RAW or JPEG for weddings?

[Canon Bob]

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.

I think that the days when price was proportional to quality have long gone in the photography market generally. For every talented amateur who's happy to perform the task cheaply or free there's an inept pro who is charging market rates and not delivering. The inept pro's may last for a few events or maybe a more but there's an unending supply of 'wanabees' waiting in the wings. Until "Joe Public" raises his/her expectations and puts a price on them then nothing will change.

Bob

 

[dalegt4]

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".

I must admit in a frustrating way some of the images make you laugh in a kind of funny way, really shouldn't laugh as it devalues a profession but they are so bad its comedy.

But each to their own and all that as someone obviously uses them!

 

[dalegt4]

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.

Indeed, i'm only just turned 29, weve been doing it a fair few years now like and next year is a bonkers year for us and have to say i'm looking forward to it, if you want it then go for it is all I will say.

Unfortunately I had to give up either the weddings or the motorsport and the weddings won the war even though I love cars!

 

[Roy S]

Raw or Jpeg ?
Auto ISO or not ?
Program or Manual ?
The same questions arise all the time and I think its down to competence. Its been a long time since I have done weddings in fact the last wedding I shot was on film.
I had no choice of output apart from film speed governed by the light conditions on the day.
There is far too much to think about and deal with without having to worry if your shots are going to turn out.
My take on wedding photography.

• Do your home work on the venue.
• Talk to the couple about what they want and any special requirements ,style or themes
• If your camera has the ability shoot both RAW & Jpeg if not use a second camera and shoot with both.
• Remember to change WB or use auto. ( I did not need a reminder as my warm up or cool down filter would show through the lens)
• Get your technique sorted so it becomes second nature.
• Get to grips with fill flash.
• Know the order of group shots so you can build the groups rather than dispersing and re grouping.
• Take charge but be diplomatic.
• For every two or three shots of a particular group take another with your second camera.
• Remember its their day not yours how you act can reflect on how they do
• BE PROFESSIONAL

I never had a problem and did actually enjoy doing weddings but it is a big responsibility.
I have been a guest at a wedding when the photographer on arrival at reception went straight to the bar and got himself a pint! I noticed that when he changed film he trapped the strap in the camera back and forced it closed. I told him then got busy myself as I knew things where not good, the guy didn't even have a backup!
Sure enough a week later the bride was on the phone to me in tears as the photographer had nothing after the church and all the group shots where in the grounds of the reception. My negatives ended up creating half the album.

 

[boyfalldown]

I think that the days when price was proportional to quality have long gone in the photography market generally. For every talented amateur who's happy to perform the task cheaply or free there's an inept pro who is charging market rates and not delivering. The inept pro's may last for a few events or maybe a more but there's an unending supply of 'wanabees' waiting in the wings. Until "Joe Public" raises his/her expectations and puts a price on them then nothing will change.

Bob

equally for every talented pro charging market rates there are far more inept amateurs who see 'easy money' and don't deliver.

 

[Canon Bob]

equally for every talented pro charging market rates there are far more inept amateurs who see 'easy money' and don't deliver.

I agree in principle Hugh but........"don't deliver"?
This is where things get murky. Your expectations (and mine possibly) are no longer valid when deciding if the photographer has "delivered".

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I agree in principle Hugh but........"don't deliver"?
This is where things get murky. Your expectations (and mine possibly) are no longer valid when deciding if the photographer has "delivered".

I believe that's modem speak for the B&G being disappointed with the results.

 

[ajax_andy]

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 you want to get in to doing weddings you will have to accept that you WILL be spending a lot of time in PP... it's just a fact. I mean think about it, if you deliver 400 images and they each take 1 minute to edit, that's still 400 minutes or 6.5 hours approx... but unless you are an absolute god with a camera you will be doing double that probably, unless you want crappy images.

Shooting in JPEG is neither wrong nor right, but shooting in RAW is better... well I say that but it depends on what you personally want to achieve, if you are happy just making a few hundred quid here and there from people looking for a good deal and not too bothered about the quality then JPEG will be fine, but if you want to be one of the best in your area and charge top whack then you'll really be shooting in RAW with some very expensive kit and spend years honing your post processing.

 

[ajax_andy]

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.

Btw why do you want to get in to weddings? Your post reads a little like 'This guy's crap but makes a good living from shooting weddings, so I want to do it as it must be pretty easy. BTW what's the difference between shooting JPEG and RAW?'

 

[boyfalldown]

I agree in principle Hugh but........"don't deliver"?
This is where things get murky. Your expectations (and mine possibly) are no longer valid when deciding if the photographer has "delivered".

I think you're right about delivery beign a little unclear. I mean work at or above a standard advertised.

If you want to get in to doing weddings you will have to accept that you WILL be spending a lot of time in PP... it's just a fact. I mean think about it, if you deliver 400 images and they each take 1 minute to edit, that's still 400 minutes or 6.5 hours approx... but unless you are an absolute god with a camera you will be doing double that probably, unless you want crappy images.

I can process an wedding to a high standard in a days work. All of it. And I know I'm not delivering crappy images. Nothing to do with being a god or not with a camera either

 

[ajax_andy]

I can process an wedding to a high standard in a days work. All of it. And I know I'm not delivering crappy images. Nothing to do with being a god or not with a camera either

It depends how far you want to go with the processing, how many images you deliver (it will invariably take someone twice as long to edit 400 images over 200 for example) what standard you feel is 'high', and how many hours you class a days work. It differs from person to person but it still stands as a point that 1 minute per photo is probably a minimum processing time.

 

[boyfalldown]

It depends how far you want to go with the processing, how many images you deliver (it will invariably take someone twice as long to edit 400 images over 200 for example) what standard you feel is 'high', and how many hours you class a days work. It differs from person to person but it still stands as a point that 1 minute per photo is probably a minimum processing time.

I'm not sure you meant that to sound as patronising as it does. But if you can't process a wedding in a working day then something somewhere is wrong with your workflow

 

[ajax_andy]

I'm not sure you meant that to sound as patronising as it does. But if you can't process a wedding in a working day then something somewhere is wrong with your workflow

Wasn't meant to be patronising at all, my point is it's different for everyone due to what changes you make as standard and how many images you have to make them to. Also one man's working day is 7 hours another's is 12. I watched an interview with Ross Harvey the other day and his average time to edit a wedding and deliver 500 images was 12 hours I think (might have been 14)... I'm not sure I'd say there was anything wrong with his workflow and he's widely regarded as one of if not the best.

Anyway we're both arguing the same point at the end of the day that a minimum amount of time to edit a wedding is somewhere around 1 minute per photo... I'm not sure why you're seemingly saying I'm wrong with that comment when you're saying it takes you a working day to edit a wedding, which I'm guessing is no less than 6 hours?

 

[woof woof]

From the outside looking in... 400 images? 400???? 500???????? Golly. I didn't know a wedding photographer would shoot so many and I've never seen a newly wed couple have so many.

 

[boyfalldown]

Wasn't meant to be patronising at all, my point is it's different for everyone due to what changes you make as standard and how many images you have to make them to. Also one man's working day is 7 hours another's is 12. I watched an interview with Ross Harvey the other day and his average time to edit a wedding and deliver 500 images was 12 hours I think (might have been 14)... I'm not sure I'd say there was anything wrong with his workflow and he's widely regarded as one of if not the best.

Anyway we're both arguing the same point at the end of the day that a minimum amount of time to edit a wedding is somewhere around 1 minute per photo... I'm not sure why you're seemingly saying I'm wrong with that comment when you're saying it takes you a working day to edit a wedding, which I'm guessing is no less than 6 hours?

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I do find the 'God with a camera' comment odd. Other then that I do mostly agree

 

[ajax_andy]

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I do find the 'God with a camera' comment odd. Other then that I do mostly agree

I just meant that unless you are a god with the camera you need to accept you'll be doing plenty of PP work, in response to the OP's initial comment about not wanting to do much processing I think the issue here is I made a reply that was 'on track' which is unusual on TP and it threw everyone a bit

 

[yooch]

RAW with Nikon , jepgs with canon

 

[ajax_andy]

RAW with Nikon , jepgs with canon

if this is a serious reply then please for the love of god pass the doobie around and stop keeping it to yourself

 

[yooch]

if this is a serious reply then please for the love of god pass the doobie around and stop keeping it to yourself

I photographed few weddings with Nikon d3s (2010-2013). Colours always was not right. When switched system to canon grom Nikon is no modę much to do with RAW files....
You can trust more to jepegs files from canon.....

 

[ajax_andy]

I photographed few weddings with Nikon d3s (2010-2013). Colours always was not right. When switched system to canon grom Nikon is no modę much to do with RAW files....
You can trust more to jepegs files from canon.....

Hmm I'm still 100% sure you'd be better off shooting weddings in RAW still if comparing to Nikon RAW capability. Shooting Nikon RAW and Canon JPEG and comparing the 2 will definitely show a large gap in what it possible in the PP stage. Canon JPEG might be reliable in terms of colour (never heard this before though tbh) but the Canon JPEG isn't comparable to a D3's Raw file... not even close

 

[yooch]

Hmm I'm still 100% sure you'd be better off shooting weddings in RAW still if comparing to Nikon RAW capability. Shooting Nikon RAW and Canon JPEG and comparing the 2 will definitely show a large gap in what it possible in the PP stage. Canon JPEG might be reliable in terms of colour (never heard this before though tbh) but the Canon JPEG isn't comparable to a D3's Raw file... not even close

RAW files from 5dmkii or 5dmkiii for me are ready in 95-99% to convert to jepgs
Raw files from Nikon 75-90% ready to convert to jepeg.
This is only my opinion... After 8 months when I used canon...

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

I watched an interview with Ross Harvey the other day and his average time to edit a wedding and deliver 500 images was 12 hours I think (might have been 14)... I'm not sure I'd say there was anything wrong with his workflow and he's widely regarded as one of if not the best.

Andy, think about it - if you're charging £3K or so to shoot a wedding like I believe Mr Harvey does, it's not in your best interests to state publicly that you can easily finish off the files between 9and 5pm less a couple of hours in the pub of a lunchtime ...

From the outside looking in... 400 images? 400???? 500???????? Golly. I didn't know a wedding photographer would shoot so many and I've never seen a newly wed couple have so many.

...

 

[dalegt4]

equally for every talented pro charging market rates there are far more inept amateurs who see 'easy money' and don't deliver.

Exactly true, around here there are ten to the dozen of those, may as well of given my gran a camera as the results would of been the same and the fact they charge money (albiet £250) they shouldn't be charging 50pence as the work is not worthy of a fire.

 

[chuckles]

Don't fully comprehend the whole of this debate. Aside from writing to card JPGs will always be inferior to a RAW file.

JPGs are 8bit files and RAW (in Nikon's case) 12 or 14 bit files allowing far more depth in tonality per channel.

To my mind, if you're going to produce first class prints then RAW will always knock a JPG into a cocked hat!

A 'no brainer' in the quality department and I'm surprised it's not been mentioned.

 

[StewartR]

JPGs are 8bit files and RAW (in Nikon's case) 12 or 14 bit files allowing far more depth in tonality per channel.

To my mind, if you're going to produce first class prints then RAW will always knock a JPG into a cocked hat!

A 'no brainer' in the quality department and I'm surprised it's not been mentioned.

Maybe there's a reason it hasn't been mentioned. Maybe it's not such a no-brainer....

Image files with 24 bits per pixel (8 bits in each RGB channel) allow you to produce about 16.7 million different colours. Image files with 48 bits per pixel (16 bits in each RGB channel) allow you to produce about 281 trillion different colours. That sounds better. But the human eye can only distinguish about 10 million different colours. So an 8-bit image can specify all the different colours you can ever see, and a 16-bit image doesn't give you any more.

 

[Canon Bob]

Maybe there's a reason it hasn't been mentioned. Maybe it's not such a no-brainer....

Image files with 24 bits per pixel (8 bits in each RGB channel) allow you to produce about 16.7 million different colours. Image files with 48 bits per pixel (16 bits in each RGB channel) allow you to produce about 281 trillion different colours. That sounds better. But the human eye can only distinguish about 10 million different colours. So an 8-bit image can specify all the different colours you can ever see, and a 16-bit image doesn't give you any more.

Certainly the viewed image will not benefit from the extra colour definition but posterisation is far less likely to occur during the editing of files containing a greater bit depth.....assuming that you don't (or can't) get it right 'in camera'.

Bob

 

[chuckles]

Highly contentious... in terms of numbers that range becomes acceptable - transition steps are wider in JPG but because of what is deemed the human colour range nobody will 'recognise' any deficiency. In terms of post-processing smaller transitions (greater bit depth, RAW) allow a more accurate final image because there is a broader range to process .

 

[StewartR]

Certainly the viewed image will not benefit from the extra colour definition but posterisation is far less likely to occur during the editing of files containing a greater bit depth.....assuming that you don't (or can't) get it right 'in camera'.

Sure, but that's an argument for having a high-bit-depth workflow. I was responding to a specific claim that having more bits allows you to make better prints, which isn't (directly) true.

I'm pretty certain we agree on the facts here, and any apparent differences arise from the presentation.

 

[Canon Bob]

Sure, but that's an argument for having a high-bit-depth workflow. I was responding to a specific claim that having more bits allows you to make better prints, which isn't (directly) true.

I'm pretty certain we agree on the facts here, and any apparent differences arise from the presentation.

Yes we do Stewart....I'm guilty of reading between the lines and not on them.

Bob

 

[sk66]

I shoot everything recording raw files to the large card and large-jpeg-fine to the smaller card. The Jpegs are my backups. I always process the raw files. Processing a raw file doesn't have to take any extra time other than the slower import/download.
I use LR at the first step and I have my camera defaults set to do most of the edits automatically on import (camera profile, sharpening, color, etc etc). Then, I only have to fine tune/adjust the ones the defaults don't work for. Many OEM programs will automatically apply the camera's jpeg settings to the raw file on import and they would look identical.
Net result is no additional time required to edit from raw, but more capability.

 

[Derek_W]

The original photographer mentioned did his apprenticeship on film 40 years ago, his Photoshop was the darkroom at a time when most B&Gs only expected a couple of dozen photos. He learned the hard way if he messed up.
There was a different expectation of quality and quantity and very little imagination in the delivered photos. It was just a different time and wedding photography hadn't yet become the market it now is but the finished photos he produces are possibly mostly produced in camera.

 

[woof woof]

From the outside looking in... 400 images? 400???? 500???????? Golly. I didn't know a wedding photographer would shoot so many and I've never seen a newly wed couple have so many.

...

 

[big soft moose]

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 shoot raw for weddings most of the time, but theres no reason you can't shoot them in jpeg if you are good enough - that said if you are doing any serious ammount of tweakage in photoshop theres no time saving over shooting raw and processing them in lightroom anyway

I've looked up close and his work is noticeably untidy.

noticeably untidy only to a pixel peeping photographer , or so untidy it would be noticeable by the bride ? If its the fomer no one much cares , if the latter is probably not down to his choice of file format

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.

Nothing is right or wrong in photography , that aside if you don't want to spend lots of time in post weddings may not be for you - I generally reckon that i spend an equal ammount of time in post to that that i do shooting (or maybe slightly less). The other thing to be aware of is that its a fallacy that you can save a bad shot in RAW , theres more leeway for things like rescuing exposures, but really if you are good enough to take money for your photography those occasions should be the "ooooh crap" exceptions (which we all have from time to time) not the general rule

Apologies if this has already been covered i couldnt find the arsed to read the whole thread

 

[ajax_andy]

From the outside looking in... 400 images? 400???? 500???????? Golly. I didn't know a wedding photographer would shoot so many and I've never seen a newly wed couple have so many.

Weirdly I just had my first customer complaint… because I ONLY delivered 435 images!!! Some how he'd got it in his bonnet that he'd receive about 800-1200?! Erm yeah mate, sure!

Bit of an odd couple as that was the groom & his missus e-mailed me to say she was disappointed there were no photos of her and hubby when they arrived at the reception venue and were greeted with champagne… 'are there none of this? We are very disappointed'…. 'erm no there aren't as if you remember I left the church AFTER you and so arrived at the venue AFTER you, thus this happened when I wasn't there'.

 

[DemiLion]

…. 'erm no there aren't as if you remember I left the church AFTER you and so arrived at the venue AFTER you, thus this happened when I wasn't there'.

I have to say that that is one of the best arguments for having a second camera; being able to leapfrog the timeline and cover multiple venues!

 

[Blank_Canvas]

When discussing the Wedding Photography I ask about the wedding car, leaving the Church or R/O to the reception. I make the suggestion to the couple that the driver takes a detour to allow me time to get to the reception. The benefits are that I can do the car shots and then cover the arrival at the reception. The other benefit is that they can be alone and have a bit of quiet time together before the reception. Sometimes timings are so tight and this is not possible. But when working on your own its a good option and quite often well received. Some couples quite like the idea of having a bit of extra time alone before the reception in the car which works for me. It's all down to planning and communication but there is no one size fits all solution.