Wedding: JPEG vs. RAW

[Flash Harry]

Why, its already processed just do it in PS.

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

 

[Steve01]

You can open jpegs in camera raw. Open bridge, find you jpeg...you can even open tiffs this way as well. Right click on the image, scroll down to "camera raw" and there you go.

What do you mean "there you go"?

When you save as a JPG to it's own name or Save As to a new name the new image has been degraded by a little.

 

[Arch]

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

But your not changing anything, so no compression is needed. When you open an image in photoshop (for example) it tells you the image size based on its own canvas size, if it was a 3mb Jpeg image and you open it in PS, then close it again, the Jpeg is still 3mb.
Trust me, unless you re-save the image, no recompression takes place.

 

[Steve01]

Arch is right, unless you edit and save the JPG Photoshop is nothing but an image viewer. You haven't altered the file.

Edit:
A few more thoughts.

When you're opening a JPG in PS you're "reading" the file into memory.
You haven't altered the file. You can minimize PH, go to the file, move it, delete it, view it with another program, etc.

If you save the file to the same name you've re-compressed the file and replaced the original file with the new save.
If you close out the image suspended in computer memory nothing has happened to the file, the file is untouched.

 

[Garbz]

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.

 

[biostockman]

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.

I respect your opinion, but i don't agree here, as stated i know a few Pro wedding photogs who shoot mainly Jpeg, i think thier work is rather good, but they have been doing it for many years.
Again, look at the similarities from years ago shooting film, you can still edit jpegs and produce good results, not every shot will need major work. In the same way, when film was used, not every shot was taken into the darkroom, dodged, burned etc. People underestimate what modern files can provide.

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.

Here you are misinformed, Jpegs do not deteriorate with every opening.


Tbh, the more i read the last staement form the OP, the more this just sounds like the photog just not wanting to part with RAW files.

Him saying 'this photographer has agreed to only giving us JPEGs'... doesn't mean he always shoots weddings in jpeg... and even if he has said that, i think it is more likey that he just wants a reason not to have to hand the RAWs over.

I apologize for the confusion, indeed he told us that most of the time he ONLY shoot JPEG.

 

[biostockman]

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.

I assume everyone's opinion of 'enough' differs. In our case I believe it to be enough. I also stated this to him the first time we spoke on the phone. It wasn't until we met in person that he told us he only shot JPEG.

Thanks for the advice! It certainly crossed my mind that he may indeed give us medium or small JPEGs. I'll make sure everything is in the contract once we decide once and for all if we'll be using him.

Our price includes him editing 50 photos and also includes 500 of our chosen JPEG images.

 

[Tee]

Please answer why you want to edit the photos.

 

[biostockman]

Please answer why you want to edit the photos.

Frankly, I want the option available to me to edit images in the future if I wanted to. It's not as if I'm throwing him a curve ball, he knew this after our first conversation. But learning that he only shot JPEG made me even wonder how he's going to edit our images appropriately as well.

 

[Tee]

Might wanna make sure allowing you to edit his work is included in the contract or you may be SOL.

 

[biostockman]

Might wanna make sure allowing you to edit his work is included in the contract or you may be SOL.

Another great and valid point... Thanks Tee!

 

[biostockman]

Is it weird for me to be asking for the RAWs in the first place? I honestly didn't think anything of it.

 

[Overread]

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.

 

[Steve01]

People here are going all over the place with opinions based on what you're saying.
Unfortunately you've done a really good job of confusing the issue.

.....but he only shoots in JPEG format and not RAW ....​

.... this photographer has agreed to only giving us JPEGs. We're paying enough to get the RAW images...​

....It wasn't until we met in person that he told us he only shot JPEG. ...​

If I were getting married (again) (god forbid) I would expect to have digital copies of the edited images available at additional cost but not for free. I would never expect the photographer to turn over the Raw files.

When you hire any photographer, you're buying his expertise, experience, his editing and production skills, and the final product you hired him for, X number of photographic prints.

If in the future you want an additional set of prints you buy them.
Giving you the images cheats the photographer of selling his product.

 

[biostockman]

People here are going all over the place with opinions based on what you're saying.
Unfortunately you've done a really good job of confusing the issue.

.....but he only shoots in JPEG format and not RAW ....​

.... this photographer has agreed to only giving us JPEGs. We're paying enough to get the RAW images...​

....It wasn't until we met in person that he told us he only shot JPEG. ...​

If I were getting married (again) (god forbid) I would expect to have digital copies of the edited images available at additional cost but not for free. I would never expect the photographer to turn over the Raw files.

When you hire any photographer, you're buying his expertise, experience, his editing and production skills, and the final product you hired him for, X number of photographic prints.

If in the future you want an additional set of prints you buy them.
Giving you the images cheats the photographer of selling his product.

Sorry Steve, I was actually only stating my opinion when I said we're paying enough to obtain the RAW images. (we're paying enough IMO to get them)... This was my opinion before being told he only shoots JPEG.

We are indeed paying extra for the images, that's for sure.

I appreciate all of the input, thanks!