Weddings in RAW

sashap

Does anyone shoot weddings in RAW? If so, what is your workflow that would allow you to process photos in a reasonable amount of time? I definitely see the benefits of raw, but processing hundreds of RAW images just seems very time consuming. Please share your experiences.

- Alex

Swartzy

Well..this is an age old question. Yes I shoot weddings in RAW, yes I shoot everything in RAW other than textures and sports. The workflow....could go on for a book's worth. Lightroom, cataloging, initial editing (color correction, exposure, clarity, vibrance, etc.) then on to Photoshop where necessary. LR saves the .psds and puts them right along side the RAW file..all in the catalog. I create a collection called PSD's and when I have a bunch, export them to a Jpeg folder in the main folder where all the .CR2's reside. Then I have full res. Jpegs to order, upload, print, etc.

The benefits of RAW far outweigh the space saved with Jpegs. Color correction, once you nail down what you want, then simply sync all those other images in the same setting..boom, done. Of course I tweak the color correction in PS but at least I'm starting with the same settings for all images.

JohnBiggs

I use lightroom. I can choose to get out JPGS if I need them (as if I hadn't shot raw) or I can fix a few things.

For example. Getting ready shots are all usually in the same location under the same light. I can fix WB on the first one and paste it into the others. I can do that really for each 'venue' change. So maybe I'm setting the WB on 10 or 20 groups at most.

Exposure. Yep I underexpose by 1/3 stop or more sometimes. Usually its a series of images for some reason. I can highlight all of those images and click the +1/3 stop button in light room.

Another thing I can do is blast through the images and rank them, or just pick my favs. That is also fairly easy to do. Then when done I can have lightroom show me just that group and I can go in and do further corrections and fix up the skin, teeth, eyes, etc.

sashap

Thanks guys! I may have to play with it a bit more to fgure out an efficient workflow. Is there a reason both of you use Lightroom as opposed to Photoshop?

tenoverthenose

Thanks to programs like Lightroom and Aperture, working through a wedding day's worth of images in RAW is an easy prospect -- no more difficult that working with JPG's. Given the advantages that RAW has to offer, I can't imagine doing it any other way. The only real downside is the required upgrades in memory and possibly computer.

Lightroom allows you to process hundreds of files with ease, whereas Photoshop is designed to only edit one image at a time.

Art Scott

sashap wrote:

Thanks guys! I may have to play with it a bit more to fgure out an efficient workflow. Is there a reason both of you use Lightroom as opposed to Photoshop?

for me it is easier than dealing with bridge and ACR in PS....it is just smoother and easier to use.............

Swartzy

Art Scott wrote:

for me it is easier than dealing with bridge and ACR in PS....it is just smoother and easier to use.............

You are joking right? Bridge? The thing is a truck. Have you ever driven Lightroom? Bridge is such a memory hog, slower than molasses and locks up a system quicker than anything I've seen....even on a Mac. Use LR for a month Art and you'll never go back.

ChatKat

Lightroom
Yup. Lightroom. I used to shoot RAW and Jpg. No more. All RAW. No reason for JPG. Love Lightroom. You can go to PS right within LR if you need to but 95% of whatever I need is in LR anyway. I Lightroom.

david_h

I don't think any of my current cameras have ever taken a jpg image - everything I do is an NEF RAW file.

I used to use CaptureOne for the conversions, but have been using Lightroom for a while now. By working in batches of images taken in the same conditions, I can get through a complete wedding (usually about 2,500 images edited down to about 1,300) in 2 or 3 hours.

After exporting to jpg, I have a batch action I run in Photoshop that produces proofs that are ready to go.

I still rather prefer the colours from CaptureOne, but I didn't like the workflow of the latest version, hence Lightroom is my tool of choice.

colourbox

sashap wrote:

Thanks guys! I may have to play with it a bit more to fgure out an efficient workflow. Is there a reason both of you use Lightroom as opposed to Photoshop?

I am not a wedding photographer, but what you just asked cuts right to the heart of your original question too. Photoshop is such a slow workflow when trying to apply the same settings to multiple images (even with actions), it's no wonder you fear bulk raw editing out of instinct. But if you were working in Lightroom, there's essentially no time difference between editing one and editing many. For example, you can select 150 raw files shot under the same conditions while viewing one of them, change the white balance, and if the AutoSync button is on, all 150 images change white balance at once! You can't do that with Photoshop (although you can sort of do that with Camera Raw, with somewhat less ease of use). If you want to play around, then leave AutoSync off, get your white balance perfect, do a Copy Settings for white balance only (or include any other develop settings), then Paste Settings to apply your perfect white balance onto the other 149 images, again all at once.

You can do this with JPEG too, but a white balance shift in Raw is much cleaner and more believeable. If I was a wedding photographer, I'd shoot raw just to have the incredibly flexible highlight recovery options (white dresses and all that).

Art Scott

ART SCOTT wrote:

for me it is easier than dealing with bridge and ACR in PS....it is just smoother and easier to use.............

Swartzy wrote:

You are joking right? Bridge? The thing is a truck. Have you ever driven Lightroom? Bridge is such a memory hog, slower than molasses and locks up a system quicker than anything I've seen....even on a Mac. Use LR for a month Art and you'll never go back.

SWARTZY Duuuuuuuude!!!!!!!!
Take a look at the 6th word in the quote you made of my post.....the word in question is THAN ...... I guess instead of "it" ...... I should actually typed in LIGHTROOM 2.....Would that have been better, Swartzy??

Been using LR ever since a friend of mine in the EU sent me a copy.....now I have LR2 and only go into PS for unsharp mask and GENUINE FRACTALS.......when I upgade GF I will get the LR plug in most likely or I may get the stand alone...........if they still offer it.

Swartzy

Art Scott wrote:

SWARTZY Duuuuuuuude!!!!!!!!
Take a look at the 6th word in the quote you made of my post.....the word in question is THAN ...... I guess instead of "it" ...... I should actually typed in LIGHTROOM 2.....Would that have been better, Swartzy??

Been using LR ever since a friend of mine in the EU sent me a copy.....now I have LR2 and only go into PS for unsharp mask and GENUINE FRACTALS.......when I upgade GF I will get the LR plug in most likely or I may get the stand alone...........if they still offer it.

Phew......Guess I read it wrong.....oH,,,now I see what you were saying....Yaaaaa.....good for you Art. Here I thought you were on drugs.winkroflroflrofl

Ed911

Not that it's needed, but LightRoom has another vote here. There's a small learning curve as far as importing and exporting files. But, way better than CS3 as far as bulk processing. LR's RAW processing interface is much better...no having to click a tab every time you want to see another facet of the process like in CS3.

zoomer

Raw, Lightroom and presets.
I normally process about 100 an hour....so an 800 picture wedding takes about 8 hours.
Very seldom do I need to do additional work to any of the shots in Photoshop.

If time is an issue run, don't walk to Lightroom!!
It is so easy to use also, much easier than Photoshop.

In Lightroom you can do the exact same processing to Jpegs and Raw.
Jpeg processing is a bit faster taking the entire process into account.
Only difference is with Raw you have much more leeway in saving overexposed images.

sara505

LOVE LOVE LOVE Lightroom

zoomer wrote:

Raw, Lightroom and presets.
I normally process about 100 an hour....so an 800 picture wedding takes about 8 hours.
Very seldom do I need to do additional work to any of the shots in Photoshop.

If time is an issue run, don't walk to Lightroom!!
It is so easy to use also, much easier than Photoshop.

In Lightroom you can do theexact same processing to Jpegs and Raw.
Jpeg processing is a bit faster taking the entire process into account.
Only difference is with Raw you have much more leeway in saving overexposed images.

RAW and Lightroom, all the way. As has been previously stated, RAW for latitude, and LR for applying processing to multiple images. I rarely use anything but LR anymore, except for body-snatching and cloning, for which I use CS4.
There is a learning curve, but hang in there and you'll be flying along in no time.

sashap

Thanks guys! Sounds like Lightroom is a clear winner. BTW, I found some video tutorials here: http://www.whibalhost.com/_Tutorials/Photoshop_LR/01/

in case somewhat is starting out like me. It's for version 1, but I assume that would still be a good staring point. Lightroom here I come!

JohnBiggs

sashap wrote:

Thanks guys! Sounds like Lightroom is a clear winner. BTW, I found some video tutorials here: http://www.whibalhost.com/_Tutorials/Photoshop_LR/01/

in case somewhat is starting out like me. It's for version 1, but I assume that would still be a good staring point. Lightroom here I come!

Actually lightroom 2 is such a significant improvement in the editing options, I would just try to learn that. Its actually not that hard to pick up.

kyeezie

This was a great question as I always shoot in raw and it feels like it takes forever in photoshop....lightroom here I come too!

BPerron

I am a wedding photographer...

I shoot about 5-7k images each wedding (including seconds images)...

What I do is bring images to "proof" stage, which is just slight global corrections...some color boost via vibrance, light sharpening, exp and wb if needed...

So once images are backed, I use the program Photo Mechanic, it is the fastest thing ever for culling photos...so I just choose the keepers with photo mechanic, then I take those and import them into Light Room with a preset that adjusts my settings for proofing, once those are imported i make sure that there is nothing extremely out of whack, I then export as jpegs with sharpening for screen and then upload them to my server for people to purchase...an entire wedding only takes me about 2 hours to finish...

Photo Mechanic and Lightroom are the best tools ever for mass picture editing!

Scott_Quier

The only time I've shot JPG in the last two or three years is for equipment testing/calibration purposes (and, even then, not often). With the tools available to us now, there's really no workflow based argument to not shoot RAW. Things like Lightroom (and Bridge/ACR) make the process of sorting the photos into culls/keepers make the process almost painless. Then, LR can be used to finish the processing on 95% of the keepers in about 30% of the time it used to take me to process in PS. There is, once in a rare while, the rare photo that needs to be edited in PS and that process can be initiated anc completed from with in LR - then you stack the result on top of the orginal and proceed.

Bottom line, there is no workflow penality for shooting RAW and lots of benefits to be had. Even the cost of upgrading storage is not a reason to delay. So, just do it and don't look back. You'll never regret the decision.