Wedding Photographers: Do you shoot in RAW or JPG?

dynamic03 wrote in post #11247223
LOL, I guess no one respects this guy?

Even KR himself states that you should take everything he says with a pinch of salt and a very good bullsh*t detector. He freely admits to making stuff up if it makes a better article, or for the hell of it, if it is entertaining.

Following the drivel he frequently talks, is just asking for trouble.

dynamic03 wrote in post #11247511
"If you have to ask then just shoot JPG." That's what he says in the article.

Possibly meaning if you don't understand RAW, don't use it. Following that logic, "if you have to ask then just shoot green box" could be equally sage advice for those who have to ask about using aperture / shutter settings, etc.

In both cases, the best advice would be to learn to use the capabilities available to you to create the best possible image, rather than relying on the camera to make all the decisions because you don't know how to.

With a wedding, you have a responsibility to produce the best work you can. That (IMO) involves making all the decisions yourself, not letting the camera processor take over the creative side.

sandpiper wrote in post #11247585
Possibly meaning if you don't understand RAW, don't use it. Following that logic, "if you have to ask then just shoot green box" could be equally sage advice for those who have to ask about using aperture / shutter settings, etc.

In both cases, the best advice would be to learn to use the capabilities available to you to create the best possible image, rather than relying on the camera to make all the decisions because you don't know how to.

With a wedding, you have a responsibility to produce the best work you can. That (IMO) involves making all the decisions yourself, not letting the camera processor take over the creative side.

Yea, I will dive into RAW a lot more and def. shoot RAW in the next gig...will have to practice a lot before hand with RAW to get into the habit.

dynamic03 wrote in post #11247618
Yea, I will dive into RAW a lot more and def. shoot RAW in the next gig...will have to practice a lot before hand with RAW to get into the habit.

..and stop treating ken rockwell as a reliable source of information.

Mike wrote in post #11247219
I made the grave error of clicking the KR link...what a load of drivel as per usual.

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

sympathies..

Raw doesn't add any extra time to my workflow anymore. 3 years ago I would have went with the Jpeg thing, but with the current LR3 it's just as fast and I like the flexibility.

alt4852 wrote in post #11247112
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.

I shoot a lot of weddings. I have shot RAW but didn't really see much of a need for it. A good, camera, a great lens and good lighting are essential for better quality photos and that is what I try to do with every shot.

Maureen Souza wrote in post #11248298
I shoot a lot of weddings. I have shot RAW but didn't really see much of a need for it. A good, camera, a great lens and good lighting are essential for better quality photos and that is what I try to do with every shot.

yea, that's why i figured we all have our own preferences. as ian mentioned, the conversions are so effortless now that i haven't found any reason to shoot JPG. it gives me less latitude to work with in post in terms of color correction and dynamic range that exceeds my camera's abilities (i run into that more often than i'd like), and my workflow is not really hampered by it at all. we all have our own ways of working, and i'm impressed that you're able to make do with JPG files only. i think most of us feel safer with the flexibility of having RAW files just in case.

RAW always

alt4852 wrote in post #11248338
yea, that's why i figured we all have our own preferences. as ian mentioned, the conversions are so effortless now that i haven't found any reason to shoot JPG. it gives me less latitude to work with in post in terms of color correction and dynamic range that exceeds my camera's abilities (i run into that more often than i'd like), and my workflow is not really hampered by it at all. we all have our own ways of working, and i'm impressed that you're able to make do with JPG files only. i think most of us feel safer with the flexibility of having RAW files just in case.

Well, so far my brides have not been anything but delighted. One customer picked up her photos yesterday and viewed them on a slide show here. Her biggest question was "How do you get everything so sharp and clear?" I love to shoot wide open as much as possible for good lighting but nighttime and indoor receptions can get tricky. I love the hi ISO on my 5DII.

alt4852 wrote in post #11247901
..and stop treating ken rockwell as a reliable source of information.

words that were never designed to be in the same sentence...

there is no "flow" difference to shooting raw... you still need to import, adjust, export into diff folder/sizes. same as jpeg.

the white balance control alone is worth shooting in raw, as well as the highlights, and blacks are just not there in a high contrast shot.

this is the wedding forum right? shooting jpeg is just not fulfilling your responsibility to the couple.

shoot your kids or pets in jpeg, not paid work.

gravy graffix wrote in post #11249629
this is the wedding forum right? shooting jpeg is just not fulfilling your responsibility to the couple.
.

That's the way I see it.