Raw?

[jenlight81]

I have never shot in RAW but am shooting my first wedding this weekend and wondered a)if i should and b) why!

[OsmosisStudios]

I would shoot RAW only if you have the proper software (Aperture, Lightroom or Photoshop CS2 or higher) to process it Also keep in mind that there's considerable work involved in getting those RAW files into sell-able images.

The pros do outweigh the cons, though. The RAW files take up more space (3x, on average), they offer so much more in terms of editing and correction it's easily worth the work.

[wulf]

It would be unwise to try out RAW shooting on your first wedding. It might not be a bad idea, since you can't rerun the event and RAW gives you a lot more post-processing options but get out and experiment with RAW shooting right now.

If you don't have a good workflow to turn the RAW files into something you can give to your clients you are running a huge risk with someone else's big day.

Wulf

[Doug Pardee]

If you can shoot Raw+JPEG, that will give you the best of both worlds. You'll have the JPEGs that you're accustomed to, and the Raw files in case you need to make more serious adjustments.

The main reason to shoot Raw is to give you more latitude in post-processing. According to an online survey a few years ago, the #1 reason that people shot Raw was so that they could select and adjust White Balance during post-processing instead of having to get it right in the field.

Many people shoot Raw because it captures more data than JPEG does, so it gives superior mathematical results even if you can't see the difference in the photos. In my experience, digital photographers can be divided into those who are capturing data and those who are capturing images. The data capturers will never use anything but Raw while the image capturers are frequently satisfied with JPEG.

The one area where Raw is often visibly superior to JPEG is in "dynamic range"—the ability to capture detail in both shadows and highlights. If you're looking for evidence that Raw produces better photos, this is what you should be looking at.

The main disadvantages are that you must post-process every Raw photo, and like all post-processing you'll need to develop expertise. Your camera might have come with software that will develop Raw files using the "as shot" settings recorded by the camera.

The other disadvantages of Raw are mostly due to the increased file size. Fewer shots per card, fewer shots per burst in continuous mode and possibly longer shot-to-shot times, more time spent downloading and backing up, more disk space used for storage. There's also the complication of having more files to keep track of for each photo. Both of those disadvantages are made worse by shooting Raw+JPEG.

From what I've seen from discussions on various forums, professional wedding photographers are very divided on the question of Raw/JPEG. Some shoot only Raw, some shoot only JPEG, some use Raw for the formals and JPEG for the candids. That last choice is based on the notion that post-processing just the formals isn't such a chore, that the client will expect more perfection in the formals, that getting detail in the groom's black tux and the bride's white dress in the same shot is easier with Raw's wider dynamic range, and that formals are often printed large (8x10).

[Swisstony10]

You may well be able to set the camera to shoot in RAW+Jpeg - it'll take up even more memory card space, but if you're doing a wedding you should already have plenty of spare space.

If you shoot in RAW+Jpeg then you'll have Jpeg images to use as you would do normally, but you'll also have the images as RAW files so you can compare the amount of extra control and headroom that RAW will give you. It probably won't make a difference to every single shot, but even if there's just one shot that doesn't work as a Jpeg but can be easily rescued as a RAW, then it'll have been worth it - it might just be that you rescue the bride's favourite shot.

Russ.

[jenlight81]

your responses were very helpful!!

[Xposurepro]

Get use to RAW and you'll love it. I allow 1 minute to retouch an image, get it saved and move on to the next. Of course you should shoot it right in the camera to begin with but my RAW batch workflow helps tons in getting a clients session wrapped up and ready for presentation.

[kirbinster]

Since you have never done it go with raw + jpeg, once you learn what you are doing forget the jpeg and just shoot raw. This is especially true for once in a lifetime shots, where you want the maximum lattitude to "fix" things that are not perfect.

[slcraig1]

I am a beginning photgrapher and have been shooting raw just because I was under the impression it produced a better image! Clearly I was wrong. The only post processing I have done is in the free Picasa photo editor and, from the responses here, I assume Picasa is not meant to process RAW images.

My question is: why does every RAW image need post processing? And what must one typically do to a RAW image? If you don't process it, in what way/s is it inferior to a jpeg?

Thanks!

[Arjay12345]

Making raws look good is difficult - trust me. I'm still bemused and aired on a previous thread > Raw disappointment.

Still unconvinced, I've set a challenge for someone to talk the talk and prove that raws really do offer a better start to get to a a more stunning end result >> How would you develop this photograph?

The way I see it so far, to use a everyday analogy, is that jpg's are like a car you buy from a dealer and raws are like a kit car: the dealer car comes ready assembled, ready to use, in a set amount of colours and trims - you might not get exactly the shade, trim and size you want but it works. The kit car on the other hand, gives you every opportunity to customise all aspects, BUT you got to know how to put it together which takes practice. If you have no knowledge you'll be left with a heap of scrap.

In the same way, jpgs are ready to show off, the second you take them, whereas raws are scrap metal until you tinker with them in PS or other, which is where (apparently) they can be made even better than the jpgs. I say 'apparently' as I still need someone to work on the example dng in my second thread above and prove it comes out better than the jpg ever could.

hth..

Arjay