Why Many Wedding Photographers Not Shooting RAW

Hi all,

I saw few threads and understand photojournalists have to shoot JPEG most.

Some wedding photographers comment such 'can't afford to shoot RAW', etc.... I just like to get some insight, please.

I would careless if my kids' wedding photographers what format they use; as long as they get the jobs done beautifully BTW.

Many thanks

All I can think of is them being worried about space(changing cards) or burst frame rate. Both I dont find compelling reasons. Space being the least of which. Maybe they just cant afford to put in the time?

I think there are many more compelling reasons to shoot in raw, especially on a pro level body where frame rate isnt an issue. There is little reason not to IMO.

Consider that the time spent by a pro for wedding coverage consists of:

• Driving to the wedding
  
• Shooting at the wedding
  
• Driving to the reception
  
• Shooting at the reception
  
• Post processing to correct deviations of WB and exposure
  
• Burning photos to DVD and mailing to bride
  
• Handling and printing the bride's selection of photos to go into album
  
• Delivering final product to bride
  

What happen if the family come back asking for more 'twisting' on some of their photos?
Many of them are really 'pain-in-the-xxx'...
I believe that is happen all time.

Well, my take on it is that someone operating on a high professional level has learned from his experience to nail the exposure and White Balance and, assuming the scene is in a manageable lighting environment, really wouldn't benefit from shooting Raw -- a wedding shooter isn't going to need to keep all those Raw files and "masage" them for creative output (although those that have special post processing "styles" may or may not benefit).

Now, shooting say a reception (or ceremony) outside on a sunny day may give one pause because the highlights and shadows become challenging and you can't do much about rescuing them with jpegs. So there is where I'd think a pro would make a choice, again based on experience, as to whether he can capture what he needs in a jpeg, or use a flash, or may choose to shoot Raw.

A lot of studio people shoot jpeg for the same reasons -- they have control over the lighting and have the experience/skills to nail the lighting, exposure and WB, and for their workflow they can get good results and deliver the results and don't need the "baggage" that Raw could bring into the work they do.

Just bear in mind that these people are working, producing a product, not out to enjoy a hobby or fine art/landscape/scenic photography with the goal of creatively drawing as much "cool stuff" out of the image as possible.

x_tan wrote in post #11765770
What happen if the family come back asking for more 'twisting' on some of their photos?
Many of them are really 'pain-in-the-xxx'...
I believe that is happen all time.

I'd say most "styles" that people do with wedding and portrait photography are done with after the "real" processing is done so that is, well, a toss-up.

Yet, the family should see the photographers' works 1st, and go for the styles they like.

Just wonder how pro photographers release their work stress...
Photography is my way to relax after work anyway.

x_tan wrote in post #11766004
Yet, the family should see the photographers' works 1st, and go for the styles they like.

Just wonder how pro photographers release their work stress...
Photography is my way to relax after work anyway.

They have cake fights!

I shot 4 wedding 25 plus years ago.It almost killed my love of photography To much foot work ,getting to the printer,proofs,back to the bride and groom,back to the printer.etc,etc.Not counting everything you go through before wedding day,Then wedding day.What a nightmare.Wedding photographers i have a special place in my heart for all of you. You all are truly misunderstood.. Think that's why i loved the pistol range so much for many years.

I quite regularly shoot weddings in jpg format. For me it is about the time committment that RAW takes in post processing.

Tony mentions it above, if you can nail the exposure, white balance, etc. why do you need RAW. I'm comfortable enough in my shooting to shoot JPG and if I am confronted with some difficult or odd lighting situations I will switch to RAW for that period of time. If you need those special edits that some couples like, this can still be done with a good jpg original. In my experience the happy couple will seldom order anything larger than 8x10 and if they do it is one print and I can easily do that from a JPG.

I think because a lot of photographers are not as anal as many of us here, are. Many working pros really don't know how to post process beyond the very basics and I think that is why many shoot JPG. I can also see it if they shoot in a studio where they have shot thousands of shots using their own lights and have everything "dialed in".

Other than disk space, you can batch convert all your RAW images to JPG while you're in the washroom or making coffee so "time" is not a reason to shoot RAW.

Too much is made of PP, actually. It's like there is only one right way, for some people. PP is a matter of opinion and taste, usually. Clients are far less interested if the contrast is a little more/less for example. The are interested in how they look, and if the images convey what THEY want them to convey. A wedding is a record of an event that people want to remember with fondness.

I have seen many wedding photographers photos. I can't believe how some of them stay in the business with such horribly looking photos. The bride and groom (who are the customers) usually seem not to know what a good photograph is and are ecstatic over shots I consider to be crappy. That's all that matters I guess is that they're happy with the finished product.

If I were shooting an event, like a wedding, which for most is a once in a lifetime experience I have shot/would shoot RAW so I may have a chance to salvage an image that may have problems. There are no do-overs in wedding photography. Time is not a factor for me, I have fast memory cards, fast camera, and fast computers. I'n addition, I have my workflow dialed in. For me, I couldn't imagine shooting anything BUT RAW.

It is not a problem to shoot RAW & JPEG. Some choose to ignore the RAW, but I find it much easier to work with and the workflow isn't a problem after years of practice. The images I capture are once in a lifetime, as expressed above and I want to give it all I've got. Just depends how you look at it. I usually take 60+GB of CF cards so I'm covered.

emtp563 wrote in post #11775310
I have seen many wedding photographers photos. I can't believe how some of them stay in the business with such horribly looking photos. The bride and groom (who are the customers) usually seem not to know what a good photograph is and are ecstatic over shots I consider to be crappy. That's all that matters I guess is that they're happy with the finished product.

If I were shooting an event, like a wedding, which for most is a once in a lifetime experience I have shot/would shoot RAW so I may have a chance to salvage an image that may have problems. There are no do-overs in wedding photography. Time is not a factor for me, I have fast memory cards, fast camera, and fast computers. I'n addition, I have my workflow dialed in. For me, I couldn't imagine shooting anything BUT RAW.

That is so true there. What you think is the best and what they think are to different worlds.

Shooting jpegs in a wedding to me is like playing with a loaded gun, just couldn't imagine myself doing it, something is bound to go wrong and lighting changes all the time from one area to the other in the church, reception hall, at the house with the bride, outside, inside the limo, etc etc. Crazy to shoot jpeg IMO but I know of a very famous known wedding photographer that shoots jpegs all the time, but he's that good and I guess if you have those sharpened skills then you can take that chance.