JPEG/RAW for weddings

Icebear

I do mostly architectural photography, but I've been approached about doing weddings. For my architectural work, I connect the D200 to a Digital Workstation (yeah, I know it's a laptop, but you can charge them more if you call it a Digital Workstation) and run it off a/c. No issues about battery life or chip size - images go right to the hard drive.

Anyway here's my question: Do youse guys and gals who do weddings shoot everything in RAW? Geeze Louise, with D200s, at 16megabytes a pop, if you push the button 500 times, that's almost two DVDs :wow . Yeah, I know, I gotta buy bigger CF cards, but that's a given.

Seriously, what I've been considering is to do the formals and ceremony shots with the D200 in RAW, and do most of the heavy lifting at the reception with the D70 (and the D200) on Fine JPEG. Any thoughts? Oh, I have Lightroom and PS CS3 if that affects your opinion.

SloYerRoll

I obviously can't speak for all photogs. But a RAW workflow when your shooting 1-2000 shots seems ridiculious since your going to convert all the shots to jpeg anyway. I only personally know 6 pro wedding photogs. And none of them shoot RAW.

If you do a side by side analasis of JPEG vs RAW you'll see virtually no difference in picture quality. (the only time you see noticable differences is when your in camera software settings make changes) Here's an analasis that Ken Rockwell did on RAW vs. JPEG. (This dude is really a true digital photography genius too)

NOTE: Due to lossy compression when you save a JPEG though. You ALWAYS want to keep a digital negative (original unedited image) so you can go back to this in case you save too many times and you end up w/ a horrible shot. With programs like lightroom though, you don't even need to worry about this since the edits it makes are non-destructive to the source file anyway.

Chrissiebeez_NL

I think it depends on your level of expertise..

i did my first wedding this friday and shot everything in RAW just because i can edit the photo's better. While it is a serious pain in the b*tt i've had numerous shots that were easily salvable with RAW whereas i could not have pulled that one with a JPEG file. These occasions all happened because i had the lighting wrong etc.

So if your a good photographer.. why bother?
if your a photographer who occasionally misses the mark.. well decide for yourself..

hope this helps.

Icebear

Thanks

SloYerRoll wrote:

If you do a side by side analasis of JPEG vs RAW you'll see virtually no difference in picture quality. (the only time you see noticable differences is when your in camera software settings make changes) Here's an analasis that Ken Rockwell did on RAW vs. JPEG. (This dude is really a true digital photography genius too)

Hey guys,
Thanks for your inputs, and the Ken Rockwell piece is instructive. Did you follow his link to the contrarian view? There's a lot to learn from people ranting on both sides of the question. Just 'cause someone's ranting doesn't mean he ain't saying something I can use. All these guys are smarter and more experienced than I am.

Anyway, I hope more shooters wade in here.

AntoineD

Hi, as a beginner pro,

I did aked myself the question

My wedding colleague is always shooting jpeg: I must admit he's quite good at setting the best light measurement.

I'm both messy & different. Which means: I shot everything RAW with my D200.

when it comes to high contrast, RAW's definitely better in restuing the atmosphere. RAW files can be much sharper, all along with the capabilitie of fixing messed up shots.

Here's my last wedding (pswd: bigapple). Everything's been shot raw. Much of the hi-contrasts scenes wouldn't be that nice if it weren't raw, to my opinion.

Besides, with raw files, you don't really need to care about white balance.

But, that's a fact I shot 18 gigas…

Icebear

AntoineD wrote:

Hi, as a beginner pro,

But, that's a fact I shot 18 gigas…

Yeah, that's part of my issue . . . burn 5 DVDs to back up your work . . . before you even start processing anything! Seems excessive, especially if you're going to batch process the RAW files when you import them anyway. With the quality you get from the D200 in Fine JPEG, why not let the camera do it?

I get your point about high contrast situations, but it's not that hard to switch from JPEG to RAW and back on the D200 or the D70. Just thinking out loud .

scottV

I shoot raw for everything unless I am messing around and have no real intention of using the photos. With lightroom the workflow is really painless, I can see how it might be different with bridge/photoshop or some other methods. Larger file size can be a drag with memory cards or when uploading everything to backup, but disk space is cheap, makes it worth it.

AntoineD

Well: I never back up on DVDs. This is a loss of time, plus you cannot be sure they'll last long.

I simply use an external hard drive (plus another mirrored one).

I also erase those of my shots that are ruined.

Icebear

f00sion wrote:

With lightroom the workflow is really painless,

Damn good point. Now if I could just get comfortable with the fact that if I shoot 500 NEF shots with D200s, I have 80 FREAKING GIGABYTES of data to back up before I start . . .

I remember the first PC I ever bought, the sales guy told me "you'll never need anything bigger than a 20 MEGABYTE hard drive. Yup . . . MEGABYTE.
Guess my age is showing through

z_28

Icebear wrote:

Damn good point. Now if I could just get comfortable with the fact that if I shoot 500 NEF shots with D200s, I have 80 FREAKING GIGABYTES of data to back up before I start . . .

I remember the first PC I ever bought, the sales guy told me "you'll never need anything bigger than a 20 MEGABYTE hard drive. Yup . . . MEGABYTE.
Guess my age is showing through

I'm not sure how do you reached 80GB with 500 Nikon RAW shots ???
With my Canon it takes about 4GB

Icebear

D200 Raw
The D200 shoots a 10+ MP image. Every RAW file is right around 16MB. Do the math. 500 x 16,000,000. What can I say??? My D70 isn't quite the memory hog. It eats 5MB per RAW image. Why there's such a great disparity is beyond my understanding. It is what it is.

Icebear

Dammit
OK, so basic elementary school math was a long time ago. 16 million x 5 hundred is 8 billion, or 8 gigabytes.
Still . . . gotta get some faster CF cards and a faster reader (if there is such thing) or it'll take a frigging week to download to the HD before Lightoom can process them all in the wink of an eye. Right??

Dick Cheney -"Great news Mr. President, we're getting 18 Brazilian Military Police to help us out in Iraq!!"
"W" - "Thats SUPER, Dick! Uhh . . . how many in a brazillion??"

AntoineD

Icebear wrote:

The D200 shoots a 10+ MP image. Every RAW file is right around 16MB. Do the math. 500 x 16,000,000. What can I say??? My D70 isn't quite the memory hog. It eats 5MB per RAW image. Why there's such a great disparity is beyond my understanding. It is what it is.

Last wedding: around 1400 - 1600 raw files. Size ? something like 17 gigas or so, using a nikon d200. not 80 go, don't worry

Scott_Quier

I do, almost exclusively, wedding photography and this is my take on the question:

Something to think about: Weddings are, nominally, a "once in a lifetime" event for the B&G. That being the case, the I would think, as the photographer, that you would do everything you can to CYA in the event that something strange happens. One of those strange things is exposure and/or WB error - unless you are 100% sure that you will nail exposure and WB every time, I would think you would want to shoot RAW for the added exposure latitude. RAW also facilitates WB correction in LR and PS CS2 (I understand CS3 allows WB correction on JPG files )

OK, so your RAW files are large. But, like you said, you need to get more CF cards. Get cards of a size such that you can get 150 to 200 on each card and enough cards so you don't need to re-use any of them during the day.

RAW workflow in both LR and PS CS2/3 is not difficult or that time consuming. Go through the shots once with the single intent of separating the keepers from the garbage. Batch the keepers, accounting for any possible exposure issues. Done.

AntoineD

Seems like Scott got a definitive point

ulrikft

Raw gives you the exposure and white balance advantage. Different lighting, difficult lighting etc. I would go for raw!

(And even talking positively about Ken Rockwell as one of the posters above did.. SHAME ON YOU! :P )

Icebear

More math

AntoineD wrote:

Last wedding: around 1400 - 1600 raw files. Size ? something like 17 gigas or so, using a nikon d200. not 80 go, don't worry

Hmmm, Antoine, your math got me to thinking, which is sometimes a dangerous thing, but this time it worked to my advantage. 1600 raw files = 17 GB.?.? How'd you do that? So . . . I went to my trusty D200 Magic Lantern Guide (Nikon's Manuals SUK) and Lo-and-Behold . . . COMPRESSED NEF!!!!! I dove into my menus, took a bunch of crappy shots, and guess what? They averaged a little over 10MB each. I'm feeling much better now, thank you.

AntoineD

you're welcome

Indeed, average file size is between 7 and 9 megas. Not too much.
And I don't see any difference between a full-sized raw file and those 1:4 compressed images.

z_28

Icebear wrote:

Hmmm, Antoine, your math got me to thinking, which is sometimes a dangerous thing, but this time it worked to my advantage. 1600 raw files = 17 GB.?.? How'd you do that? So . . . I went to my trusty D200 Magic Lantern Guide (Nikon's Manuals SUK) and Lo-and-Behold . . . COMPRESSED NEF!!!!! I dove into my menus, took a bunch of crappy shots, and guess what? They averaged a little over 10MB each. I'm feeling much better now, thank you.

Or switch to Canon

My last RAW wedding folder contain 502 selected images.
Size 3.57 GB
Camera Canon 1D Mk.IIn

sirsloop

I find it hard to believe that an actual pro wedding photographer would shoot JPG. CF space, HD space, backup space, conversion time... thats all piddley poop. As a wedding photographer you should have enough CF on you for 6 weddings. For what you charge you should be able to afford a large capacity RAID setup. Backups should be part of your workflow, either online, hard drive, dvd, tape. Size of the file is not the deciding factor. Hard drives are cheap, CF is cheap, backup is cheap. I shoot horse shows, walk around with 45GB of CF, have a 1.5TB worth of raid 5 storage at home, and a second machine that I use for batch conversions and uploads to smugmug - to keep my main computer's resources free for more work.

Some of the ideas put forth in this thread make it sound like a real pro is ABOVE shooting raw. Ya know, they are so good they NEVER make a mistake! A lot of wedding photography is in the heat of the moment stuff. Ya know, someone starts doing something funny and you just shoot it. I'm not saying i'm a pro wedding photographer cause i'm not, but when you are shooting an event you don't always have time to double check your white balance or flash EV to see if its correct. This is where RAW will save your butt and those images that all of you JPG guys end up putting in the trash bin. All it takes is walking from a tungsten lit room into a florescent lit room without checking WB!

pyrtek

SloYerRoll wrote:

Ken Rockwell did on RAW vs. JPEG. (This dude is really a true digital photography genius too)

Wow, you're the first person I've ever seen to say anything positive about
Rockwell. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but do you truly think
he is a genius? The consensus seems to be that he is quite the opposite,
to put it mildly.


Someone who is rather more respectable wrote a nice series of articles
about RAW. Check it out here. In fact, all the articles there are great.
As is the gallery. Compare it to Rockwell's gallery if you're not sure who to
listen to.

SloYerRoll

pyrtek wrote:

Wow, you're the first person I've ever seen to say anything positive about
Rockwell. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but do you truly think
he is a genius? The consensus seems to be that he is quite the opposite,
to put it mildly.

Thanks for the link. I do see the merit in shooting RAW. I just believe more that I should do a better job as a photographer and get it exposed correctly from the jump. We are also talking about wedding photography. This field (as far as I have read) is dominated w/ JPEG shooters since they shoot such high volume and are aimed at taking shots, not sitting at a computer.

I know the opinions sway against Ken. I have read allot of posts bashing him. this doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the knowledge he has though.

He can be pretty pretentious about his knowledge and stuck in his ways. I definitely don't agree w/ him about many things. If you really sit down and read his work (like I read every-ones work) allot of it really makes sense and can be validated through simple tests such as side by side shots in different modes etc. I can't sit down and prove, "what is happening is that the photons transfer their energy to the electrons in the valence orbits of the semiconductor molecules." (quote, Ron Bigelow) While I appreciate the geniuses in the digital photography field (we wouldn't have any of the cool stuff if it wasn't for them). I don't want to be a light or color geek (I was already a color geek when I managed a large format printing company). I want to take pictures. THis is why I adopt the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) philosiphy.

This is personal preference, but I'd rather spend my day shooting and improving my skills as a photographer than sitting on a machine compensating for my lack of photography skills.

Thaks for the link again.

-Jon

Icebear

Piddley-poop

sirsloop wrote:

thats all piddley poop.

STOP!!!!:lol4

pyrtek

SloYerRoll wrote:

Thanks for the link. I do see the merit in shooting RAW.

Oh, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. If JPG works for you, that's fine
by me. The links were meant more for the OP.

SloYerRoll wrote:

I know the opinions sway against Ken. I have read allot of posts bashing him. this doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the knowledge he has though.

That's also fine by me. If you want to think he's a genius, it is your right. I just
don't want people who see this thread to think that is necessarily the only
view out there. I actually think Rockwell is harmful, not just ignorant, that's why
I wanted to present an opposing point of view here.

SloYerRoll wrote:

He can be pretty pretentious about his knowledge and stuck in his ways.

I wouldn't call it knowledge. I'd call it opinions. Stating that a point and shoot
can perform just as well as a 5D 90% of the time is one of those opinions,
for example.

SloYerRoll wrote:

I can't sit down and prove, "what is happening is that the photons transfer their energy to the electrons in the valence orbits of the semiconductor molecules." (quote, Ron Bigelow)

Why do you think you need to prove that? That is not even important. But,
again, I was aiming for those links to be useful to the OP. You are a JPG
shooter, and I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong.

SloYerRoll wrote:

While I appreciate the geniuses in the digital photography field (we wouldn't have any of the cool stuff if it wasn't for them). I don't want to be a light or color geek (I was already a color geek when I managed a large format printing company). I want to take pictures. THis is why I adopt the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) philosiphy.

Sorry, you lost me there. I have no idea what a light or color geek is.

SloYerRoll wrote:

This is personal preference, but I'd rather spend my day shooting and improving my skills as a photographer than sitting on a machine compensating for my lack of photography skills.

Shooting RAW is not about compensating for lack of skills.

SloYerRoll

sirsloop wrote:

but when you are shooting an event you don't always have time to double check your white balance or flash EV to see if its correct.

If ye be thinking that, you'll be knowin that most photogs shoot weddings in the ol' Auto mode. Since when they go to drink the glog and dance w/ the wenches things be moving to fast to dial in Manually.

Arrgghhh!! Link

sirsloop

I'd assume most of em use ETTL w/ the camera setup on M...

SloYerRoll

Well hang me from the mizen mast!
I can only be speakin for the handful of true salts that do this skalywaggin for a livin!

It be quite apearant I've had too much rum and I'll be never postin in this thread again.

Arrrgghgh!

jeffreaux2

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. It is a personal choice. I usually in my day to day snap shots just shoot large jpeg. If however, it is an important(to me) shot, or a paid job I ALWAYS shoot jpeg +RAW. For me the decision is easy. Why would I use a 10mp camera and then throw away 2/3 or so of the information in the file on every shot? Or....why would I let the Canon engineers or processor decide what to throw away? Especially since I have not even seen the shot on a computer screen, I am not willing to just throw that info away. Backing it up is no different than backing anything else up, it just takes more storage capacity. Then again, I don't back up ALL of my photos, only the keepers. AND after presenting a client with a gallery of jpegs, what would be the point of backing up anything that wasn't in that gallery?

Anuways, I havent always shot RAW, but I SEE the benifits, so I do now. Like I said it is a matter of choice.

ChatKat

Debate all you want
There are a lot of wedding hack pros who shoot only Jpg. The idea is to turn the photography into a factory of pumping out a finished shoot and burn without any processing. It's a personal choice - I shoot RAW and Jpg. I want the ability to do whatever I need to to my images. I archive the jpg for myself as a backup or for a quick view. Batch process the RAW's for color/sharpening.

Shima

I shoot in RAW for anything I'm getting paid for, I usually shoot in RAW for normal stuff as well because batch processing in light room really speeds up the post processing involved. I keep three 4GB cards with my camera for a days full of photos if I'm going to max out my space as usually I won't go over that much shooting at RAW.

As for backing up, I keep a copy on my notebook while I'm still working on it, and I back it up on my 1 terabyte network drive. Then I'll leave it on the notebook until space requires me to move it, and the upadted files will have their own folder and again be backed up on the network drive.

z_28

sirsloop wrote:

I find it hard to believe that an actual pro wedding photographer would shoot JPG.

It's not about faith !
Actually a lot of professional wedding, sport photographers shot JPEG.

Low quality photographer's skills are much worse than low quality files :cry