Memory Card

tim wrote in post #13206019
The same reason people don't wear seatbelts, don't lock their cars or homes, or eat fast food all the time.

Where's my popcorn...

Locks only keep honest people out

Gel wrote in post #13203185
Ah I see. I can never understand why a tog wouldn't shoot raw.

Well, let's see. JPG's write faster to the card, transfer more quickly to the computer when you back them up, take up much less space on the card, and with a modern camera you can burst fire a ridiculous amount of frames before the buffer fills.

And... If you can manage to get it close to being right in-camera, saves time and energy in processing.

So why take a photo in RAW, take the time tweak it, then export it as a JPG you could have gotten in the first place?

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to RAW. I use both when the time is appropriate. Blanket statements like "pros ONLY use raw" or "I don't understand why photographers don't raw" are just not relevant. Just because YOU don't like using raw doesn't mean others can't flourish using JPG. Its all personal preference.

PMCphotography wrote in post #13206086
Well, let's see. JPG's write faster to the card, transfer more quickly to the computer when you back them up, take up much less space on the card, and with a modern camera you can burst fire a ridiculous amount of frames before the buffer fills.

And... If you can manage to get it close to being right in-camera, saves time and energy in processing.

So why take a photo in RAW, take the time tweak it, then export it as a JPG you could have gotten in the first place?

Just for the record, I'm not opposed to RAW. I use both when the time is appropriate. Blanket statements like "pros ONLY use raw" or "I don't understand why photographers don't raw" are just not relevant. Just because YOU don't like using raw doesn't mean others can't flourish using JPG. Its all personal preference.

I think for anything paid, then RAW is an absolute must, other than maybe sports. I can shoot 12 RAW files continuously with a 1DS3, goodness knows how many with the 1D4. The big thing is 'IF' you get them right then sure JPEG is worth considering but it's a big if. In a highly variable environment like a wedding you need the lattitude of RAW. Studio, not so much but I convert RAW to Tiff for studio editing.
You can push the RAW files much better, fix/tweak incorrect white balance and the files are not compressed losing data like JPEG do.

Jpeg is fine if out walking your dog or doing non essential things.

Gel wrote in post #13207336
I think for anything paid, then RAW is an absolute must, other than maybe sports. I can shoot 12 RAW files continuously with a 1DS3, goodness knows how many with the 1D4. The big thing is 'IF' you get them right then sure JPEG is worth considering but it's a big if. In a highly variable environment like a wedding you need the lattitude of RAW. Studio, not so much but I convert RAW to Tiff for studio editing.
You can push the RAW files much better, fix/tweak incorrect white balance and the files are not compressed losing data like JPEG do.

Jpeg is fine if out walking your dog or doing non essential things.

If you can't get it right in camera you shouldn't be doing any paid work, especially weddings.

PMCphotography wrote in post #13207417
If you can't get it right in camera you shouldn't be doing any paid work, especially weddings.

popcorn time....

PMCphotography wrote in post #13207417
If you can't get it right in camera you shouldn't be doing any paid work, especially weddings.

Lol, don't be so rediculous. You get your images perfect every time?

Gel wrote in post #13207534
Lol, don't be so rediculous. You get your images perfect every time?

perfect? not quite. But i'm quite willing to share my photos from from earlier in the day basically SOOC in a slideshow at the reception, because i gave them some thought as to the finished product and how I wanted it to look, then captured them that way. If they don't look good SOOC, for me no amount of photoshop will make them good.

And yeah, if you want to call yourself a pro you should be able to walk into a lighting situation and be able to determine within a stop to a stop and a half camera settings to get a good exposure. You can easily edit a jpg. There's this near myth that only a RAW file is editable, and every setting in the JPG is stuck in stone forever and ever. And unless you give your clients RAW files, you have to convert them to a jpg at some point anyway, which throws away data.

If needed, I shoot in RAW if the light is mixed or the white balance is heavily mixed and I can't or don't have time to set a custom white balance, or the dynamic range is SO huge that the blacks clip and the whites clip simultaneously. Doesn't happen often. I'd guess that I shoot 75% JPG and 25% RAW.

For me, a 1-1.5 stops difference is too much to push a jpg. You can get away with it in certain situations like flat diffuse lighting but outside with strong highlights or strong colour casts pushing that jpeg file can look really bad.

The most I'll ever push a Raw file myself is 1 stop. Jpegs lose resolution too quickly for me for them to be viable. But those are the standards I work to, I wouldn't want to correct exposure levels any other way.

I don't like pushing a jpg 1.5 stops either- that's why I get it as right as I can in camera. The most I ever really have to adjust exposure is a third of a stop either way.

Gel wrote in post #13207336
I think for anything paid, then RAW is an absolute must, other than maybe sports. I can shoot 12 RAW files continuously with a 1DS3, goodness knows how many with the 1D4. The big thing is 'IF' you get them right then sure JPEG is worth considering but it's a big if. In a highly variable environment like a wedding you need the lattitude of RAW. Studio, not so much but I convert RAW to Tiff for studio editing.
You can push the RAW files much better, fix/tweak incorrect white balance and the files are not compressed losing data like JPEG do.

Jpeg is fine if out walking your dog or doing non essential things.

I agree. I shoot RAW virtually all the time for paid work. It's not for exposure latitude - it's for the white balance versatility. Any pro should get the exposure correct. But in many of the venues I shoot the lighting can consist of various color flourescent lights mixed with incandescent spotlights, plus window light and that can be trouble. I don't mean to be harsh but people that say "I shoot JPEG because I get it right in camera" are like people that say they don't need to wear a seat belt because they're safe drivers. Just wait.

cristphoto wrote in post #13208150
I agree. I shoot RAW virtually all the time for paid work. It's not for exposure latitude - it's for the white balance versatility. Any pro should get the exposure correct. But in many of the venues I shoot the lighting can consist of various color flourescent lights mixed with incandescent spotlights, plus window light and that can be trouble. .....

Ditto on this - I do a fair amount of wedding and social event work.... TV studio light mixed with spots and ambient - WB all over the map.

If I shot JPG under these circumstances it would make a lot more work for me in post, jiggling all those JPG's to get WB to match. This way in something like ACR or any other RAW converter you can quickly and easily adjust entire groupings of RAW files in a matter of seconds.

PMCphotography wrote in post #13207562
And yeah, if you want to call yourself a pro you should be able to walk into a lighting situation and be able to determine within a stop to a stop and a half camera settings to get a good exposure.

PMCphotography wrote in post #13207586
I don't like pushing a jpg 1.5 stops either- that's why I get it as right as I can in camera. The most I ever really have to adjust exposure is a third of a stop either way.

I'm not sure, but it almost sounds like contradiction and a hint of BS

PMCphotography wrote in post #13207417
If you can't get it right in camera you shouldn't be doing any paid work, especially weddings.

I think you must be exceptional at exposure, or perhaps your standards for a good exposure are lower than mine. I tweak every image in ACR though, every single image. Sometimes I just bump the mid tones, sometimes it's contrast, sometimes I change every single slider. I usually change the white balance. I can improve every image i've ever taken with a little post processing, and RAW is faster and maintains your image quality.

White balance also affects exposure. Change your WB, and your exposure needs to be changed. So you have to nail the WB and the exposure to get a perfect exposure. I can't do that, not at the pace a wedding runs at.

Also, while individual images might be nailed, if you're shooting aperture priority the metering will change at least a little between images. They might look ok individually, but side by side in an album you'd notice the variation.

Not one, in 120+ weddings. Every single photo i've ever taken has been able to be improved by tweaking it in ACR.

Incidentally I looked at your website and in your wedding portfolio a large number of your images have been edited in Photoshop, often to make them softer or more blurry. Did you really not touch the exposure/brightness/co​ntrast at all? I can also see on your site that you don't seem to use flash, a lot of the images would've benefited from some light being added. Your exposures are decent, but I wouldn't say you nailed it every time, even in the processed images.

RAW is a safety net, and a way to ensure consistently high quality.

Raw is like a roll of processed (negative) film. You can print it as is, or you can spend time to enhance it.

I think this memory card topic is done =/

cristphoto wrote in post #13208150
I agree. I shoot RAW virtually all the time for paid work. It's not for exposure latitude - it's for the white balance versatility. Any pro should get the exposure correct. But in many of the venues I shoot the lighting can consist of various color flourescent lights mixed with incandescent spotlights, plus window light and that can be trouble. I don't mean to be harsh but people that say "I shoot JPEG because I get it right in camera" are like people that say they don't need to wear a seat belt because they're safe drivers. Just wait.

Using your seatbelt analogy: most predominantly jpg shooters i know of (myself included) don't feel the need to wear a 5 point racing harness and have a fire extinguisher next to the drivers seat at all times "just in case".

tim wrote in post #13210028
I think you must be exceptional at exposure, or perhaps your standards for a good exposure are lower than mine. I tweak every image in ACR though, every single image. Sometimes I just bump the mid tones, sometimes it's contrast, sometimes I change every single slider. I usually change the white balance. I can improve every image i've ever taken with a little post processing, and RAW is faster and maintains your image quality.

White balance also affects exposure. Change your WB, and your exposure needs to be changed. So you have to nail the WB and the exposure to get a perfect exposure. I can't do that, not at the pace a wedding runs at.

Also, while individual images might be nailed, if you're shooting aperture priority the metering will change at least a little between images. They might look ok individually, but side by side in an album you'd notice the variation.

Not one, in 120+ weddings. Every single photo i've ever taken has been able to be improved by tweaking it in ACR.

Incidentally I looked at your website and in your wedding portfolio a large number of your images have been edited in Photoshop, often to make them softer or more blurry. Did you really not touch the exposure/brightness/co​ntrast at all? I can also see on your site that you don't seem to use flash, a lot of the images would've benefited from some light being added. Your exposures are decent, but I wouldn't say you nailed it every time, even in the processed images.

RAW is a safety net, and a way to ensure consistently high quality.

Thanks for your input about what you personally think would benefit my photos.

Of course I edit my photos, most of the time in lightroom, sometimes in photoshop. That goes for jpg's or Raws.But have I ever taken a photo in jpg and wished I had taken it in RAW because the exposure and WB was so lousy that I needed massive adjustments to WB or needed to change the exposure or brightness more than 2 or 3 stops? Nope. If you can remember to adjust your ISO walking into a dark reception venue, you can easily remember to set a custom WB. If the lighting is heavily mixed, I've already said i'll shoot RAW. I still set a custom WB though, because to me the better I can get it in camera the less work i have to do later.

I give my clients JPG's. So at some point in the process, I'll have to convert the RAW's to JPG's anyway. So if the lighting is generally good and not heavily mixed, shooting in jpg saves me time in editing. Your results may vary.