Wedding: JPEG vs. RAW

[biostockman]

In truth it is - most contracts with a photographer and the public (like for a wedding or a portrait session) are for finished works (these days prints and or digital copies on disk - those being highquality JPEGs). Remember photography is a two part process - in camera and in editing - you can't separate the two from each other be your medium digital or film.

So when you purchase the photo you are purchasing not just the image the data that came out of the camera, but also the editing that the photographer applies to that image to give you your final result.

Furthermore most photographers are not inclined to give people the rights and facilities to edit the raw photos that they took (be they RAWs or JPEGs out of the camera) because their copywrite is still on the photo and will still be displayed even if the purchaser makes extensive changes. These can be horrible things like silly auto filters or poor crops that will seriously damage the photographers reputation if their name is attached to the photo.

Very good points, Overread.. Thanks!

 

[Steve01]

Well I wish you the best in your marriage and suggest you contact a bunch of photographers to compare prices and what you get for those prices.

A good place to start is the banquet hall your having the reception in.
Ask them for recommendations and get some detailed quotes.

I think you're being unrealistic in what you're entitled to though.
Steve

 

[biostockman]

Well I wish you the best in your marriage and suggest you contact a bunch of photographers to compare prices and what you get for those prices.

A good place to start is the banquet hall your having the reception in.
Ask them for recommendations and get some detailed quotes.

I think you're being unrealistic in what you're entitled to though.
Steve

Thanks mate, your candidness is much appreciated as is your advice!

 

[Steve01]

Thanks mate, your candidness is much appreciated as is your advice!

:thumbup:

 

[ghpham]

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

:er: what an amateurish statement.

No, that is a professional's opinion, one which is totally supported by professional wedding togs over here, I don't know any at all shooting jpeg for critical work.

With photography in days of old we shot medium format for weddings, not because we wanted to lug heavy gear around but we did want the larger neg/file to work with, I don't reckon having a format which deteriorates with every opening to be conducive to good photographic practice and stick with the view that only a lazy pro will shoot in jpeg.

We know that in today's lazy/want everything yesterday/cant be bothered/to read/learn/work hard society its a bit too much to actually earn your fee but if you want to constantly give the best service, both in terms of quality and performance then having those large raw files is the way to go.

"Many professional can output better Jpeg than you probably can using RAW. The truth is in the prints. If the prints didn't look good, then why in the world would the OP considered this photographer in the first place. Again you have no understanding what being a "professional" means (hint: it has NOTHING to do with shooting Jpeg or RAW)."

Do you get paid for this work, if not then STFU, if you do then you have certain obligations to the client regarding quality which don't include in camera algorithms. H

This professional statement should speak volumes to you.

:er: And you call yourself a professional? you should be ashame of yourself. My only obligation, if I was in the business, is to deliver the client final quality product, and if JPegs can do the job, so be it. I've never seen such snobbishness and unprofessionalism from a so called "professional". :er:

 

[Idahophoto]

:er: And you call yourself a professional? you should be ashame of yourself. My only obligation, if I was in the business, is to deliver the client final quality product, and if JPegs can do the job, so be it. I've never seen such snobbishness and unprofessionalism from a so called "professional". :er:

And there lies the problem. When all you care about is delivering the final prints over the quality of the work, and don't say JPEGS can, they cant do the job that RAW can, most have agreed on that part.

 

[rommeeeezy]

@ Idaho

Dude it's not most have "agreed" it should be a god damn given by now that jpegs can't do anywhere near what a RAW file can.

@OP
You should ask him what he's comfortable with, and look around for another photographer in the meanwhile. Look at his work,if it looks spot on and it's what you like and within your price range. do it. However, I believe that shooting JPEG is a downfall with his PP and with the quality of photo he'll give to you. Definitely look around still for another photographer in my honest opinion.

 

[Flash Harry]

:er: what an amateurish statement.

No, that is a professional's opinion, one which is totally supported by professional wedding togs over here, I don't know any at all shooting jpeg for critical work.

With photography in days of old we shot medium format for weddings, not because we wanted to lug heavy gear around but we did want the larger neg/file to work with, I don't reckon having a format which deteriorates with every opening to be conducive to good photographic practice and stick with the view that only a lazy pro will shoot in jpeg.

We know that in today's lazy/want everything yesterday/cant be bothered/to read/learn/work hard society its a bit too much to actually earn your fee but if you want to constantly give the best service, both in terms of quality and performance then having those large raw files is the way to go.

"Many professional can output better Jpeg than you probably can using RAW. The truth is in the prints. If the prints didn't look good, then why in the world would the OP considered this photographer in the first place. Again you have no understanding what being a "professional" means (hint: it has NOTHING to do with shooting Jpeg or RAW)."

Do you get paid for this work, if not then STFU, if you do then you have certain obligations to the client regarding quality which don't include in camera algorithms. H

This professional statement should speak volumes to you.

:er: And you call yourself a professional? you should be ashame of yourself. My only obligation, if I was in the business, is to deliver the client final quality product, and if JPegs can do the job, so be it. I've never seen such snobbishness and unprofessionalism from a so called "professional". :er:[/QUOTE

The difference between us is that I am trained, work as a pro and your not a client or ever likely to be so STFU, your argument is ignorance. H

 

[Robin Usagani]

 

[Flash Harry]

We're paying enough to get the RAW images, IMO, but aside from that I assumed pros shot RAW 90% of the time, hence my question on this forum.

Really? Are you? Qualify that statement, how much are you paying? Remember your photographer is essentially giving you the negative.

I once saw the option to buy RAW files from a photographer. The Photographer was offering 5 RAW files taken at the event for $500. $100 per file is a reasonable price for handing over all data and all subsequent business, as well as the loss of purchase of prints, along with the potential loss of reputation from you showing the people unprocessed images from the photographer. Afterall photography encompasses more than just taking a photo.

Honestly I'd call up your photographer and check to see if he is even giving you full sized JPEG. I know one wedding photographer who did that and he instantly doubles his fee for it. DOUBLES his multi-thousand dollar fee.

Arch, these files are being compressed each time whether saving or not, open a 3mb image, it opens at 17mb or so, close it its 3, compressed. H

Here's a few things to try:

1. Make the file read only. Open in photoshop then close. Notice that no warning is given? Now try to save over it and you'll get a warning about being read-only.

2. Or an even better one open a file in photoshop and then while it's open go and delete the original. Without saving simply close photoshop. Notice how the file is not there?

Photoshop will not save a file unless you ask it to. It will warn you if you've made a change to a file you're about to close without saving (this is because it doesn't happen automatically). When you open a JPEG file it is decompressed and then sits in memory. You can then write it out of memory in any way you wish such as an uncompressed TIFF to be re-edited as many times as you want without any further quality loss.

One otherthing you're doing is assuming that the photographer is an idiot and clobbering all the information every time he saves his files. JPEG has no support for any additional data such as layers, transparency, smart objects, etc. So there's a very good chance that even if you shoot and edit JPEG your process would be:
1. Shoot JPEG
2. Open the JPEG, make edits en mass, give up for the day, save as a PSD file.
3. Open the PSD file, make further edits, give up, save over the original PSD file.
4. Open the PSD file, make final edits, save as a JPEG file.

In this case you have only 1 lossy recompression from the original camera. I challenge you right here right now to find a visual difference between a JPEG file that has been recompressed only once. You may use any visual means you wish including difference layers to compare the recompressed file against the original. I tell you right now the file size and data will look different if you did a bitwise comparison but you won't see a visual difference at all.

I'll concede the open/close/save does not affect the original jpeg quality but I personally will not be shooting jpeg at any wedding or other professional work I undertake, I'll not be editing any j's either unless its batch process proof for weddings, any other proof work is not supplied till I'm 100% certain its top quality, in the last 14 or so years I've had no complaints from clients, only referrals, I talk straight, I don't take weekend warriors advice, I've done the twenty years hobby bit, all with film, ever heard the don't tell your granny how to suck, it applies here. H

 

[Garbz]

I've done the twenty years hobby bit, all with film, ever heard the don't tell your granny how to suck, it applies here. H

Never tried to give you advice, what you do is your own business. Just pointing out to you how compression in programs actually works.

Good for you that you've never had a complaint. There's a good chance the JPEG shooter hasn't either. Keep doing what works!

 

[Flash Harry]

I've done the twenty years hobby bit, all with film, ever heard the don't tell your granny how to suck, it applies here. H

Never tried to give you advice, what you do is your own business. Just pointing out to you how compression in programs actually works.

Good for you that you've never had a complaint. There's a good chance the JPEG shooter hasn't either. Keep doing what works!

The reply wasn't intended for you Garbz, apart from the concession, I know your right into this and as far as calibrations/colour profiles and many other points you raise on this forum are educated and respected responses, usually correct and eloquently put, I do however take offense at getting slagged off at not being professional and being a "snob" for using what I consider to be the best digital format for production of the best quality work. JPEG has its uses and applications, where its required I use the format, in time and with further improvements on the jpeg 2000 standard it can only get better, this I consider normal progression whichever field your in but imo it is not the best format for present day capture.

While I'm on here I don't see a need to keep up on professional etiquette, if I'm rude to someone then big deal, get over it, I'd be exactly the same to some cheeky nerd down the pub face on, as that too, is my time off. H

 

[JAmadoPhotography]

There really is not a big difference. I rarely shoot in RAW anymore because of my editing knowledge in Lightroom. You can change anything without disrupting the quality of the picture in Lightroom. Print out a straight JPG and convert your RAW to JPG (no editing) and you would see no difference. If you can work Lightroom (fairly easy) you can change anything you want in the picture. With all these new cameras that have a lot of megapixels, there is enough data there that RAW is rarely needed anymore. Please feel free to view my work. Half of my work is in RAW and the other in JPG. No difference! =) http://www.jamadophotography.com

 

[ghpham]

I've done the twenty years hobby bit, all with film, ever heard the don't tell your granny how to suck, it applies here. H

Never tried to give you advice, what you do is your own business. Just pointing out to you how compression in programs actually works.

Good for you that you've never had a complaint. There's a good chance the JPEG shooter hasn't either. Keep doing what works!

The reply wasn't intended for you Garbz, apart from the concession, I know your right into this and as far as calibrations/colour profiles and many other points you raise on this forum are educated and respected responses, usually correct and eloquently put, I do however take offense at getting slagged off at not being professional and being a "snob" for using what I consider to be the best digital format for production of the best quality work. JPEG has its uses and applications, where its required I use the format, in time and with further improvements on the jpeg 2000 standard it can only get better, this I consider normal progression whichever field your in but imo it is not the best format for present day capture.

While I'm on here I don't see a need to keep up on professional etiquette, if I'm rude to someone then big deal, get over it, I'd be exactly the same to some cheeky nerd down the pub face on, as that too, is my time off. H

You are being slagged for being an ass. You can't judge another professional without seeing their work. That is why you are unprofessional. You can tell me to STFU all you want. It just goes to show what an ass you are.

 

[justindavid]

He's just keeping things simple. If you just shoot jpgs, you can run a photoshop plug-in called portraiture from Imagenomics.

If you try really hard to get color and exposure right on the money then you don't have to spend the time with RAW.