RAW or JPEG for weddings?

Desh1701

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11
Edit My Images
No
I recently met a photographer who has been doing weddings for 40 years, but he only shoots JPEG and then does his enhancements in old Photoshop, I've looked up close and his work is noticeably untidy. Is this a style all its own or is it wrong? I wonder because I want to get into weddings and don't want to have to spend too much time in post which might be the case if I shoot RAW, please help.
 
The (or one of the!) problems with weddings is that the bride is often dressed in white (or close to it) while the groom is in a dark suit. If the dress is to show any detail the suit tends to be too dark and if the suit's correctly exposed, the dress is (close to) burned out. Raw files allow greater room to "rescue" the shots and adjust the dress to show the detail which the compression of JPEGs will tend to lose.

I was wondering if my recollection of old film wedding shots was correct so Googled old wedding photos and sure enough, very little detail in the dresses unless the shot is of the detail in the dress, even in the queen's photos where I would have thought a fair amount of judicious burning might have shown some of the details.
 
Thanks for your replies all, I don't really want to spend more than a few minutes doing any retouches per shot or I would be losing money, but I don't want my work to look messy.
 
If I were shooting weddings professionally, I think I'd shoot RAW just to give that extra bit of flexibility and safety. It's not like the images have to be with the Picture Editor moments after being shot. That said the vast majority of my own shots are JPEG I don't feel a need to shoot RAW very often.
 
I've only done one wedding, which I shot raw. I have another one coming up in April, which I will shoot in raw. I do a lot of portraits, always in raw. For me, I like having that extra bit of lee-way in pp of being able to make adjustments to the raw file. If I were to make the same adjustments to the jpeg, I find the loss in quality to the file is too much for my liking. Down side, files are bigger and take up more room on your memory card, but for me it's worth it. In fact, it's not often that I don't shoot raw thinking about it... But it's all a personal choice I suppose.
 
Maybe you need to consider your pricing structure then. Unless you are a £ 99 Gumtree photographer...

Wedding photography is much more than just snapping away on the day.
Thanks for the feedback
 
I've only done one wedding, which I shot raw. I have another one coming up in April, which I will shoot in raw. I do a lot of portraits, always in raw. For me, I like having that extra bit of lee-way in pp of being able to make adjustments to the raw file. If I were to make the same adjustments to the jpeg, I find the loss in quality to the file is too much for my liking. Down side, files are bigger and take up more room on your memory card, but for me it's worth it. In fact, it's not often that I don't shoot raw thinking about it... But it's all a personal choice I suppose.
Until now I have specialised in landscapes and always shot in raw, agree with your thoughts, just wondered what the wider community thought.
 
For weddings I shoot in raw and jpeg, I use most of the jpegs but always have the raw there should I need that 'extra' processing that raw provides..............look on it as insurance should you mess up :)
 
I recently met a photographer who has been doing weddings for 40 years, but he only shoots JPEG and then does his enhancements in old Photoshop, I've looked up close and his work is noticeably untidy. Is this a style all its own or is it wrong? I wonder because I want to get into weddings and don't want to have to spend too much time in post which might be the case if I shoot RAW, please help.
If he's been making his living from photography for 40 years he must be doing something right. Keen enthusiast photographers generally make very bad judges of images, they tend to start by "looking up close" and not consider the image as a whole - whereas the public tend to do the reverse.

Shooting raw doesn't mean you need to spend a lot of time processing images, processing those finishing touches has a steeply declining return - unless you're really screwing it up in-camera.
 
For weddings I shoot in raw and jpeg, I use most of the jpegs but always have the raw there should I need that 'extra' processing that raw provides..............look on it as insurance should you mess up :)
Only thing is I would need lots of SD cards
 
If he's been making his living from photography for 40 years he must be doing something right. Keen enthusiast photographers generally make very bad judges of images, they tend to start by "looking up close" and not consider the image as a whole - whereas the public tend to do the reverse.

Shooting raw doesn't mean you need to spend a lot of time processing images, processing those finishing touches has a steeply declining return - unless you're really screwing it up in-camera.
Appreciate the feedback
 
SD cards are cheap. Just get a couple of 64gb cards and you're away!
I'll say. I found one of my Sandisk 16GB Extreme 45MB/s cards has got some holes in it a few weeks ago and I've continued to use it just to be sure (as a backup).

Today I've just ordered two 32GB Lexar Pro 90MB/s cards and one 32GB Lexar Pro 60MB/s card for a total of just £65. Oh how I remember memory being so much more expensive!
 
there is no right or wrong but to be honest its all down to your style, we use punchy and vibrant images, for us to work these we need raw files as the jpeg would be shot to bits by the time we finish with it.

With other processing if we get clients asking for kind of vintage work with low contrast etc then a jpeg may cut the mustard, but to be safe I always like to shoot raw only in weddings
 
I recently met a photographer who has been doing weddings for 40 years, but he only shoots JPEG and then does his enhancements in old Photoshop, I've looked up close and his work is noticeably untidy. Is this a style all its own or is it wrong? I wonder because I want to get into weddings and don't want to have to spend too much time in post which might be the case if I shoot RAW, please help.
There's no right or wrong, but there's ways of approaching things and you need to think properly:

So you want to shoot weddings but have no idea what the difference between JPEG and RAW processing is. So you justify shooting JPEG (because it's what you know) by what you asking an old hack who shoots JPEG. But his work is under par in your opinion.

IMO you're looking for an easy option that doesn't exist.

It's certainly possible to shoot weddings in JPEG, with this in mind.

Continually checking and setting WB.

Your exposure being perfect.

In fact, if you want to do that, you can spend time setting a custom 'style' on your camera and save loads of time in post.

If you're a 'fairly consistent' shooter though, shooting RAW and batch processing is not time consuming at all. It takes me less than a day to cull and 'finish' the RAW files from a wedding. Then it's just a case of pixel level editing the results. That depends on how carefully you shoot / how picky about your output.

Wedding photographers will range from 1 day to 5 days of post work if you put up a poll. It's as variable as 'number of images shot/delivered'.

Honestly though, your question has the classic answer wedding photographers get slagged off for: if you're asking, you're not ready.
 
What Phil said. Plus Alastair makes a very good point above.

For the record, we shot RAW on the CF card plus large JPG on the SD in the second slot and we certainly didn't consider the processing time to be in any way onerous. But so what? ATEOTD there's far more important things to think about where snapping weddings is concerned than RAW or JPG.
 
I've done a few weddings for friends and I shot them in RAW. I shoot everything in RAW, and it sounds like the OP does too, so why would I suddenly close down my options for someone's important pics, and on one of the couples most important and stressful days of their lives? :thinking: I wouldn't, especially if I were also getting paid for it. Like was mentioned earlier, if you feel you will need time to edit any images you take, factor in the time to be reflected in the price you charge.

When it comes processing, retouching goes beyond basic colour, exposure and cropping imho, depending on your work flow, it need not be a lengthy thing to do. And as with any editing, be it Jpeg or RAW, you don't have to edit every image, you just have to edit the images, if they need editing of course, ;) that the couple will be given.

In the overall cost of Photography, memory cards are barely a consideration. Cards, especially SD cards, get cheaper all the time. In 2003 I paid £150 for a 1Gb CF card. :eek: You can now get a 32Gb card for about £10, and no doubt the prices will keep falling. So more memory cards are nothing if you are taking this seriously in any way.

That said, I would disagree with what people have been saying earlier in this thread in regard to getting very large capacity cards. If I were doing a wedding, because my camera has dual card slots, I would get one large card as a backup in the extra card slot, to backup all the images throughout the day, but I would have cards with a capacity of 300-400 shots in the main card slot, changing as I went along. I've had cards go bad in the past, though not for 7-8 years, until the other week when I lost a couple of hundred shots on a card whilst on holiday. No sign of any problems until I tried to put them into the computer. :mad: Unfortunately that was in a camera with just one card slot. :rolleyes: Luckily the images from the previous days had been backed up onto my laptop each night, so the loss could have been a lot more. That could happen at any time, to anybody, with any camera, don't put yourself in a position to lose too many pictures in one go.

There are different types of Professional Photography, and one of the things to consider when attempting to be a Professional means trying to do things in the most cost efficient way, the saying is 'time is money'. But in Wedding Photography in particular, you make your savings by being efficient with your time, which only comes from experience, you don't scrimp on anything that can put the image capture and the results in any peril. Imho. That is an area that some starting out don't place enough importance on. A good Pro Wedding Photographer will have back ups of most of their gear, and/or have strategies in place to work around any problems that occur with equipment.
 
Your not really a wedding photogrpaher are you?


SD cards aren't really a measure of the camera any more Tony. The Canon 6D, Nikon DF and D750 and all Fujis use SDs - all of which are used by some fairly high profile wedding photographers. :)
 
The honest answer to this question is to shoot RAW, because there's no excuse not to (unless you are using a D800 and don't have enough storage space).

RAW takes roughly the same time to process as Jpeg and both require you to get the shot as close to perfect in camera as possible, unless you are being lazy.

RAW allows for the errors that WILL take place and it offers more dynamic range for adjustment.

The only slight downsides of RAW are extra space/memory cards required and a bit longer on import/ingest for processing.

The real question is, why wouldn't you use it?

There are no right ways do doing anything in photography but there's usually one way that offers you the best options.
 
I shoot RAW until after the first dance & then switch to JPEG, mainly because you can shoot more jpegs on a burst than RAW which I find convenient for photos of people dancing. Some people make a living shooting weddings in Auto, doesn't mean you have to follow suit
 
I didn't say I was a wedding photographer, I said I want to get into weddings, I am an admitted beginner.

This is the point, candidly. I never discourage anyone from 'shooting' something. But there's a difference between shooting a mates wedding and being a wedding photographer. Just like there's a difference between shooting a football game and 'being a sports photographer'.

Just having a go has no expectation of success, but being one means a huge level of knowledge and commitment.

You say you're a 'landscape photographer', if a publisher rang me tomorrow to commission a landscape photo, I'd turn them down. Because it's not 'what I do'.

How are your people skills, organisational skills, low light shooting, flash, how much actual experience do you have shooting people?

I'm not trying to discourage, but to give a reality check. For most pro photographers, the actual shooting is a very small percentage of what they do. Are you prepared for loads of client meetings, website updates, accounting, processing, product design, processing, and a bit of shooting to make it all worthwhile (almost).

Do you have all the required kit, plus enough spares for redundancy?

Like Dan said, if you think Raw vs JPEG is a serious consideration, you haven't even begun to understand what it means to be a * photographer.

Using * because I'd like to avoid all the 'there's nowt special about wedding photographer' jibes, because the genre doesn't matter, it's about the attitude required to earn money doing it. The difference occurs when you advertise your skills.

Ask yourself why as a 'beginner landscape photographer' you think you can just become a 'wedding photographer'?
 
Last edited:
I shoot RAW until after the first dance & then switch to JPEG, mainly because you can shoot more jpegs on a burst than RAW which I find convenient for photos of people dancing. Some people make a living shooting weddings in Auto, doesn't mean you have to follow suit
Thanks, appreciate the answer
 
You'll be ready when the people who are willing to pay for your work are willing to pay for your work and are happy with the results and you can produce the results consistently. Everyone starts somewhere!

As you've found from your answers, some shoot in RAW and then swap to JPG later on for the dancing for the burst mode, others only do RAW, others like the man in your OP only do JPG. The result is what matters.
 
Not a very impressive approach towards one of the most important days in someone's life.

"I am going to learn a lot whether it goes right or wrong"

That attitude stinks.
 
Not a very impressive approach towards one of the most important days in someone's life.

"I am going to learn a lot whether it goes right or wrong"

That attitude stinks.
I should have stated I will be working under someone else the first time, I have arranged to work with a pro to assist with a friends wedding and hope to learn, my thoughts are that if it goes wrong, it will only be a disaster for me not the bride.
 
Personally I don't think the machine gun Jpeg motto is a particularly great way to go about shooting weddings.... not even the first dance.

But thats my personal preference, especially when its pitch black, potentially manual focussing if there are very low contrast areas and you may not lock on, it all matters and if you have a dark shot where the flash didnt fire due to "machine gun" technique then you WILL need that raw file to pull up the exposure as a jpeg would be litterally dead.
 
but glad you are working under someone as it shows a degree of good judgement, there are many near us who purchased a slr then take a photo of their dog and then think they are "Pro" wedding photographers (their words, not mine) that are charging £250 for a full day wedding and they are utter dog crap... I mean I wouldn't even burn the images they are that bad but in some delusional world of theirs be it using crack cocaine or what they are under the illusion their images are as good as the best there is.

Good idea, follow, learn, grow and never stop learning.
 
Last edited:
I think the key for those dog crap wedding photographers is that there are people who for whatever reason only want to spend that much and are happy with the work done elsewhere. Some people clearly place different values on these things.
 
Indeed that is true, I will admit some people can't afford £1k or whatever but it is quite ironic that its the only thing that keeps the memories of the day like.

You wouldn't beleive some of the things that people have said to us to try and get us to lower the price, offers of advertisement and loads of total drivel as to how they can help you or joe bloggs does it £200 cheaper.
 
Oh I can! As I've said elsewhere, if anyone asks me about wedding photography I tell them to spend decent money on it, as it's a real joy to look back through well composed and crafted images of the big day. But I've seen Facebook and I've seen all the comments on dire pictures like "oh wow, such amaze, pls do my wedding".
 
but glad you are working under someone as it shows a degree of good judgement, there are many near us who purchased a slr then take a photo of their dog and then think they are "Pro" wedding photographers (their words, not mine) that are charging £250 for a full day wedding and they are utter dog crap... I mean I wouldn't even burn the images they are that bad but in some delusional world of theirs be it using crack cocaine or what they are under the illusion their images are as good as the best there is.

Good idea, follow, learn, grow and never stop learning.
I've got decades ahead of me to become an experienced professional, I want to learn from someone who knows what they're doing but I also want to develop my own style.
 
Back
Top