Wedding Photographers: Do you shoot in RAW or JPG?

alt4852 wrote in post #11262856
..that sounds awful. if it's for work, you should start asking the new companies to give you a relocation stipend or a signing bonus.

I wish! Photography is my one and only job. So I guess technically you could say my company did pay all of my moving expenses! :P

i use that card listed in my 5d2, in fact they are at wamart now for 39... few bux more but no shipping..

they are def faster then the old ultra II cards.

robgr85 wrote in post #11261769
RAW only, usually the better You are, the less clicks You take - the less time You spend on converting RAW's to tifs/jpeg's after the wedding.

I understand shooting jpeg (or RAW + jpeg) in certain areas of photography (like sports or other press works) - where the speed of delivery is more important than quality (eg sending images straight from the field of the game).
Wedding happens once, and the quaility is important. I just can't let my cameras make all decisions (irreversibly) for me (and the cameras aren't bad - I shot weddings with 1 series).

That is very true, as I progress I'm noticing I'm taking less and less pictures. Good advice as well..thanks.

RAW versus JPEG .. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .. never seen that discussion here before.

mmahoney wrote in post #11267701
RAW versus JPEG .. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .. never seen that discussion here before.

You want to get your keyboard fixed mate, the M seems to be sticking..

Like old dirty bastard would say from the Wu-Tang Clan..."oh baby I like it RAW"

*Jayrou wrote in post #11267735
You want to get your keyboard fixed mate, the M seems to be sticking..

M is for Manual

You can put over 1000 full Raw's onto a 32GB CF card.

With a 1D4 it's something like 1400 or approx 3 images a minute.

Some are taking 60 gigs with you?

Gel wrote in post #11276820
You can put over 1000 full Raw's onto a 32GB CF card.

With a 1D4 it's something like 1400 or approx 3 images a minute.

Some are taking 60 gigs with you?

i think we've already established that they brought 60gb of space to use between themselves and a second shooter. it's not hard to fill up 50-60gb between two people.

gravy graffix wrote in post #11249629
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.

lol i shoot all my weddings in jpegs but i shoot alot more weddings then most of the people here so time is everything...

howzitboy wrote in post #11280719
lol i shoot all my weddings in jpegs but i shoot alot more weddings then most of the people here so time is everything...

It's Your business, and Your choice. As a photographer, I would be thrilled knowing that person hired for my own wedding shoots it in jpeg

Working with RAW's doesn't take much more time, than jpegs. Supposing, that You like the images that came out straight from camera (WB, exposure etc), You can still develop them in batch from raw processor with embeded camera settings (Copying RAW's to harddrive and running batch conversion shouldn't take more than few extra hours)... not loosing the ability to go back and tune some images, that are not perfect etc.

As You mentioned, You shot more than some of us, so I believe You take less than 400-500 shots a wedding, so the process would be even faster.

howzitboy wrote in post #11280719
lol i shoot all my weddings in jpegs but i shoot alot more weddings then most of the people here so time is everything...

Hawaii?? Cheater! Lol. I'm assuming most of your stuff is outdoors...I'd shoot jpeg too..

Why wont this thread die already...

gravy graffix wrote in post #11281676
Hawaii?? Cheater! Lol. I'm assuming most of your stuff is outdoors...I'd shoot jpeg too..

im busted! shooting on the beach in hawaii....i could probably put the camera on "P" mode and get perfect shots all day..

dynamic03 wrote in post #11246053
I understand RAW gives you a lot more control verses JPEG but is it worth shooting 300-400 pictures in RAW and then converting them to JPEG to give to clients or is it better to just shoot in JPEG?

What is this JPEG thing you speak of?