Just RAW... Or JPG too???

[Fivo]

Hi fellow wedding shooters,

I wanted to know what format the majority of you shoot weddings in? I am not sure whether to just shoot in RAW and then convert to JPG later for proof CD's or to shoot in RAW+JPG from the start?

What do you guys normally do?

[PIXI_666]

well i used to be only JPGS till i figured out RAW< then i was ONLY RAW....but after not needing much tweaking with WB afterwards i figured why was i shooting RAW? So a bit of both for me

[CyberDyneSystems]

Depends on what you think you might do with the jpeg.

As it is,. all Canon RAW files have an approx 1MP jpeg embedded in them anyways,. if this approx 1024-1200X800- or so sized jpeg is large enough to meet your jpeg needs,. then no need for a second jpeg, shoot RAW only and extract the little jpeg with BreezeBrowser.

If you need immediate access to a large jpeg for some reason then shoot RAW plus Large jpeg.

[tim]

* Try and find a downside to shooting in RAW, except for a little extra memory required. If you're a pro, shoot RAW unless you're really, really good, and can get it right in camera every time (I know I can't). If you're cowboy, shoot whatever you like, I won't hire you either way.

I know just one professional photographer who shoots JPG who i'd trust to shoot my own wedding, and he has many, many years of experience. The guy who will shoot my wedding (when I tell him) shoots RAW, and tells everyone else to do the same. If your pro can't afford the extra memory they're not a pro.

[JaertX]

I agree with Tim.

Yervant uses 1DSMKII's set to medium jpgs(so I hear)...but I'm not him, so I shoot RAW only. I used to shoot RAW+jpg, but it has no benefit to me anymore, as I can start a batch process of all my RAW files, go to bed, and get a jpg later if I need.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The OP did not ask a RAW Vs. JPEG question folks, so lets not turn this into version 1,000,000,000.005B of that argument,..

He asked whether to shoot RAW only or RAW plus jpeg?

[kampphoto]

RAW all the way... no need for JPEG. You could go RAW+small JPEG if you want quick viewable images when you're done, but other then that no need for JPEG

[newgenphoto]

I agree with Tim.

Yervant uses 1DSMKII's set to medium jpgs(so I hear)...but I'm not him, so I shoot RAW only. I used to shoot RAW+jpg, but it has no benefit to me anymore, as I can start a batch process of all my RAW files, go to bed, and get a jpg later if I need.

Yervant also says there is no reason to ever shoot RAW if your a pro. I somewhat agree but jeez, this could start such a huge debate here. He's not the first pro I've ever heard say that as well. I say shoot with what your comfortable with. I shoot jpeg all the time but I'm very comfortable with my camera and what it can and cannot do. While were on the topic, I also just heard at a conference a pro ask the crowd, "Who shoots in AV, or TV modes here??" Of course just about everyone in the crowd raised their hands and he said, "Shame on you, your photographers not button pushers! Always use manual if your a real pro" I'm going to leave that one alone entirely though.....

I do shoot raw on an extreme rare occasion...my lamppost picture floating around here somewhere was shot in raw because I did it hand held and the light was already a copperish color cast anyway. In my head I knew what I wanted the light to look like in the print but I didn't want to WB for the paticular shoot.

[newgenphoto]

RAW all the way... no need for JPEG. You could go RAW+small JPEG if you want quick viewable images when you're done, but other then that no need for JPEG

And I really respect you Jacob and I like your work a lot. Same goes for Tim, but, I have to disagree with your qoute.... I say, no need for RAW.

To each his own though around here. We all know each others work and I think most of us have a great deal of respect for one another. Especially the working pros like yourself, Tim, and I.

Have fun with RAW : )

[newgenphoto]

The OP did not ask a RAW Vs. JPEG question folks, so lets not turn this into version 1,000,000,000.005B of that argument,..

He asked whether to shoot RAW only or RAW plus jpeg?

Hey Cyber, he did ask what the majority of us shoot weddings in. It's his first sentance....

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Best not to tempt the Fates. ;-)

As for the actual topic.

I shoot RAW+ medium fine jpeg when I have the CF room, otherwise just RAW if I think I'm gonna run out.

[DaveG]

Hi fellow wedding shooters,

I wanted to know what format the majority of you shoot weddings in? I am not sure whether to just shoot in RAW and then convert to JPG later for proof CD's or to shoot in RAW+JPG from the start?

What do you guys normally do?

I shoot nothing but RAW.

I can't figure out what a camera made jpeg in any form or size will do for me. I don't need a printable file that quickly and since the greater colour & exposure latitude is why I use RAW in the first place the resulting jpeg is amost certainly inferior right out of the camera. And if it requires post production work I can easily make a jpeg out of the RAW.

There is also no additional security to shooting jpeg - it's not like the jpeg will survive and the RAW won't in a CF card disaster. RAW is also a read-only format. I may well delete a RAW file but there's no way that I can over-write it. My point is that I can't inadvertantly resize a 36MB .cr2 file down to a 60K jpeg and lose the original. I sure could with a Large Jpeg if IT was the original.

If jpegs were perfect then there'd be nothing worng with using them at all. But they aren't perfect and do require additional work in Photoshop. In any case I'm convinced that I can post process RAW files faster than I can jpegs, so speed isn't a reason to not use RAW either.

Finally the jpeg just takes up space on the card and makes it longer to up-load.

[bpuppy]

Shoot RAW only to save space on your cards, then use your camera software to export the JPEGs from the RAW files ... do it overnight and it's practically the same as shooting the JPEG at the same time (at least with Canon DPP).

I however, prefer to shoot RAW only and only export JPEG's when all the tweaking is done.

The only way I'd shoot RAW + JPEG would be if I needed to contribute images to some sort of slideshow on that same day ... though this is something I would charge more for and not be too keen on.

I don't want ANYONE to see my images until they are fully tweaked and ready.

[Anthony J Howe]

* Try and find a downside to shooting in RAW, except for a little extra memory required. If you're a pro, shoot RAW unless you're really, really good, and can get it right in camera every time (I know I can't). If you're cowboy, shoot whatever you like, I won't hire you either way.

I know just one professional photographer who shoots JPG who i'd trust to shoot my own wedding, and he has many, many years of experience. The guy who will shoot my wedding (when I tell him) shoots RAW, and tells everyone else to do the same. If your pro can't afford the extra memory they're not a pro.

A very good point.
I have been shooting both Jpg and Raw together. Why? I don't know, perhaps I had the idea that if I make a mess with the Jpg then I can have more control with the Raw image.
I'll stick to Raw and use it only on Saturday when I shoot my next wedding.

[tim]

I never shoot JPG, but many great photographers do. There are two main reasons I shoot RAW:
1) I can shoot away and worry about white ballance and color casts later, and I can also tweak the exposure if I slightly miss.
2) My workflow is much quicker if I shoot RAW than if I shot JPG and made a mistake. RAW can be batched easily, and it only takes an hour for JPGs to be made from all the RAWs from a wedding.

Probably best this thread is left alone, RAW vs JPG can get ugly!

[saturnin]

wedding stuff =raw

[sony23]

I dont know if you would notice the difference from raw or jpg on the 20d but on the 1ds MKII the raw file is more detailed, I used to shoot raw+L jpg and 99% of the time the jpg file was all I needed for what I was doing (portraits) but now im doing stock my director convinced me raw was the way to go and after following his processing directions I wont be using jpg anymore.

Bruce

[jbstudios]

I love what raw can do, but doesnt it take you forever to process them? do you tweak every single thing or how do you do a batch of 700 photos without it taking FOREVER?????

thanks mrs jb

[tim]

I do all my corrections in batches.

[sony23]

I love what raw can do, but doesnt it take you forever to process them? do you tweak every single thing or how do you do a batch of 700 photos without it taking FOREVER?????

thanks mrs jb

700 images, I take it you mean a wedding, thats easy I all ways do a cwb with a grey card in the clients house/outside/in the church and at the reception then I tweek one of each of the images and then I batch say all the church images by using a droplet to create the tiff or jpg. after that I then run an action for the B&W images.

Bruce

[jj1987]

I love what raw can do, but doesnt it take you forever to process them? do you tweak every single thing or how do you do a batch of 700 photos without it taking FOREVER?????

thanks mrs jb
300JPEGs in photoshop takes me about 2 hours to color and density correct.

Bibble, doing the same edits to a raw file can be done in 15-30 minutes.

Both times were approximations that we tested at work, using a dual core, dual processor G5 with 8gb ram and Bibble for OSX for raw, and Photoshop CS2 for jpegs.

[tim]

What's density correction? I often hear the term used but I have no idea what it is.

[Fivo]

Thanks Guys. you have answered my question. I will only shoot in RAW from here on as there is really no reason for a JPG that quickly.

As far as being a pro, I'm far from it :)

[jj1987]

What's density correction? I often hear the term used but I have no idea what it is.
exposure. The "denser" a print is, the darker it is. Fuji uses that term on the fuji frontiers correction software and it stuck with me after I left the printing lab I guess :cry:

[tim]

I thought it was something to do with brightness, thanks for the explaination :)

[SuzyView]

I only shoot RAW + JPEG if the client wants the disk that way. I have been taking each JPEG out and burning a CD for the clients so they can use it. I like to see the pictures on the computer as thumbnails and I know most of the people that want JPEG have no idea how to deal with the RAW files. I have not printed much for clients unless they ask for a set of 4x6 of the whole shoot and I get those at Costco or Sam's. When I really get into getting paid for my work, I will probably shoot in RAW to save space on my CF cards. I was at my niece's wedding where the photographer asked if I shoot in RAW. I told him I was doing both JPEG and RAW. He said it was not a good idea to do that in UT because most labs don't accept RAW files to print. He prints right after the ceremony to present a small album at the reception about 4 hours later. He takes his CF cards to the lab and fixes the pictures he wants blown up to 8x10 and puts the 20 or so in an album for display. He says he has no time to shoot in RAW to get the conversion done. I didn't see the pictures he took as I left and processed my own shots that were done with my 20D and 17-40L at f4. My son said the photographer's pictures were amazing and so clear using Finepix something. For what it's worth, I like the color of the RAW files much better.

[jj1987]

If he as using Fuji,it was the s3. I use that camera at work. GREAT color, soooooooooooooooo slow.

[JaertX]

exposure. The "denser" a print is, the darker it is. Fuji uses that term on the fuji frontiers correction software and it stuck with me after I left the printing lab I guess :cry:

I was wondering what you meant too...thanks! I remember in school a negative being described as dense if it contained a lot of exposed silver...so that makes sense!

[tim]

I went on a shoot with a commercial photographer I know today, just to have a look. He was using a 5D set to RAW + L JPG, and the 5D set to make the JPGs monochrome. We had studio lighting, the JPGs turned out looking great and that's all the client needed, so he burned them to CD and left. If they ever want them in color he'll process the RAW and send it, but today all that was needed was the JPG and it took no time at all.

Just another angle on this. Different tools for different jobs.

[newgenphoto]

I actually think that's a great idea (Except giving out CD's...whole other topic though) Damn! Time to buy a 5D!! Thanks TIM! : )

[tim]

This photographer is an excellent commercial photographer with many years in business, he said very few people want prints any more, they want digital files for their graphic designers to work with. The 5D is kinda cool, but I had the choice and went with a 20D, for now - price/performance is much better.

Mike was shooting teathered, which was quite cool. The producer could see the images straight away and tweak whatever he needed to :)

[BLINN]

If you what you are doing you won't need Raw. SHoot JPG. Just as good a Raw. Like I said if you know what you are DOING.

[muscleflex]

I actually think that's a great idea (Except giving out CD's...whole other topic though) Damn! Time to buy a 5D!! Thanks TIM! : )

you do realise you can set your jpgs to black and white too on the 20d?!

[th3r0m]

Just RAW, unless like Tim's commercial photog friend you will be turning them over right away.

(Kinda new here (can you tell?), so not sure about the JPG vs RAW debate, but ppl do realize that JPG is "lossy," right? As in every time you make a change or even re-save the photo, the original info is recompressed and more data is lost? Probably not a big deal if you take the "perfect" pic every time, but if you need to do any serious editing to it RAW definitely allows for a better finished photo because it is uncompressed, so no decompress/recompress data loss when you make changes. )

[Yella Fella]

i used to shoot jpg with custom grey card balance thing but never got my head around it, or sometimes forget. So now shoot in RAW + jpg. I give the jpg to clients usually

[Banbert]

you do realise you can set your jpgs to black and white too on the 20d?!


Do you mean keep the raw files as Colour and have the JPG's as monochrome ? Because I havent seen settings to be able to do that on my 30D and if you can do it on the 20d I would have expected to be able to do it on the 30D .... would be a useful feature if I could do this so if you could shed some light on it it would be appreciated.. cheers.

[heycow]

Do you mean keep the raw files as Colour and have the JPG's as monochrome ? Because I havent seen settings to be able to do that on my 30D and if you can do it on the 20d I would have expected to be able to do it on the 30D .... would be a useful feature if I could do this so if you could shed some light on it it would be appreciated.. cheers.

RAW files are just that, RAW. If you set anything on your camera for parameters, B&W, etc they're only applied to the JPG file (including the mini JPG thumbnail created with the RAW).

This is an "old" but good trick to see how a B&W photo will look while still in the field. You can either use the in-camera B&W photo, or (better yet) take the RAW and use PS to get a most likely MUCH better B&W conversion in post. :)

[Banbert]

RAW files are just that, RAW. If you set anything on your camera for parameters, B&W, etc they're only applied to the JPG file (including the mini JPG thumbnail created with the RAW).


Thats kinda what thought, sounds like I need to play with camera a bit more cos I am sure when i tried this and looked at the raw and jpg files on my pute they were both black and white :confused:

[th3r0m]

You can always open a JPEG, edit it, then save it as PSD or TIFF file. No more loss. so there's no reason you can't edit files that come in as JPEGs. At the highest quality setting on the Canons, you'd be hard pressed to tell a JPEG from a RAW/TIFF coming out of DPP (identical settings to the camera).

If you're doing a shoot where you know what you want and you can get it in camera, JPEG is great. Saves a lot of time and hassle. The advantage of RAW is the flexibility to go in and do things later that you didn't think of. You can push or pull exposure on a RAW image much further than you can with a JPEG. (and I'm not saying it substitutes for knowing how to use your camera. Just if you shoot an evenly lit scene and then decide later you wished you had shot with high-key lighting, RAW can give you more latitude to create that effect without reshooting with a new lighting setup).
Excellent point. Never really thought of doing that, but that would definitely work. Thanks for clueing me in to something I hadnt thought of. :)