How to shoot RAW?

[staceyann]

I always use JPEG. I want to learn shooting RAW. I have a wedding to shoot as a 2nd shooter today. It's time for me to change to RAW. I have a 40d. I don't know which resolution, JPEG compression and file format to choose from my screen?

[CanadianKitKat]

Under quality, choose the plain old RAW in the top right corner. sRAW is a fairly useless smaller version of a regular raw file and all those other things you see that say raw + L etc will leave you with both raw and jpeg files however it will fill up cards quickly and will take longer to write the file to the card between pictures.

[staceyann]

Under quality, choose the plain old RAW in the top right corner. sRAW is a fairly useless smaller version of a regular raw file and all those other things you see that say raw + L etc will leave you with both raw and jpeg files however it will fill up cards quickly and will take longer to write the file to the card between pictures.

On the top right corner that says RAW on the first line ( RAW+L, SRAW+L then RAW. I choose that RAW? Just want to make sure.

[Phil Light]

On the top right corner that says RAW on the first line ( RAW+L, SRAW+L then RAW. I choose that RAW? Just want to make sure.

I'd just like to suggest shooting RAW+L. In my opinion, a wedding is not a good time to start experimenting. This way at least you'll still have the same (Large) jpeg images that you are used to.

As far as the raw image goes, if you shoot the same way you shoot for jpegs, the raw image will be fine and will give you a lot to work with, but there can be a bit of a learning curve to raw which could lead to frustration when trying to process them. If you shoot both, the heat will be off of you with regard to getting them processed. And yes, you will also want to make sure you have a big memory card, or multiple cards. Raw images are much larger than jpegs.

[staceyann]

I'd just like to suggest shooting RAW+L. In my opinion, a wedding is not a good time to start experimenting. This way at least you'll still have the same (Large) jpeg images that you are used to.

As far as the raw image goes, if you shoot the same way you shoot for jpegs, the raw image will be fine and will give you a lot to work with, but there can be a bit of a learning curve to raw which could lead to frustration when trying to process them. If you shoot both, the heat will be off of you with regard to getting them processed. And yes, you will also want to make sure you have a big memory card, or multiple cards. Raw images are much larger than jpegs.

Thanks for this suggestion! Yes I would prefer shooting both RAW and jpeg. I have 4gb card, is that enough? That's a 4 hours wedding. My main photographer called me last night to work with him today so it's last minute!

[Phil Light]

Thanks for this suggestion! Yes I would prefer shooting both RAW and jpeg. I have 4gb card, is that enough? That's a 4 hours wedding. My main photographer called me last night to work with him today so it's last minute!

When you set your camera to shoot RAW+L it will show you how many images you can shoot with the card that is in it. I'm not familiar with the 40D so I don't know exactly where to tell you to look, but it's there, maybe on the top LCD screen? My guess is you'll be able to shoot around 200 to 250 shots with a 4GB card. Will that be enough? It kind of depends on your shooting style. If you rapid-fire tons of shots, you might need another card. If you carefully compose and plan each shot you may have enough. But if you are a second shooter, at least it's not nearly as critical.

[auroraskye]

4 gbs for a 4 hr wedding shooting RAW + JPG would not be enough for me personally. I would require at least 8 gb if not more.

[TeeJay]

If you are only shooting 10 pics an hour you'll be fine! ;-)

Jk! I think you should double your memory.

TJ

[Zansho]

I carry 30 GB of cards with me to a wedding shoot (most in 2 GB configurations) if that tells you anything. You always want to have more memory than you really need.

[tdodd]

Shooting raw is as easy as shooting jpeg. You do not need to waste card space by shooting raw+jpeg. If you shoot raw and then decide you just want to create jpegs with no editing at all, all you need to do is....

- download the raw files to a folder on your PC (I'm sure you'll do that much at least, if you shoot jpeg);
- start DPP - the free software that came with your camera and navigate to the folder that contains the raw files;
- select all the photos with the button at the top of the screen or just press CTRL-A;
- press CTRL-B to open the Batch process dialogue;
- Select an output folder and quality level - 7 should be pretty good for most purposes.;
- If you want you can choose to resize your output files, without losing quality;
- press "Execute";
- Go and have a beer. My Core2Duo laptop converts 12 raws per minute - 720 per hour. My Quad Core PC is faster but I have not timed it.

A few minutes later you will have a set of jpeg images just as they would have appeared if shot as jpegs in the camera. Of course, you do have the option, in raw, to tweak white balance and exposure/contrast/levels, even change picture styles, and also crop, with little or no quality degradation.

I recommend you download and install the very latest version of DPP from the Canon website before starting this process.

Give it a try now, before shooting at the wedding. Raw is lovely :)

p.s. you will probably get about ~300 raw images on a 4GB card. The higher the ISO and the more detailed/complex your image the larger the files will be and the fewer you will fit on the card, but ~300 per 4GB is about right on average. I suggest you get another card. It can do no harm.

[PixelMagic]

Its not a good idea to shoot RAW+JPEG.... To get the best results shooting RAW you should Expose to the Right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) but that technique will overexpose JPEGs.

[Keith R]

What Tim and Fedka said - and in fact, I hadn't even thought about Fedka's "expose to the right" issue with regard to jpegs if you're shooting properly for RAW.

[Phil Light]

Shooting raw is as easy as shooting jpeg. You do not need to waste card space by shooting raw+jpeg. If you shoot raw and then decide you just want to create jpegs with no editing at all, all you need to do is...

Agreed. Excellent points.

[sfaust]

Its still a good idea to shoot RAW+Jpeg. Just set the camera to RAW+L, and shoot normally as you would for shooting Jpegs. Your Jpegs will be the same as if you didn't have RAW enabled, but it will give you a set of RAW files to start playing around with, and seeing how they compare with your Jpegs. Its a great way to ease into shooting RAW files. If there are any issues, you still have the Jpegs to fall back on. After you are comfortable that you can process the RAW files, all your software supports it, you have the CPU performance capacity, storage space, additional processing time, etc, then you can switch to all RAW.

I also would recommend doubling your memory. Not because of shooting RAW, but because you should have a second card just in case something happens to the first one. Ideally, you will also have plenty of excess capacity when you are finished with a wedding, rather than having the cards nearly full. Again, its a 'just in case' scenario.

If you normally almost filled that 4GB card during a wedding, I'd have at least two of them. If I switched to RAW+Jpeg, then I'd want at least 4, probably 5.

[Phil Light]

...I have a wedding to shoot as a 2nd shooter today...

I'm looking forward to seeing your shots!

[PixelMagic]

How does one Expose to the Right for RAW and still maintain the correct exposure for JPEGs?


Its still a good idea to shoot RAW+Jpeg. Just set the camera to RAW+L, and shoot normally as you would for shooting Jpegs. Your Jpegs will be the same as if you didn't have RAW enabled, but it will give you a set of RAW files to start playing around with, and seeing how they compare with your Jpegs. Its a great way to ease into shooting RAW files. If there are any issues, you still have the Jpegs to fall back on. After you are comfortable that you can process the RAW files, all your software supports it, you have the CPU performance capacity, storage space, additional processing time, etc, then you can switch to all RAW.

I also would recommend doubling your memory. Not because of shooting RAW, but because you should have a second card just in case something happens to the first one. Ideally, you will also have plenty of excess capacity when you are finished with a wedding, rather than having the cards nearly full. Again, its a 'just in case' scenario.

If you normally almost filled that 4GB card during a wedding, I'd have at least two of them. If I switched to RAW+Jpeg, then I'd want at least 4, probably 5.

[E-K]

How does one Expose to the Right for RAW and still maintain the correct exposure for JPEGs?

I don't think exposing to the right is a good idea for someone just starting with RAW and who is shooting a wedding within 24 hours ;).

As far as the whole RAW versus RAW + JPEG, I would just go with RAW unless you need the JPEG fast for some reason (e.g. slide show or immediate prints). Canon includes two programs which can batch process the RAW files to JPEGs using the camera settings (DPP and Zoom Browser EX).

e-k

[sfaust]

How does one Expose to the Right for RAW and still maintain the correct exposure for JPEGs?

In the first couple sentences I suggested to shoot for the Jpeg as normal, but capture RAW as well. So they wouldn't be exposing for RAW, but for Jpeg. The exercise is to ease into shooting RAW, and not just switching over and running into unplanned issues and not having a fall back. Its like running two computers in parallel mode until the bugs are worked out and things are known to run smoothly. Then switch.

Just switching to a RAW workflow without a test run is asking for issues. There are a lot of things that are different between shooting JPEG and RAW, and those questions should be answered prior to just switching to shooting RAW at the next weeding.

Can the OP handle the time requirements of a RAW workflow? Is their CPU up to snuff? Do they have enough storage space to handle multiple large RAW jobs? Do all their applications support RAW properly? Is the metadata handling any different? The default RAW to JPEG parameters could cause color shifts, etc, in the resulting JPEGs. Does RAW fit in their archival strategy, or would it necessitate going to larger storage (ie, CD to DVD's, etc)?

If any of this is an issue, shooting RAW+Jpeg will give the OP a fall back plan to just use the JPEGS as they would normally, and ignore the RAW files for the moment. Its a great way to see what your normal Jpeg shot looks like, then see the same image as a RAW file. That information will also teach them how to shoot RAW since they can see the differences side by side. It's also a good test run with an actual event shot on RAW to test the whole workflow process. Just shooting RAW, than finding out these issues won't put the OP is a comfortable spot.

With that said, I always shoot RAW and expose to the right. When I do turn on Jpegs for the odd job, they aren't overexposed but jsut about dead on. I did take time to calibrate the two so that my Jpegs looked as good as my RAW files using the cameras pre-sets and adjustments. They match up very closely in color, exposure, etc.

[PixelMagic]

I agree with both you and E-K that its not a good idea to be experimenting with shooting RAW for a critical assignment like a wedding. And while I also agree that shooting RAW+JPEG eases the transition into RAW, not using the generally accepted technique of ETTR means that the RAW files have limited utility since Brightness/Exposure will have to be increased in the RAW converter which would certainly add noise.

[sfaust]

... not using the generally accepted technique of ETTR means that the RAW files have limited utility since Brightness/Exposure will have to be increased in the RAW converter which would certainly add noise.

I really can't agree that shooting without exposing to the right gives you a RAW file with limited utility. The difference between ETTR and not, is not significant in the usabilty of the image. There is a decrease in S/N ratio, but its also camera dependent, being slight on many, and insignificant on some. A proper exposure for a Jpeg will also yield a very usable RAW file even when not using ETTR. Using ETTR if you have the time just increases an already excellent product, but not using ETTR doesn't affect its end usefullness.

Also keep in mind that exposing right properly is not conducive to a wedding environment in the first place. It's great when you have the time to do so, such as in landscape, studio, and so on, but it's not generally done as often at events, weddings, or in journalism because of the extra time involved, both during the exposure process and post production.

The photographer needs to take the extra time to counter what their equipment is asking them to do, make sure they are not clipping the highlights, and take care to make sure they aren't clipping the red, blue, or green channels independently. The analysis is easy, but the process is time consuming.

To expose right, they would need to shoot a test frame in order to view the histogram, adjust their exposure accordingly, then shoot the final image based on the new corrections. Since you can't based ETTR on a light meter reading, or the in-camera meter, you need test exposures in order to get a histogram to read and evaluate. That is not a process that works well in a fast paced shooting environment when you typically have one chance to get the image.

There is a difference when exposing to the right, but it's not huge and is also camera dependent. The extra workload isn't something most wedding photographers would take on, let alone someone brand new to shooting RAW.

[blinded]

How does one Expose to the Right for RAW and still maintain the correct exposure for JPEGs?
This is where the "correct" exposure has to be remembered or reinvented. What do you think would look the best? I wouldn't expose to the right yet. It's a good technique, but not really suited to fast environments, and you might not see a visual improvement in your photos.

Just switching to a RAW workflow without a test run is asking for issues. There are a lot of things that are different between shooting JPEG and RAW, and those questions should be answered prior to just switching to shooting RAW at the next weeding.

I agree with both you and E-K that its not a good idea to be experimenting with shooting RAW for a critical assignment like a wedding. And while I also agree that shooting RAW+JPEG eases the transition into RAW, not using the generally accepted technique of ETTR means that the RAW files have limited utility since Brightness/Exposure will have to be increased in the RAW converter which would certainly add noise.

This is rediculous. I've been shooting RAW from day 1 with my DSLR with almost no instruction and it's been as easy as pie (if anything, I think I had more problems with light trails at slow shutter speeds with flash because I didn't know about 2nd curtain sync). If you have ANY experience with post processing and histograms, you're ready for RAW. The only pitfalls you may run in are "did I adjust it enough?" which nobody but you can answer and advanced color management. The rest of the "hard" hype around RAW is really unwarranted. DPP is fool proof based on the way it's designed, though you may want to choose a picture style to start off with and then set it and forget it (I use neutral, it has the best colors and is the most realistic looking). If you want a better RAW experience, I'd sample MANY 3rd party RAW converters. I really like them. Gather up some RAWs of different situations (nature, sports, colorful things, muted things, etc) then post process them in each different converter 2 ways: at their defaults (to get an idea of what you will get with the least amount of effort, a starting point), and then tweak them yourself. You will get a feel for each programs workflow and quality. Personally, my two top choices would probably be Adobe Camera RAW/Lightroom and Bibble. I use Bibble since I think it has the best color (every supported camera is profiled) and is really forward thinking, almost like Capture One but better (faster and cheaper). But lots of people like Lightroom for it's workflow and tools (I really do like the selective color tools, B&W conversions, and parametric curves. Just make sure you get a calibration for it STAT to fix it's color). If you have Photoshop, you might not really need to get Lightroom in my opinion, unless you really want to devote yourself to one program the whole way though. I would say that ANY 3rd party RAW converter wipes the floor with DPP.

[sfaust]

This is rediculous. I've been shooting RAW from day 1 with my DSLR with almost no instruction and it's been as easy as pie (if anything, I think I had more....

The only pitfalls you may run in are "did I adjust it enough?" which nobody but you can answer and advanced color management.

I don't think its ridiculous at all. If you read though many of the posts in this form, you'll find lots of people stating they had issues with shooting RAW files at first. I think you are underestimating the issues that people do run into.

- Many people aren't running the latest and greatest software. It handles JPEGs fine, but older RAW converters many not open the latest RAW files from their cameras.

- Depending on the software being used, they may need to use a different piece of software. Switching may affect other parts of their workflow which may require more adjustments or software changes as well. It can have a ripple effect.

- The software they use now for JPEGs might not handle RAW files to their liking, thus they may want to switch to another piece of software just for the better RAW converter. Again, causing the ripple effect.

- Same with the processing software they may be using. Their hardware might choke when dealing with file sizes that are significantly larger then their current JPEG images.

- Memory card space, especially in this case, could be an issue on the capture end.

- There is a learning curve required in processing the files. There will be a new piece of software to learn, new interface, new process. It may also interact differently with other software as well.

- Handling metadata will be much different since they can store that in the JPEG files, but can't in the RAW files.

- Archiving will require a lot more storage. Rather that just archiving the JPEG files used as source and delivery, they will have both RAW source files and JPEG delivery files. This is a significant increase in storage space and may require some thinking on the users part in how to effectively archive both pieces.

The issues are easily resolved, but they are there and snag many as evidenced by the posts in this very forum. They also create a ripple effect throughout the entire workflow process. This can cost money, inject a learning curve that takes time, cause a temporary hiccup in their output quality, all of which are inadvisable when a deadline looms and a client is eagerly awaiting their images.

It's also one thing to start shooting RAW from day one, than to get really good at shooting JPEG,s then switching the entire post processing process and expect the exact same quality level. There is a learning curve that needs to be addressed, and it will cause a dip in quality until it's sorted out.

So why deal with all this under the pressure of a wedding deadline, rather then shoot RAW+Jpeg so the OP has a safety net. Then they have an entire jobs worth of RAW files that they can use to run through the process and uncover the snags, resolve them, and use it to learn in a 'real world' scenario. Then, make the switch when things are ironed out.

But I do completely agree that shooting RAW is as easy as shooting Jpegs, and in many cases, easier. But it does take some upfront time to make sure things go smoothly, and doing that under a deadline is never fun.

[Phil Light]

Stephen,

Thank you! What you said is exactly what was in the back of my mind in my post above. I could not have stated it any better than you have. In a nutshell, I just think there is a learning curve to raw that people tend to forget about after they've processed raw files for a while. No one who is just getting their feet wet with raw needs that kind of stress when a deadline is looming.

[agedbriar]

I have been shooting RAW only for quite some time. But I do remember that all was not that plain and simple when I first ventured into it.

I support the cautious approach.

[blinded]

- Many people aren't running the latest and greatest software. It handles JPEGs fine, but older RAW converters many not open the latest RAW files from their cameras.
I thought they would find that out first.


- Same with the processing software they may be using. Their hardware might choke when dealing with file sizes that are significantly larger then their current JPEG images.
Maybe. But I'm on a 4 year old, slow as can be computer and RAW is still pretty fast.


- Memory card space, especially in this case, could be an issue on the capture end.
Yes.


- There is a learning curve required in processing the files. There will be a new piece of software to learn, new interface, new process. It may also interact differently with other software as well.
Yes, but I wouldn't say that a majority of RAW converters are really that different, given that they all have similar controls and make global adjustments. The whole "printing RAW" option may be hard to set up though.



- Handling metadata will be much different since they can store that in the JPEG files, but can't in the RAW files.
Yeah, that would be a problem to deal with. I think whatever system you choose can only be found by trial and error and testing different programs.


- Archiving will require a lot more storage. Rather that just archiving the JPEG files used as source and delivery, they will have both RAW source files and JPEG delivery files. This is a significant increase in storage space and may require some thinking on the users part in how to effectively archive both pieces.
I would rather just archive the RAWs and delete the JPEGs after they're already sent out. You may go "WHAT!?" but as long as the settings are there and I didn't need to send anything to Photoshop for selective stuff, I can make them again if I need to.

This can cost money, inject a learning curve that takes time, cause a temporary hiccup in their output quality, all of which are inadvisable when a deadline looms and a client is eagerly awaiting their images.
Oh yeah, the deadline. But I still think it might be worth it. Maybe instead of doing the whole thing in RAW, the OP could open maybe 4 or 5 RAWs, play around with it, then go back to the JPEG workflow and wait till after to experiment, or if they feel like they have some basics or know what they need to know, continue with RAW from there.


It's also one thing to start shooting RAW from day one, than to get really good at shooting JPEG,s then switching the entire post processing process and expect the exact same quality level. There is a learning curve that needs to be addressed, and it will cause a dip in quality until it's sorted out.

Wait, I was shooting only JPEGs (ones that I never usually needed to tweak) on my a620 since that's all it had and in my transition to RAW, the quality the same or better in no time. In terms of just developing the RAWs, it's easy, though you don't even have to develop everything. You can get good at shooting RAW just as you can JPEG. Maybe the workflow or organization could slow you down, but if you talk just about developing the RAWs, I don't think so.

So why deal with all this under the pressure of a wedding deadline, rather then shoot RAW+Jpeg so the OP has a safety net. Then they have an entire jobs worth of RAW files that they can use to run through the process and uncover the snags, resolve them, and use it to learn in a 'real world' scenario. Then, make the switch when things are ironed out.
Yes, the wedding deadline. Shoot RAW+JPEG for no suprises, but after the whole project is done, go tweak the RAWs in a similar time frame and see if it's any harder/easier to get a similar output.

Or you could just shoot in only RAW and use DPP, it has all the default Picture Style parameters built in and is like an oversized version of what the camera does on it's own to jpegs anyways. I think this would be the smartest for someone used to in camera JPEGs. The option to adjust the main variables (picture style/contrast/saturation/color tone) and have no penalty on quality would be invaluable. Then all you do after is export as JPEG. I don't think it can get easier than that.

[sfaust]

Maybe. But I'm on a 4 year old, slow as can be computer and RAW is still pretty fast.

Speed is relative. If you have 1,000 images to process on a deadline, even the current fast computers seem slow! And it depends on how the user wants to process them. If they currently use PS actions, a slow computer processing 1,000 images to convert to JPEGs can take some time, compared to not having to process anything and deliver the camera JPEG's. So it depends...

Yes, but I wouldn't say that a majority of RAW converters are really that different, given that they all have similar controls and make global adjustments. The whole "printing RAW" option may be hard to set up though.

I've found large differences in the user interface such that it took a while to get into the manufacturers thought process. The adjustments can be similar, but how to tweak them to get the same results takes time to figure out.

Also, the output quality is different as many have noted. processing the same image through different RAW conversion technologies does make a difference, and it takes a while to figure out how to get the same results from different converters. Reading through thread after thread about people comparing the RAW converters identifies the differences pretty easily.

I was sold on ACR, until Raw Essentials came out. I made the mistake of using it and absolutely loved the image quality I got from it. As hard as I tried, I could not get the same results from ACR. Then Adobe (in its wisdom IMO), bought the technology from Pixmantic and incorporated that into their camera raw in Lightroom and Photoshop. Its one of the reasons I prefer Lightroom over say Aperture, is because of that raw processing technology.

I would rather just archive the RAWs and delete the JPEGs after they're already sent out. You may go "WHAT!?" but as long as the settings are there and I didn't need to send anything to Photoshop for selective stuff, I can make them again if I need to.

Seeing how there isn't a standard yet on how the settings are saved, you may find in the future that you can't reproduce the same results without re-editing the images. Something to think about, and worth looking at the DNG format because of it. Not sure where I'm headed on this at the moment either, so I save my edits as well until this shakes out. I have the option to dump the edits later once compatibility is assured.

Also, depending on what software is used, the information on how the image was developed may not be stored with the file itself, but may be contained in a separate library elsewhere on the disk. If thats the case, it would need to be backed up as well. Or the data needs to be sync'd back to the sidecar files and saved. Even then, the catalog version, or the sidecar version, may not be compatiable in the future. Its this type of stuff that really needs to be evaluated so you don't hve major headaches in the future.

Image believing that everything is fine and all the development settings or metadata are safe, only to find out 7 years from now after building a library of 50K beautiful images, that in order to get the same results as the JPEG files you had, you need to hand convert those settings to a new standard, or worse re-edit the image.

A little miscalculation like this could cause a significant amount of work in the future to 'right a wrong'. Probably not significant in this context or scenario, but the throught process needs to be the same for similar reasons. If you change something, walk through the entire workflow process and see what else it affects.

Oh yeah, the deadline. But I still think it might be worth it. Maybe instead of doing the whole thing in RAW, the OP could open maybe 4 or 5 RAWs, play around with it, then go back to the JPEG workflow and wait till after to experiment, or if they feel like they have some basics or know what they need to know, continue with RAW from there.

That was the whole point of my suggesting shooting RAW+Jpeg. The OP would have an entire event shot on RAW, as well as their normal JPEG files. Delivering the JPEG's, then play with the RAW event for comparison, is a very safe way to go. All the issues can then be worked out in their free time and not under deadline pressures.

Wait, I was shooting only JPEGs (ones that I never usually needed to tweak) on my a620 since that's all it had and in my transition to RAW, the quality the same or better in no time. In terms of just developing the RAWs, it's easy, though you don't even have to develop everything. You can get good at shooting RAW just as you can JPEG. Maybe the workflow or organization could slow you down, but if you talk just about developing the RAWs, I don't think so.

I agree. Its like shooting film. When you change to a new film stock, you shoot a roll or two just to see what the differences are. Then you make any adjustments in filtration, ISO speed, etc, to get the results you want. Then shooting XYZ stock over ABC stock is insignificant. But the key is to shoot a couple rolls to make sure the rated ISO is true, colors are correct, etc.

Yes, the wedding deadline. Shoot RAW+JPEG for no suprises, but after the whole project is done, go tweak the RAWs in a similar time frame and see if it's any harder/easier to get a similar output.

Exactly.

Or you could just shoot in only RAW and use DPP, it has all the default Picture Style parameters built in and is like an oversized version of what the camera does on it's own to jpegs anyways. I think this would be the smartest for someone used to in camera JPEGs. The option to adjust the main variables (picture style/contrast/saturation/color tone) and have no penalty on quality would be invaluable. Then all you do after is export as JPEG. I don't think it can get easier than that.

The difference between tweaking an image in RAW or tweaking it as a JPEG isn't really the issue. Thats mostly a learning curve.

Its the other stuff that is significant, and can often be overlooked. When a change is made in the capture process, it needs to be evaluated from start to finish to see what real world effects it will have.

Exposing for JPEG or RAW is not that different. Tweaking the file to create a good jpeg is not that significant. But the effect of changing your workflow from JPEG to RAW, could have significant effects in the whole process, some significant, others not. Just look at the whole picture is all I am advocating.

[sfaust]

Stephen,

Thank you! What you said is exactly what was in the back of my mind in my post above. I could not have stated it any better than you have. In a nutshell, I just think there is a learning curve to raw that people tend to forget about after they've processed raw files for a while. No one who is just getting their feet wet with raw needs that kind of stress when a deadline is looming.

You did state it better. You said the same thing using a lot less words!!! You did the cliff notes, I did the book.

And I prefer your version since it requires less typing on my part :) And I'm sure the readers appreciate shorter posts as well!

[SuzyView]

First off, what software is the OP using? Any software older than 1 year is going to need the 40D plug in to process RAW images.

For a wedding and the first time using RAW, I hope the OP is shooting RAW + LJPEG because this is not the time to mess up and have to learn something. If the OP's primary shooter can take the CF card and process the images, that's great. But to start working on RAW data when you've never done it before is unwise. For heaven sakes, the OP didn't even know how to get the quality on the menu! Learn the camera and learn to shoot RAW and then when the next wedding comes along, you'll be prepared.

I shoot RAW and love it, but I started out just like this, having a wedding to do and not knowing how to process the RAW files. I bought "CAMERA RAW" the book, learned how to do the processing better. I bought a good PhotoShop book also. And some pros here only use JPEG and the pictures are beautiful. RAW is not the end all, but for some of us, easier to work with.

[staceyann]

First off, what software is the OP using? Any software older than 1 year is going to need the 40D plug in to process RAW images.

For a wedding and the first time using RAW, I hope the OP is shooting RAW + LJPEG because this is not the time to mess up and have to learn something. If the OP's primary shooter can take the CF card and process the images, that's great. But to start working on RAW data when you've never done it before is unwise. For heaven sakes, the OP didn't even know how to get the quality on the menu! Learn the camera and learn to shoot RAW and then when the next wedding comes along, you'll be prepared.

I shoot RAW and love it, but I started out just like this, having a wedding to do and not knowing how to process the RAW files. I bought "CAMERA RAW" the book, learned how to do the processing better. I bought a good PhotoShop book also. And some pros here only use JPEG and the pictures are beautiful. RAW is not the end all, but for some of us, easier to work with.

I am the OP. I shot using RAW and jpeg to be safe. Glad I asked before I went off shooting a wedding last Sat. I learned my primary photographer only processes the jpeg files. But I want to start learning how to process RAW files. They are still in my LR waiting for me to process them. Takes time for me to learn. Thanks everyone for the advice!

[davidcrebelxt]

If shooting RAW only, and you want .jpgs like in-camera, I suggest batching them out using Zoombrowser, as its rendering engine apparently is closer to how camera processes the images.

I contacted Canon about this after I had an image where I couldn't recover some highlights for ANYTHING using DPP, yet the in-camera .jpg clearly showed that area not blown out; after telling me that zoombrowser was closer, I tried it out... sure enough, zoombrowswer's default got me the same image as in-camera.

Now, to be clear, for editing I prefer power of DPP; but for quick batching I definately see a difference between the two (even in terms of saturation and contrast) and prefer zoombrowser as its closer to what I'd expect out of camera.

Just a warning to OP before you start pulling your hair out... LR/ACR can be problematic with RAW as the default rendering *may* skew your colors until/IF you can work out a suitable preset. For me my reds go orange, and skin goes a bit greenish.

[sfaust]

I am the OP. I shot using RAW and jpeg to be safe. Glad I asked before I went off shooting a wedding last Sat. I learned my primary photographer only processes the jpeg files. But I want to start learning how to process RAW files. They are still in my LR waiting for me to process them. Takes time for me to learn. Thanks everyone for the advice!

Glad you decided to go that route, a smart move. And none of us even considered what your 'employer' might need.

Ether way, you can deliver the JPEGs to them as normal, and now have an entire RAW wedding that you can further test with.