digicam)

[Phil V]

Our clients never complained about white balance in the film days,

That's because the Pro labs did a fantastic job of colour matching for us.

It's not rocket science, colour neg film and pro processing was developed over a long time to give us remarkable results whilst we used relatively sloppy technique. Digital technology isn't nearly that sophisticated yet.

In computer terms we're still mounting drives and using command line interfaces.

When digital matures, we'll have more stops of latitude than film had and auto WB algorithms that are smart enough so we never have to think about it, I'm guessing we'll be able to pick a colour we want to match (bridesmaids dress?) and the software will batch process for us (more or less what the pro lab did for all those years).

[BLINN]

Same photographers as prev post but together in business.

http://www.nobsphotosuccess.com/

There is a video that state they only shoot jpg and that they can just as good an image. Your eye and everones eyes are not microscopes. It can only pick up so much deffinition. I have shot film and trust me is cost much more to process.

[Wilt]

>>That's because the Pro labs did a fantastic job of colour matching for us.<<

Ah, yet another testimonial about the benefits of old fashioned film photography vs. the increased labor and time in front of a PC now!!!

[CyberPet]

This thread is lethal... here the shots are going in every direction... so you risk getting shot down even by a ricochet :D

BLINN, thanks for PM'ng me about the missing "can't" in your post... which would have ended that part of the discussion, as we were agreeing.

[Phil V]

>>That's because the Pro labs did a fantastic job of colour matching for us.<<

Ah, yet another testimonial about the benefits of old fashioned film photography vs. the increased labor and time in front of a PC now!!!
Wilt; if you think I'm some kind of luddite who is either anti digital or doesn't 'get' digital you're soooo wrong.
But you can't argue with the fact that to shoot and process a wedding with film was easier. Would I go back to film NO! Why? Because I actually like being in control; That's why I shoot RAW.

[CARSJ]

On photographs up to 8 x 10 I find it difficult to differentiate whether the pic was taken in RAW format or JPEG Large Fine ? Does anyone else find this? or is it just me?

[Wilt]

Phil, I wasn't thinking you were a luddite, and more than I am a luddite. While we have both embraded digital (as evidenced in participation in this forum) I was merely pointing out that you had inadvertantly reinforced some of the tradeoff with digital...
camera more expensive, no processing and film costs, but we have to spend more time at the PC. ;-)

[hodgy]

haha, was looking for info on the new 30D and saw the good o'l Raw Vs Jpg debate. Now I havent read it all, but of course I'll add my 2 cents worth. Whatever works for you.

Neither is wrong and I do not bash RAW because I shoot JPG. When someone says one is better than the other, then it is just ignorance on the photographers behalf. :)

I just finished 15 commercial shoots on Friday, here are a few

Jpg of course and my good ol 10D (was thinking of upgrading, but havent really found a reason yet)

http://www.hodginsphotography.com/temp/boreal1.jpg
http://www.hodginsphotography.com/temp/boreal2.jpg
http://www.hodginsphotography.com/temp/boreal3.jpg
http://www.hodginsphotography.com/temp/boreal10.jpg
http://www.hodginsphotography.com/temp/boreal12.jpg
http://www.hodginsphotography.com/temp/boreal13.jpg

Anyways, back to the research.

Remember this..........who's the expert in this field? The client!

[dsze]

Nice images James! Its nice to see someone else still relying on the ol' 10D workhorse. Ofcourse, we all love new gear and I'm always tempted by the latest body that comes out, but I just can't justify it. When people stop buying prints from my 10D's, I suppose I'll upgrade.

I shoot a mixture of RAW & jpg. I think they each have their purpose & their benefits. I probably shoot 85% RAW and 15% jpg overall.

[sasa007]

If I have to go trough 1000(and more) images of witch I have sometimes 2 of the same ones (yes people do blink in a group shoot ones with contact lenses the most) Number of rejects is significantly less than shooting with film, expecially when U try to capture the most as possible if you shoot a photojurnalistic kind of style.If I'd pose people and they would stand still all the time yes I would have use film all the times. And if I could break legs to the lab guy, when he does not fix his machines to get me a corect image, yes I would shoot film at all times.I think people do get the most for their money these days from digital.

I have asked people in the lab, NOT TO adjust ANYTHING on my images and finally I am getting a nice results from my JPG-s(yes my monitor is calibrated).
With film there is no control digital did manage do give us photographers more control with RAW or JPG-s.

[VanceW]

To James and Daniel,

Check my sig. :D

But I'll say this. A buddy of mine helped me out last saturday with his new 5D, and I'll have to say that when the budget is within range, I'll be placing my order at B&H. :D

James .. great stuff. Which still goes to show, it ain't so much the gear as the guy/gal pressing the buttons. ;)

And yes. I shoot RAW for the extra peace of mind knowing that I can still fix my lack of attention later.

[sidfrisby]

Don't forge that the RAW file will also allow you to print a BIGER image.
What happens when the happy couple orders that 30''x40'' framed print?;)



Hi UncleDoug

Can you please explain, in detail, why a processed RAW image (jpeg or tiff) is capable of being printed larger than a jpeg file straight from the camera.

Assuming that natural size of large fine jpeg and raw files are the same size.

Best wishes

[lakiluno]

I'd agree with sidfrisby. Jpeg is the same resolution as raw. The only problem I can see is if your seeing jpeg artifacts, but if you shoot L fine, then you'll be seeing pixels at that stage anyway.

[Phil V]

In the absence of a reply by UncleDoug
Hi UncleDoug

Can you please explain, in detail, why a processed RAW image (jpeg or tiff) is capable of being printed larger than a jpeg file straight from the camera.

Assuming that natural size of large fine jpeg and raw files are the same size.

Best wishes

If you shoot RAW, you have a 12bit per channel image, so you can convert to 16bit TIFF, whereas the JPEG from the camera is 8bits per channel.
Therefore, theoretically, a RAW image processed carefully will show smoother colour graduations than a JPEG image (more noticeable on a larger image). This obviously doesn't work if you convert your RAW files directly to 8bit JPEG.

[tim]

If you can perfectly expose your jpg in-camera, and don't want to post process it, JPG is great and will make a great enlargement. If you miss your exposure even slightly RAW helps you recover. JPG also throws away information, so if you want to post process shoot RAW and keep all your data - the shadow data you can pull out is unbelievable. I once underexposed a shot by 3.5 stops, because of a motorbike headlight and chrome in the image (back when I was learning). With RAW the shot was usable, not great, but usable.

[newgenphoto]

This topic is like beating a dead horse to me. But, I'm tired again and grumpy. Probably not the best night for me to post. Carry on everyone... haha...

Oh yeah real quick. Tim makes a good point about the 3.5 stops off life saver, RAW really does work to those extremes. Wait, how did Tim shoot something and be off by 3.5 stops??? Scratching my head....??? Just kidding...okay, I'm going to bed!

[tim]

I was off my that much beacuse it was my first wedding done for free, I didn't have much experience with light sources/chrome, and things were happening too fast to check the histogram! RAW saved my bacon!

[jamiewexler]

Another happy jpeg shooter here!

[mackb]

I'm seriously considering switching back to JPEG, right now I have too much time at the CPU for what weddings are going for in my area, I hate that quality might slightly drop or I may have to trash picks I could have saved, but I got to do what I got to do!

[lakiluno]

get more memory, shoot Raw and large jpeg and then see how many of your jpegs are keepers. If you find that the majority of your jpegs are keepers, then go jpeg only...or just keep shooting Raw+Jpeg.

[sapearl]

I second Tim's view on RAW being a good safety net. I'm familiar with "old school" flash and film, but only just got the dSLR two months ago... used the 580ex in a production job for the first time last week. To say I'm a digital newbie is an understatement :D .

I'd played with the 580 a little bit, but last week's job was my first "real world" use of that flash. The venue was a banquet with speeches, presenters, skits, etc. I knew the exact effect I wanted based upon other flashes I've used, but felt I needed a RAW safety net - figured this would also give me a good taste of RAW workflow. That turned out to be good decision. The jpg shots were OK, but sort of flat, and simply not what I'm used to. I'd bounced the flash for almost everything, and was about a stop off in a number of shots.

Most of the RAW editing involved easily & quickly bringing back shadow detail. It gave me just what I needed. Hopefully as I understand the 580 better, I won't be doing every single thing RAW. It is time consuming - most of this previously was handled very well by a competent film lab.

. JPG also throws away information, so if you want to post process shoot RAW and keep all your data - the shadow data you can pull out is unbelievable. I once underexposed a shot by 3.5 stops, because of a motorbike headlight and chrome in the image (back when I was learning). With RAW the shot was usable, not great, but usable.

[Wedding Shooter]

RAW is all about a good workflow. I remember discussing RAW with avowed JPEG shooters (GIno and Maurice were two) over at FM.

All the comments would come that RAW is only for people who don't know what they are doing. But if you read the article Gino wrote you can see he is now a RAW convert - why?

Because he got a good workflow going.

JPEG and RAW can both give excellent results - but in a high paced event like a wedding (where quality expectations are way up there) RAW seems to be the best back-up there is.

Would you shoot a wedding without back-up gear? RAW is the ultimate back-up for your images - the thing you are paid to deliver.

[sapearl]

Well said. I've had an efficient, easy to manage wedding/film workflow for 30+ years. Now it's just a matter of coming up with a time-sensible digital workflow. I just don't want to be spending every evening in front of a PC. Of course now I just have to buy a few more 2GB CF cards ;) . - Stu

RAW is all about a good workflow. I remember discussing RAW with avowed JPEG shooters (GIno and Maurice were two) over at FM......- but in a high paced event like a wedding (where quality expectations are way up there) RAW seems to be the best back-up there is..... RAW is the ultimate back-up for your images - the thing you are paid to deliver.