Wedding: JPEG vs. RAW

[Idahophoto]

@ 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.

I agree totally

 

[Garbz]

@ 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.

I agree totally

Really? I only agree 10% because JPEGs can do 90% of what RAWs can.
Shoot right, edit light, and you can't tell the difference.

RAWs are great for fixing photos, but they're not the second coming of Christ, especially not in this day of bracketing, and taking 1000 photos of the same thing with no cost other than time and memory card space.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I just did a photo shoot for rolling shots of cars (you will see another thread). I used to do it with RAW. I shot with burst mode and AI SERVO focus. Took about 1500 shots... The upload and the editing was so much faster.

 

[biostockman]

Well... As per someone's advice on this forum we sent an email to the photog asking if the JPEG images will be large format... That was Friday... Since today is Tuesday and we haven't heard anything, I'm beginning to feel that he may be 'slightly' less than honest.

 

[Idahophoto]

Well... As per someone's advice on this forum we sent an email to the photog asking if the JPEG images will be large format... That was Friday... Since today is Tuesday and we haven't heard anything, I'm beginning to feel that he may be 'slightly' less than honest.

LOL Never a good sign. I'll stick with my tried and true RAW+SJPEG

 

[Flash Harry]

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.

Trying "really hard" has nothing to do with it, in a fast paced, high pressure environment like a wedding no-one, and I repeat, no-one gets every shot right all of the time, I personally aim at a 90-95% sooc keep rate, we all bin the rest, out of the keepers I'll work with the raw files/PSD from beginning to end, tweaking colour/levels/saturation and any edit I see fit till I'm happy no further improvement can be made, then depending on whether I'm uploading files to my lab or having prints done locally they'll be converted to tiff or jpeg files accordingly, end of process. H

 

[Flash Harry]

Well... As per someone's advice on this forum we sent an email to the photog asking if the JPEG images will be large format... That was Friday... Since today is Tuesday and we haven't heard anything, I'm beginning to feel that he may be 'slightly' less than honest.

Like I said, if you have any "iffy" feelings about a tradesman your about to employ, drop them like a sack of $hit, it saves you grief later. H

 

[MarkF48]

I used to shoot weddings. I generally used a mix of RAW and JPG, RAW for important formals and ceremony shots where a possibility of minor tweaking might be needed, JPG's for most everything else less important to conserve memory cards and speed workflow. A client that had demands on how I shoot before getting booked, I would generally blowoff and say my day was already booked. If he's a problem before booking the wedding, it usually meant for problems after. It's not worth taking on that kind of client. If I did hand over files to a client, they were post processed JPG's that represented a final complete product.

Also remember the photographer holds the legal copyright to images he shot. If they don't sign off a copyright release to you, any prints you might make would be an infringement of the photog's copyright. If you should end up getting files of any kind, make sure that a release comes with them.

 

[Flash Harry]

The second sentence in the above reply makes sense to me, its insurance on this one off occasion. H

 

[biostockman]

I used to shoot weddings. I generally used a mix of RAW and JPG, RAW for important formals and ceremony shots where a possibility of minor tweaking might be needed, JPG's for most everything else less important to conserve memory cards and speed workflow. A client that had demands on how I shoot before getting booked, I would generally blowoff and say my day was already booked. If he's a problem before booking the wedding, it usually meant for problems after. It's not worth taking on that kind of client. If I did hand over files to a client, they were post processed JPG's that represented a final complete product.

Also remember the photographer holds the legal copyright to images he shot. If they don't sign off a copyright release to you, any prints you might make would be an infringement of the photog's copyright. If you should end up getting files of any kind, make sure that a release comes with them.

Thats all fine and dandy, but unlike this photographer I doubt that you tell your clients that you'll supply them with the images if you really don't intend to. This guy flat out told me during our first tele conversation that he would have no problem giving us the RAW images. Then we met him and he said he doesn't shoot RAW, only JPEG, now he's not responding to the large JPEG requirement... Dude... If you don't want to release your images, don't f*** with a potential client, just tell me no. This guy is just unprofessional and dishonest.

 

[Idahophoto]

Sure sounds like it

 

[biostockman]

UPDATE: Well, the photog agreed to supply us with Large high quality JPEG's and full copyright release which he will include in the contract. This makes me VERY happy since is work is pretty dang good. Thank you everyone for your input!!!

 

[Moe]

Funny that you are happy "since his work is pretty dang good," yet you wanted the RAWs. Did you think you could take it from "pretty dang good" to great with your superior post processing? Also, does the copyright release mean he's giving you the rights to the photos?

 

[biostockman]

Funny that you are happy "since his work is pretty dang good," yet you wanted the RAWs. Did you think you could take it from "pretty dang good" to great with your superior post processing? Also, does the copyright release mean he's giving you the rights to the photos?

Yes and yes

 

[tylerdean]

Ok. So I read through this thread while searching for something else online. The posts here are so ridiculous that I had to say something.

I'm a full-time wedding photographer and work for a very well respected studio in Toronto. I shoot Nikon, and I shoot 14bit RAW. I love my RAW files - I have sooo much more control when post-processing the files. I also have only been full-time for the past 2 years. So, I would never shoot strictly in JPEG, because I don't feel I'm at that level. HOWEVER, my colleagues have been shooting weddings full-time for the last 10 years. They all use Canon bodies, and shoot JPEG. BECAUSE THEY CAN. I proof all of our work at the studio ... and I need to adjust levels on MAYBE 10 of the 1200 files they might shoot on a 10hr day. 10. Some people have been doing it long enough, and no one should ever discount that.

As a fine art studio, we are taught to slow down our shoots. We aren't snap happy. We take a test shot, read off the histogram and go. 2secs.

Have more faith in your photographer. He just might be 'that good'.