Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 12 Jul 2013 (Friday) 17:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

SRAW for Weddings?

 
MFG
Senior Member
Avatar
536 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2008
Location: South Australia
     
Jul 15, 2013 23:33 |  #16

im using mRaw and was using sRaw. once or twice, Full Raw... so diff in output so far.


AIPP Accredited (Australia), WPJA
Professional Wedding, Newborn and Family Photographer
https://www.scottgohph​otography.com.au (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/ScottGohPhotography (external link)
https://www.scottgohph​otography.com.au/blog (external link)
https://www.scottgohph​otography.com.au/babie​s-and-children/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
pstyle1
Senior Member
Avatar
317 posts
Joined Jun 2012
Location: DC/VA
     
Jul 16, 2013 01:15 |  #17

One time I goofed up and shot a whole wedding on sRAw2 (the 5mp one!). Didn't realize until halfway through the reception and nearly shat myself. In the end it was all fine and they never noticed. I just didn't crop anything in post except from straightening. Learned my lesson there.

But having that experience leads me to believe that the 10mp size is plenty, but I still shoot full RAW.


5D MkIII x2 + a lot of L's.
www.facebook.com/Peyma​nRazaviPhotography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,972 posts
Likes: 355
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Jul 16, 2013 01:33 |  #18

Full sized raw is the real raw. sRaw/mRaw are half baked in camera. They're still adjustable, but not quite as adjustable as the real thing. There's a great reference about it somewhere.

For situations where you may get exposure or white bal way off, shoot full raw. For reception snaps where your exposure and WB are good, use whatever you want.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 42
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Jul 16, 2013 07:36 |  #19

I usually shoot full size RAW. As others have mentioned already, storage is cheap and you are working with the best quality the camera is able to give you. It also gives you lots of leeway to crop. I envy those who don't have to crop a single photo. :)

Also, when you "archive" a wedding, you can convert them to JPEG. That's what I do for the older weddings.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 288
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jul 16, 2013 07:44 |  #20

I archive my raws. Space is really cheap so it isn't a problem. Why do I keep them? Well my processing skills are improving all the time which means I can revisit old work with new skills and use them in my marketing.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ken ­ Cravillion
Senior Member
448 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Oshkosh, WI
     
Jul 16, 2013 09:34 |  #21

What Lloyd said!


Ken Cravillion http://www.kgcphoto.co​m (external link)
Carbon Fiber Rig!
Whole list of gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Jul 16, 2013 13:04 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

picturecrazy wrote in post #16123937 (external link)
A 10MP file can still be slightly cropped (usually for horizon straightening) and enlarged to 40 inches, but honestly, I ALWAYS aim for ideal composition right when I press the shutter. Most weddings, I do not crop a single photo. I guess I just never understood why anyone wouldn't want to get it right in camera right off the bat.

Sorry Lloyd...I normally think your responses are "Right On" but on this I disagree...Not sayin you shouldn't aim to get it right "In Camera". In theory that's great...but why take the chance? If you've got the latitude...why not take it? Crop it for that perfect frame! Why impose that restriction if unnecessary? Give me those megapixels!!


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Jul 16, 2013 13:59 |  #23

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16124635 (external link)
I archive my raws. Space is really cheap so it isn't a problem. Why do I keep them? Well my processing skills are improving all the time which means I can revisit old work with new skills and use them in my marketing.

I do the same thing.

picturecrazy wrote in post #16123937 (external link)
A 10MP file can still be slightly cropped (usually for horizon straightening) and enlarged to 40 inches, but honestly, I ALWAYS aim for ideal composition right when I press the shutter. Most weddings, I do not crop a single photo. I guess I just never understood why anyone wouldn't want to get it right in camera right off the bat.


I agree. I try to get everything right in camera and don't crop often. But I still want more detail when possible. Editing is easier with more detail and I have a wider range of options with more detail. The only downside is space and that is just a cost factor, so I don't really care. People pay me enough that I have no problem spending a fraction more to give them the absolute best.


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,562 posts
Likes: 495
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Jul 16, 2013 16:51 |  #24

Bakewell wrote in post #16125512 (external link)
Sorry Lloyd...I normally think your responses are "Right On" but on this I disagree...Not sayin you shouldn't aim to get it right "In Camera". In theory that's great...but why take the chance? If you've got the latitude...why not take it? Crop it for that perfect frame! Why impose that restriction if unnecessary? Give me those megapixels!!

That's totally cool. We all do things differently. But why do it this way? The question is, why not? It's the same reason I put in the effort to get exposure and white balance perfect right in camera too. I have every capability of fixing it all in post, but if I can avoid it, then why not?

The thing is, I still do screw up exposure and white balance from time to time, so I still use RAW as my safety net. But my ultimate goal is to be a jpeg shooter who gets it right in camera and can deliver SOOC. Once I reach that point, I'm saying bye bye to RAW.

Now I ALREADY feel that I am able to frame/compose exactly how I want with a degree of accuracy high enough to warrant dropping the safety net of the extra cropping megapixels. If I'm totally confident in my skills, then why not? It would just be inefficient to keep doing it the old way when it's totally unnecessary.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16125666 (external link)
I do the same thing.
I agree. I try to get everything right in camera and don't crop often. But I still want more detail when possible. Editing is easier with more detail and I have a wider range of options with more detail. The only downside is space and that is just a cost factor, so I don't really care. People pay me enough that I have no problem spending a fraction more to give them the absolute best.

It's not a cost issue at all, I get paid a rate that makes me very happy. But opposite to you, I find editing small files a lot easier as the workflow is all faster. Faster to download, faster to import, faster to render previews, faster for LR to update the preview every time you change a setting, faster to export, faster to copy, faster to backup, etc...

While it's true that delivering 21MP files of the entire day is the best quality I have the potential to deliver, I honestly don't think they need it. Taking a page out of Apple's book, they are never at the top end of the technical specs game, because they realize their customers don't need the absolute best hardware specs to get the ideal user experience out of it. I just feel the same way about delivering files. I reduce them all to 10MP upon delivery, except for the 5MP files when I shoot sRAW.

I did try to deliver 21MP files to clients for a while. But in all honesty, it's too much. I quickly found out that printing a 5x7 out of a 21MP file looks worse than printing a 5x7 out of a 10MP file. And for the most part, clients take the disc and print 4x6 and 5x7. 21MP is just TOO FAR OFF the ideally optimized 300ppi print spec.

So I HONESTLY do not believe I am short changing them by cutting down resolution. In fact, I HONESTLY believe I am doing them a favour. :)


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jul 16, 2013 18:44 |  #25

Canon uses wedding photographers as an example of who should use small raw:

However, not all professional applications require full-resolution images – a perfect example is a wedding shooter. They may need full-resolution images for some shots (such as family group portraits or formal shots of the bride and groom) that would potentially be printed in very large sizes. However, many candid shots taken at a typical wedding reception will rarely get enlarged beyond 8x10 inches (smaller than A4 size) and most prints will be even smaller.

http://www.learn.usa.c​anon.com …_raw_images_art​icle.shtml (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brokensocial
Senior Member
481 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Jul 16, 2013 19:16 |  #26

picturecrazy wrote in post #16126101 (external link)
The thing is, I still do screw up exposure and white balance from time to time, so I still use RAW as my safety net. But my ultimate goal is to be a jpeg shooter who gets it right in camera and can deliver SOOC. Once I reach that point, I'm saying bye bye to RAW.

Yeah, we only shoot jpeg. We end up with maybe 10 shots out of every 1000 that aren't usable due to whack exposure; that's an acceptable loss for me, considering that for a 1000 image wedding, we'll deliver somewhere between 250 and 350 images. With white balance, the cameras typically do an ok job on AWB, although I'll switch mine to incandescent from time to time.

We don't deliver SOOC; I still run batch presets on our work and do a lot of cropping (that's where I'd like to really improve my work, in terms of getting that right from the start), but I never come back from a wedding, start culling, and think...man...if only we'd shot this in raw!


[mike and frida] photography - we shoot stuff.
chicago wedding photography (external link) | chicago wedding photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,322 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 736
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
Jul 16, 2013 19:22 |  #27

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #16124635 (external link)
I archive my raws. Space is really cheap so it isn't a problem. Why do I keep them? Well my processing skills are improving all the time which means I can revisit old work with new skills and use them in my marketing.

Exactly! Same here.


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Facebook (external link) | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Jul 16, 2013 22:48 |  #28

Taking a page out of Apple's book, they are never at the top end of the technical specs game, because they realize their customers don't need the absolute best hardware specs to get the ideal user experience out of it.


Totally not true. When their computers are released, they are usually paving the way technologically. When the Retina tablet was released, who else had a retina tablet? Same with the retina MacBook Pro. Thunderbolt came out before USB 3 and is still the fastest connection you can get.

I quickly found out that printing a 5x7 out of a 21MP file looks worse than printing a 5x7 out of a 10MP file.

That makes no sense.


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Jul 17, 2013 06:52 |  #29
bannedPermanent ban

picturecrazy wrote in post #16126101 (external link)
Now I ALREADY feel that I am able to frame/compose exactly how I want with a degree of accuracy high enough to warrant dropping the safety net of the extra cropping megapixels. If I'm totally confident in my skills, then why not?

You are soooo good! Most of us can't match your skills...I know I can't! I choose to keep the extra protection. Your argument for cutting the MP in half seems like rationalization and off the mark.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,562 posts
Likes: 495
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Jul 17, 2013 10:52 |  #30

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16127028 (external link)
Totally not true. When their computers are released, they are usually paving the way technologically. When the Retina tablet was released, who else had a retina tablet? Same with the retina MacBook Pro. Thunderbolt came out before USB 3 and is still the fastest connection you can get.

Paving the way for a couple things here and there, like the retina display. But behind on many other things. But like I said, it doesn't even matter because the user experience is the key, not the technical specs. And Apple knows this.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16127028 (external link)
That makes no sense.

Yes it does. There is such thing as TOO MUCH resolution when printing, especially in the chromogenic print process. Otherwise, people would not massage a file optimzed for a specific print size. I get much sharper 4x6 prints on Kodak Endura paper out of a 1800x1200 file than I do from a 5616x3744 file no matter how much I sharpen it.

Bakewell wrote in post #16127663 (external link)
You are soooo good! Most of us can't match your skills...I know I can't! I choose to keep the extra protection. Your argument for cutting the MP in half seems like rationalization and off the mark.

Well, call it what you will. Cutting down the resolution hasn't caused any grief, lost sales, or bad prints whatsoever for my business. So how is that a rationalization if it works?

Everybody has a formula that works for their business. Just because someone does something different, doesn't mean it is invalid or off the mark.

TBH, I usually only like to voice my opinion when it goes AGAINST the grain. Why? Because one sided discussions suck and doesn't give the OP any options to ponder.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,660 views & 0 likes for this thread
SRAW for Weddings?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 64Ivy
1032 guests, 353 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.