Wedding Photographers: Do you shoot in RAW or JPG?

First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into its on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card.

When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image.

To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/bl​ack point/etc....

So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.

Focused Moments wrote in post #11246727
RAW, or RAW+JPEG if displaying a slideshow during the day (so dont have to convert the RAW)

+1

white balance and over exposed images are harder in JPEG, but under exposed not so much..

I like it raw...

I shoot raw. I am seriously thinking of shooting raw + jpg to see if I can use a jpeg workflow effectively.

Maureen Souza wrote in post #11246215
Peronally, I hate shooting RAW because I don't like the flow and having to convert shots to jpeg. I am lazy, I admit. I just keep an eye on my histogram and shoot jpeg. Always.

are you speaking from the perspective of a photographer in general, or a wedding photographer?

for most events, i spend a considerable amount of time in post. with picky clients, the extra time spent converting file formats at the very end seems insignificant compared to the flexibility RAW files offer in photos with really tricky lighting. i suppose we all work differently though.

ScullenCrossBones wrote in post #11247084
I shoot raw. I am seriously thinking of shooting raw + jpg to see if I can use a jpeg workflow effectively.

JPG is a saver on the day, much faster to DL 3-5MB JPEG files to create slide shows etc than a 24-32MB RAW and then convert etc..

All I can say is . . . I can't believe we're talking about this . . . again.

Peacefield wrote in post #11247156
All I can say is . . . I can't believe we're talking about this . . . again.

The only reason why I asked is because Ken Rockwell who I follow a lot recommends using either or:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/raw.htm

dynamic03 wrote in post #11247180
The only reason why I asked is because Ken Rockwell who I follow a lot recommends using either or:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/raw.htm

Peacefield wrote in post #11247156
All I can say is . . . I can't believe we're talking about this . . . again.

Um...yeah...

dynamic03 wrote in post #11247180
The only reason why I asked is because Ken Rockwell who I follow a lot recommends using either or:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/raw.htm

Ah...'nuff said...

RAW + M JPEG. I rarely shoot in JPEG only. I attended the Scott Kelby RAW seminar in DC this year and it was really amazing. So, I am still learning. I've been shooting RAW since I joined the forum. Won't knock the JPEG's. They turn out pretty good, but if you have the time, RAW is the real deal.

I made the grave error of clicking the KR link...what a load of drivel as per usual.

Mike wrote in post #11247202
Ah...'nuff said...

LOL, I guess no one respects this guy?

dynamic03 wrote in post #11247180
The only reason why I asked is because Ken Rockwell who I follow a lot recommends using either or:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/raw.htm

because landscape photography and weddings are one in the same

sctbiggs wrote in post #11247266
because landscape photography and weddings are one in the same

"If you have to ask then just shoot JPG." That's what he says in the article.