Wedding: JPEG vs. RAW

[Idahophoto]

I'm really surprised that people would fire him based solely on the fact he doesn't shoot RAW. I don't know anything about you guys, but that is a very amateurish statement to make with no other info on the guy. Maybe some people only shoot JPEG when they don't care about the photos, but this guy may shoot JPEG because he's that good. It says to me that you guys know some, but maybe not enough...

Hey, I have said I'm no pro many times, but I see no reason to toss out data when there is no need for it and here is a case for no need for it. What is he using 512MB cards? High capacity cards are next to nothing right now and dropping more every day. Maybe some adjustments may be in order, the photographer might think they could be perfect, and maybe they are, but the client may not and want them a bit different. Yeah situations like that sucks, but it goes with the territory. I never said he was good or bad, I never seen his stuff so I have no idea really, but as a Pro and doing paid work you should allow as much flexibility as you can and not doing so on something like this, makes no sense at all to me. Privately if you want to shoot JPEG only fine, knock yourself out. I couldn't care less, but not when a customer is paying you.

 

[Garbz]

Regardless of my opinion on the JPEG vs RAW debate, why are you judging him by the technical method rather than his results.

You say his results are stunning, does it matter if he shoots it with his iPhone vs a Hassleblad only in RAW?

Do you have any reason to think that he won't be able to deliver? Do you have any reason to believe someone will provide you with a better price / performance?

You should get a different wedding photographer if you don't like the pictures / service he provides. Also what makes you think you would get RAW files from a wedding photographer for you to edit?

 

[Arch]

^ Agreed....

... and do you guys seriously think that film photographers back in the day would take every shot into the darkroom and spend hours tweaking the them, even the candids?

I know a few photographers that shoot weddings mainly in jpeg, they are very experianced and always get good images.

What would you prefer, a photog who shoots mainly jpeg and has a fantastic track record... or someone who thinks RAW is the only way to go but has an average portfolio.

People who laugh at the idea of jpeg are really just showing snobbery.... and this is coming from someone who only ever shoots RAW.

 

[Overread]

You know a professional photographer in a creative field (like wedding photography) handing you over the final photos for you to edit would worry me a lot more than it would if they were shooting in JPEG or RAW mode. Most will shoot and edit themselves and even have in the contract that you cannot edit the final photos even once you have been handed them. The reason for this is that the photos are their property (you buy a print or a limited usage license normally when you get a CD of fullsize photos) and they cannot have just anyone editing the photos and putting them out on the net (often still with their name attached/attributed).

Also I would expect editing the results to be part of the photographers working workflow before you get your final prints/shots - though of course there might be a consultation period before he edits where you both select out the shots from the full range taken on the day.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Wow.... first of all, I want to say thank you for having this discussion. It really opened my eyes. So I decided to google RAW vs JPEG and found interesting results. The first article clearly explains why RAW is better. Yes, I think everyone is on the same boat. We all know RAW has MORE information and clearly superior. Then I read the 2nd article and it really got me thinking. I just found out from this article that I could open the JPEG file into my adobe Camera RAW software which I did not know before. You can still fix your WB and your exposure (to a certain degree) just like like a RAW file. So I went ahead and find an over exposed image that I have in the past and saved it to JPEG and compare the RAW and JPEG side by side. I need to reduce the exposure by about 1.25 which is quite a bit. I do notice that when I fix the exposure in RAW that much, it gives me slightly better result the JPEG. I also played with the WB a little on both files and I find it amusing that the JPEG WB correction is pretty darn good!

I bought my computer 6 months ago with 1.5 TB capacity. Today I only have 1 TB left due to thousands of photos I have taken in RAW. So starting today, I will give JPEG a 2nd try. I will start shooting in JPEG in the next few days. If I dont feel that much disadvantage using in JPEG, then I will stick with it forever. Here are the articles I was talking about. So I would like to retract my comment about firing the photographer right of the bat.

Paxton Prints - The Raw Truth About JPEG

Why I Went Back to JPEG | Pioneer Woman Photography | Ree Drummond

 

[bigtwinky]

I'm with Garbz on this one... if you like his work and he produced top quality stuff in the size you guys want to print, then I dont see any issue to not retain him. I sometimes shoot in JPG (I used to be a RAW only guy), as it depends on what the images are for.

If he is making you uncertain, dont retain him. Just make sure its not due to him only shooting in JPG. Have you talked to him about the RAW vs JPG?

Just because he shoots JPG does not mean he cannot process.

There is more than one way to skin a cat people. The rule of thirds need not be applied 100% of the time. Shooting in RAW may not be needed 100% of the time.


Another interesting thing about shooting JPG... I know a sports journalist, been shooting for 30 years, covered 8 Olympics, and he mainly shoots in JPG. His shots are gorgeous. But he doesnt have the time to go through the editing process other than very very basic things as he has to get his images out the door asap. More often than not, he is sending them to the editor out of camera.

 

[Overread]

Sports photographers are one of the few areas where JPEG shooting rules over RAW - not just for the larger buffer and faster FPS rate - but more for just what bigtwinky says, to allow them to output the photos right to the editor for print or for the net right after the match. There just isn't time for the photographer to edit and process the shots - they need working shots right there and then. Heck I think many use wireless transmitters so that they can remain mobile and send the shots as they come right to an assistant with a laptop.

 

[Mike_E]

If you think changing color sliders left and right is easy.. i guess. I rather user 1 slider (temperature).

LOL Didn't look did you.

 

[Robin Usagani]

If you think changing color sliders left and right is easy.. i guess. I rather user 1 slider (temperature).

LOL Didn't look did you.

Read 3-4 threads up by me LOL

 

[Idahophoto]

Maybe firing is harsh, and I agree, there is not a much need to shoot in RAW as before, but still say he should be shooting in it. There is just no reason not to.

 

[Flash Harry]

If I worked as a press/sports tog then I'd be shooting jpeg to hit the picture desk on a deadline, as a wedding tog I want the best quality my tools can provide, I shoot raw+jpeg, the jpegs get a slight tweak through batch processing and go out as proofs, the album selection from raw gets whatever is required, I process, not my camera.

If he shoots jpeg imo he's lazy, or, inexperienced, because if he was that good he'd be working for NG or some other large publication, anyway he wouldn't figure high on my choice of togs for a wedding.

The OP wouldn't be on my client list either, no-one, without exception get my raw files to mess around as they choose. The work produced is the benchmark if you like the work pick him, if you have reservations about anything drop him like a sack of $hit. H

 

[bigtwinky]

I'll state it again...if you have issues with it, ask him for an explanation as to why he shoots JPG over RAW when you know what RAW allows for more data captured and more precise manipulation of the final image.

 

[Garbz]

I bought my computer 6 months ago with 1.5 TB capacity. Today I only have 1 TB left due to thousands of photos I have taken in RAW. So starting today, I will give JPEG a 2nd try. I will start shooting in JPEG in the next few days. If I dont feel that much disadvantage using in JPEG, then I will stick with it forever.

Both you and the guy in the second article have completely missed the point. The RAW format is better there's no doubt, but if you're filling up your harddisk then frankly you're doing it wrong. RAW as you know captures all manner of data that is useful for post processing, so when you're done, why keep it? Heck if you went out and a quick and dirty shoot and think "meh I'm not touching up any of these images," why not just highlight them all and batch convert them to JPEG.

The goal should be to retain the option to get the best possible picture for processing, and then store it in a format that suits you. I shoot everything RAW including when I'm out pissed with mates. When I get home, and have slid the exposure slider from my drunk mess around a bit to return the photo to normal I either print the file then export to JPEG, or just send it straight to JPEG and then delete the original waste of space RAW. Visibly there's no quality difference between a RAW and a JPEG, but process wise, the extra invisible data is a godsend.


Let me quickly debunk some of the stupidity in that article:

1. Memory card economy: 500 10mpx RAW files fit on an 8GB card. Get a larger card they are dirt cheap, or start to question if maybe you should actually think before you hit the shutter since this will save you time in post processing. Shoot JPEG if you're silly enough to go out shooting and forget your big memory card at home (something is better than nothing), and if you're shooting fast action sports or something similar where you absolutely need to take 5000 pictures in each shooting session.

2. Storage: Aside form the fact that a 1TB harddisk fits 64000 10mpx RAW files for under $100, this is a non issue. RAW files when you're done editing what you wan can be batch converted to JPEG in a couple of clicks, and you retain the best of both worlds.

3. Speed of transfer: ... a) you can start working as soon as the first file has come across. b) why are you watching your computer do an automated operation? Set it, go make a cup of coffee, prepare a receipt for a client, take a toilet break, go outside smell the flowers, or just pickup the mobile an sms someone you haven't seen in a while. You think transferring files is slow you should try doing a virus scan on a 50TB storage array. I started that in the afternoon and it was there waiting for me the day after when I went back to work. Multi-task!

 

[Idahophoto]

Shwettylens has missed the point entirely I think. He may have changed his mind but I still would fire the guy and I would do so for being unprofessional. The bottom line is this if you are getting paid for a job, I believe it is your responsibility to deliver the best product and or service you can. Schwettylens think it's OK, because wel,l it's not that much. Well I don't care if it degrades the quality 90% or only half a percent it still degrades it. If you go with that thinking then tell him he needs not worry about composure becouse hell, you can always crop later and though it degrades the image it only a bit. This is completely unacceptable if you are a professional! Even if your not it should not be tolerated. Every photo I take I strive to do the best I can. Yes, I crop, I do so more than I would like to admit but I don't strive for it thinking its fine. A degrade is a degrade and if your getting paid you have a obligation to do the best you can. Then if you have to crop or something comes up, say your DVD burner breaks down and if you know you will run out if you do the last part of the wedding in RAW so you switch to JPEG, then so be it.You do what you have to. Things do happan even when every precaution has been taken. But to just to do stuff like that intentional is just cutting corners and that is very unprofessional, no matter what quality his work is, and for that should be fired.

 

[Eco]

1). He actually told us that he shoots primarily JPEG and hardly ever shoots RAW. I found this very odd myself.

2). Yes, he did bring about 20+ 8x10's and they were all terrific shots, the guy does have a great eye.

I'm feeling really iffy about this guy.

You should be, who would want a photographer that produces "terrific shots" and has a "great eye"? I suppose you feel "iffy" when you eat food that looks at tastes good......or when you go to a surgeon that has an excellent track record and happy patients?

You as a client should only worry about his past results and how your pictures will turn out. It should not matter to you what gear he uses, what modes he uses what post processing software he uses.......

BTW, if he is letting you do the post processing please confirm what Craigslist city you found him on