# Wedding: JPEG vs. RAW



## biostockman (Aug 4, 2010)

Hi All! This is my first post of many more to come, hopefully... I'm an amateur DSLR photographer but this question is actually about my wedding photographer. He shoots with a Canon 5D Mark II, but he only shoots in JPEG format and not RAW... This is seems odd to me but perhaps its because I only have a lowly 450D and his resolution is almost twice that of mine. However, I'm a bit concerned. I had planned on editing the photos myself but don't know how much I can edit JPEG images from this camera... Any thoughts? Would JPEG images be sufficient or should we insist on RAW?  

Thanks in advance for any and all replies!!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 4, 2010)

WTH?  You should fire that photographer right now!  Seriously!


----------



## biostockman (Aug 4, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> WTH?  You should fire that photographer right now!  Seriously!


Well, luckily we haven't retained him, yet... So I'm guessing your opinion is the same as mine, regardless of the camera he should be shooting RAW images? 

BTW - Thanks for the reply!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 4, 2010)

Even if he agrees that he will shoot with RAW, I would still look for another photographer.  He probably does not know how to do post processing.  Kinda hard to adjust your WB all the time at weddings so more than likely the WB will be off.  KInda hard to fix the WB with only JPEG!


----------



## Steve01 (Aug 4, 2010)

biostockman said:


> Would JPEG images be sufficient or should we insist on RAW?


 
No I don't think JPG's would be sufficient.

There's no reason he shouldn't be shooting in RAW.
If it were me, I'd find someone else.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 4, 2010)

Have you seen his work?
He may actually be good enough to not need to shoot RAW.  Not everyone does you know.




P.S.  It's easy to correct WB in .jpeg.  Look around, the info is out there.

It's even been described on this site if you want to use the search function.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 4, 2010)

If you think changing color sliders left and right is easy.. i guess.  I rather user 1 slider (temperature).


----------



## Moe (Aug 4, 2010)

A couple possibilities pop into my head:

1. He's so good, he only needs JPEG. Definitely not unheard of. Getting it right in camera would speed up his workflow.

2. You misunderstood him. Perhaps he meant that he would give you the photos in JPEG, but not RAW. Especially if he knows you have the intent on editing them yourself (which I find fairly odd).

Surely you have seen his work. How is it? I'm not just talking about a flash website with 50 great photos on it. Perhaps he's taken thousands of crappy photos and 50 great ones and those are the ones he puts on the site. I've heard of people getting hosed by that. The best is if your potential photographer has a blog where they display quite a few shots from each session, be it portraits or weddings, etc. That way you can see their consistency.


----------



## biostockman (Aug 4, 2010)

Moe said:


> A couple possibilities pop into my head:
> 
> 1. He's so good, he only needs JPEG. Definitely not unheard of. Getting it right in camera would speed up his workflow.
> 
> ...



Hi Moe, 

Thanks for responding!

1). He actually told us that he shoots primarily JPEG and hardly ever shoots RAW. I found this very odd myself.

2). Yes, he did bring about 20+ 8x10's and they were all terrific shots, the guy does have a great eye. 

I'm feeling really iffy about this guy.


----------



## tsblo (Aug 4, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> WTH?  You should fire that photographer right now!  Seriously!



I've shot weddings for a few years now. I shoot mainly JPEG. I take the time to get it right in camera the first time. Most professionals I know do the same. The only time I use raw is when I need a failsafe if I am in mixed lighting or am having issues with exposure but its very seldom

You most definitely should not fire your photographer because they shoot JPEG. I would use it more as a sign your photographer probably knows what they are doing and does not have to resort to adjusting the file in photo software.

I was taught in college that raw is a tool, there is a time and place to use it. You wouldn't use a screw driver to hammer in a nail would you?

Oh and to the OP's notion of editing the photos yourself, I know I edit all my work prior to delivering it to the client, and in the contract they sign there is a clause that it is not to be edited. I know many professionals work the same way. When your name is attached to something you may not want someone else editing work that represents your style and flair. I'd say enjoy your wedding day, and leave the photography, editing and all, to the professional. If you don't think they will process in a way you like, find another professional who will.


----------



## biostockman (Aug 4, 2010)

tsblo said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > WTH?  You should fire that photographer right now!  Seriously!
> ...


This is certainly true as well.. Perhaps as an amateur I'm not yet at the level where I'm confident enough in my abilities to shoot only JPEG.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 4, 2010)

The only time you should shoot in JPEG is if you don't care about the photo's so yeah I would completely agree with the first post. Fire that photographer as I assume you do care for those pictures, even if he obviously does not.


----------



## Moe (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm really surprised that people would fire him based *solely* on the fact he doesn't shoot RAW. I don't know anything about you guys, but that is a very amateurish statement to make with no other info on the guy. Maybe some people only shoot JPEG when they don't care about the photos, but this guy may shoot JPEG *because he's that good.* It says to me that you guys know some, but maybe not enough...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 4, 2010)

Then shoot RAW+jpeg.  I am sorry,  I just think you shouldn't let the camera process the photos for you.


----------



## Sam6644 (Aug 4, 2010)

I almost never shoot raw anymore. If I'm shooting something that will send me home with a lot of photos (more than 30 or so) I only shoot jpg... and if I know it's not going to be printed large or cropped much I only shoot jpg medium. I BARELY ever shoot raw large.. usually when I do shoot raw, it's only raw medium (which is still 10mp). 

nobody NEEDS to shoot raw. Raw gives you a lot of flexibility, but if you don't think you need it in post, what's the point of adding steps to your workflow?


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

Moe said:


> I'm really surprised that people would fire him based *solely* on the fact he doesn't shoot RAW. I don't know anything about you guys, but that is a very amateurish statement to make with no other info on the guy. Maybe some people only shoot JPEG when they don't care about the photos, but this guy may shoot JPEG *because he's that good.* It says to me that you guys know some, but maybe not enough...



Hey, I have said I'm no pro many times, but I see no reason to toss out data when there is no need for it and here is a case for no need for it. What is he using 512MB cards? High capacity cards are next to nothing right now and dropping more every day. Maybe some adjustments may be in order, the photographer might think they could be perfect, and maybe they are, but the client may not and want them a bit different. Yeah situations like that sucks, but it goes with the territory. I never said he was good or bad, I never seen his stuff so I have no idea really, but as a Pro and doing paid work you should allow as much flexibility as you can and not doing so on something like this, makes no sense at all to me. Privately if you want to shoot JPEG only fine, knock yourself out. I couldn't care less, but not when a customer is paying you.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 5, 2010)

Regardless of my opinion on the JPEG vs RAW debate, why are you judging him by the technical method rather than his results.

You say his results are stunning, does it matter if he shoots it with his iPhone vs a Hassleblad only in RAW?

Do you have any reason to think that he won't be able to deliver? Do you have any reason to believe someone will provide you with a better price / performance? 

You should get a different wedding photographer if you don't like the pictures / service he provides. Also what makes you think you would get RAW files from a wedding photographer for you to edit?


----------



## Arch (Aug 5, 2010)

^ Agreed....

... and do you guys seriously think that film photographers back in the day would take *every* shot into the darkroom and spend hours tweaking the them, even the candids?

I know a few photographers that shoot weddings mainly in jpeg, they are very experianced and always get good images.

What would you prefer, a photog who shoots mainly jpeg and has a fantastic track record... or someone who thinks RAW is the only way to go but has an average portfolio.

People who laugh at the idea of jpeg are really just showing snobbery.... and this is coming from someone who only ever shoots RAW.


----------



## Overread (Aug 5, 2010)

You know a professional photographer in a creative field (like wedding photography) handing you over the final photos for you to edit would worry me a lot more than it would if they were shooting in JPEG or RAW mode. Most will shoot and edit themselves and even have in the contract that you cannot edit the final photos even once you have been handed them. The reason for this is that the photos are their property (you buy a print or a limited usage license normally when you get a CD of fullsize photos) and they cannot have just anyone editing the photos and putting them out on the net (often still with their name attached/attributed). 

Also I would expect editing the results to be part of the photographers working workflow before you get your final prints/shots - though of course there might be a consultation period before he edits where you both select out the shots from the full range taken on the day.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 5, 2010)

Wow.... first of all, I want to say thank you for having this discussion. It really opened my eyes. So I decided to google RAW vs JPEG and found interesting results. The first article clearly explains why RAW is better. Yes, I think everyone is on the same boat. We all know RAW has MORE information and clearly superior. Then I read the 2nd article and it really got me thinking. I just found out from this article that I could open the JPEG file into my adobe Camera RAW software which I did not know before. You can still fix your WB and your exposure (to a certain degree) just like like a RAW file. So I went ahead and find an over exposed image that I have in the past and saved it to JPEG and compare the RAW and JPEG side by side. I need to reduce the exposure by about 1.25 which is quite a bit. I do notice that when I fix the exposure in RAW that much, it gives me slightly better result the JPEG. I also played with the WB a little on both files and I find it amusing that the JPEG WB correction is pretty darn good!

I bought my computer 6 months ago with 1.5 TB capacity. Today I only have 1 TB left due to thousands of photos I have taken in RAW. So starting today, I will give JPEG a 2nd try. I will start shooting in JPEG in the next few days. If I dont feel that much disadvantage using in JPEG, then I will stick with it forever. Here are the articles I was talking about.  So I would like to retract my comment about firing the photographer right of the bat.

Paxton Prints - The Raw Truth About JPEG

Why I Went Back to JPEG | Pioneer Woman Photography | Ree Drummond


----------



## bigtwinky (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm with Garbz on this one... if you like his work and he produced top quality stuff in the size you guys want to print, then I dont see any issue to not retain him. I sometimes shoot in JPG (I used to be a RAW only guy), as it depends on what the images are for.

If he is making you uncertain, dont retain him. Just make sure its not due to him only shooting in JPG. Have you talked to him about the RAW vs JPG?

Just because he shoots JPG does not mean he cannot process.

There is more than one way to skin a cat people. The rule of thirds need not be applied 100% of the time. Shooting in RAW may not be needed 100% of the time.


Another interesting thing about shooting JPG... I know a sports journalist, been shooting for 30 years, covered 8 Olympics, and he mainly shoots in JPG.  His shots are gorgeous.  But he doesnt have the time to go through the editing process other than very very basic things as he has to get his images out the door asap.  More often than not, he is sending them to the editor out of camera.


----------



## Overread (Aug 5, 2010)

Sports photographers are one of the few areas where JPEG shooting rules over RAW - not just for the larger buffer and faster FPS rate - but more for just what bigtwinky says, to allow them to output the photos right to the editor for print or for the net right after the match. There just isn't time for the photographer to edit and process the shots - they need working shots right there and then. Heck I think many use wireless transmitters so that they can remain mobile and send the shots as they come right to an assistant with a laptop.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 5, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> If you think changing color sliders left and right is easy.. i guess.  I rather user 1 slider (temperature).



LOL  Didn't look did you.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 5, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > If you think changing color sliders left and right is easy.. i guess. I rather user 1 slider (temperature).
> ...


 
Read 3-4 threads up by me LOL


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

Maybe firing is harsh, and I agree, there is not a much need to shoot in RAW as before, but still say he should be shooting in it. There is just no reason not to.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 5, 2010)

If I worked as a press/sports tog then I'd be shooting jpeg to hit the picture desk on a deadline, as a wedding tog I want the best quality my tools can provide, I shoot raw+jpeg, the jpegs get a slight tweak through batch processing and go out as proofs, the album selection from raw gets whatever is required, I process, not my camera. 

If he shoots jpeg imo he's lazy, or, inexperienced, because if he was that good he'd be working for NG or some other large publication, anyway he wouldn't figure high on my choice of togs for a wedding.

The OP wouldn't be on my client list either, no-one, without exception get my raw files to mess around as they choose. The work produced is the benchmark if you like the work pick him, if you have reservations about anything drop him like a sack of $hit. H


----------



## bigtwinky (Aug 5, 2010)

I'll state it again...if you have issues with it, ask him for an explanation as to why he shoots JPG over RAW when you know what RAW allows for more data captured and more precise manipulation of the final image.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 5, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> I bought my computer 6 months ago with 1.5 TB capacity. Today I only have 1 TB left due to thousands of photos I have taken in RAW. So starting today, I will give JPEG a 2nd try. I will start shooting in JPEG in the next few days. If I dont feel that much disadvantage using in JPEG, then I will stick with it forever.



Both you and the guy in the second article have completely missed the point. The RAW format is better there's no doubt, but if you're filling up your harddisk then frankly you're doing it wrong. RAW as you know captures all manner of data that is useful for post processing, so when you're done, why keep it? Heck if you went out and a quick and dirty shoot and think "meh I'm not touching up any of these images," why not just highlight them all and batch convert them to JPEG. 

The goal should be to retain the option to get the best possible picture for processing, and then store it in a format that suits you. I shoot everything RAW including when I'm out pissed with mates. When I get home, and have slid the exposure slider from my drunk mess around a bit to return the photo to normal I either print the file then export to JPEG, or just send it straight to JPEG and then delete the original waste of space RAW. Visibly there's no quality difference between a RAW and a JPEG, but process wise, the extra invisible data is a godsend.


Let me quickly debunk some of the stupidity in that article:

1. Memory card economy: 500 10mpx RAW files fit on an 8GB card. Get a larger card they are dirt cheap, or start to question if maybe you should actually think before you hit the shutter since this will save you time in post processing. Shoot JPEG if you're silly enough to go out shooting and forget your big memory card at home (something is better than nothing), and if you're shooting fast action sports or something similar where you absolutely need to take 5000 pictures in each shooting session.

2. Storage: Aside form the fact that a 1TB harddisk fits 64000 10mpx RAW files for under $100, this is a non issue. RAW files when you're done editing what you wan can be batch converted to JPEG in a couple of clicks, and you retain the best of both worlds.

3. Speed of transfer: ... a) you can start working as soon as the first file has come across. b) why are you watching your computer do an automated operation? Set it, go make a cup of coffee, prepare a receipt for a client, take a toilet break, go outside smell the flowers, or just pickup the mobile an sms someone you haven't seen in a while. You think transferring files is slow you should try doing a virus scan on a 50TB storage array. I started that in the afternoon and it was there waiting for me the day after when I went back to work. Multi-task!


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

Shwettylens has missed the point entirely I think. He may have changed his mind but I still would fire the guy and I would do so for being unprofessional. The bottom line is this if you are getting paid for a job, I believe it is your responsibility to deliver the best product and or service you can. Schwettylens think it's OK, because wel,l it's not that much. Well I don't care if it degrades the quality 90% or only half a percent it still degrades it. If you go with that thinking then tell him he needs not worry about composure becouse hell, you can always crop later and though it degrades the image it only a bit. This is completely unacceptable if you are a professional! Even if your not it should not be tolerated. Every photo I take I strive to do the best I can. Yes, I crop, I do so more than I would like to admit but I don't strive for it thinking its fine. A degrade is a degrade and if your getting paid you have a obligation to do the best you can. Then if you have to crop or something comes up, say your DVD burner breaks down and if you know you will run out if you do the last part of the wedding in RAW so you switch to JPEG, then so be it.You do what you have to. Things do happan even when every precaution has been taken. But to just to do stuff like that intentional is just cutting corners and that is very unprofessional, no matter what quality his work is, and for that should be fired.


----------



## Eco (Aug 5, 2010)

> 1). He actually told us that he shoots primarily JPEG and hardly ever shoots RAW. I found this very odd myself.
> 
> 2). Yes, he did bring about 20+ 8x10's and *they were all terrific shots, the guy does have a great eye. *
> 
> I'm feeling really iffy about this guy.



You should be, who would want a photographer that produces "terrific shots" and has a "great eye"?  I suppose you feel "iffy" when you eat food that looks at tastes good......or when you go to a surgeon that has an excellent track record and happy patients?

You as a client should only worry about his past results and how your pictures will turn out.  It should not matter to you what gear he uses, what modes he uses what post processing software he uses.......

BTW, if he is letting you do the post processing please confirm what Craigslist city you found him on


----------



## biostockman (Aug 5, 2010)

Eco said:


> > 1). He actually told us that he shoots primarily JPEG and hardly ever shoots RAW. I found this very odd myself.
> >
> > 2). Yes, he did bring about 20+ 8x10's and *they were all terrific shots, the guy does have a great eye. *
> >
> ...



Like someone had stated earlier, he could have only shown us his top 20+ photos. And I didn't find him on Craigslist. It's been like pulling teeth to get someone to give us the RAW images, this photographer has agreed to only giving us JPEGs. 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.


----------



## Overread (Aug 5, 2010)

Out of interest how come you are after the RAWs so much? Remember most photo purchases with a photographer are for finished prints or print ready files - that means everything from shooting to editing is done by the photographer (or their team). 


As said earlier most are unwilling to part and put RAWs into a customers hands and those that do tend to charge a lot (if they are good).


----------



## biostockman (Aug 5, 2010)

Overread said:


> Out of interest how come you are after the RAWs so much? Remember most photo purchases with a photographer are for finished prints or print ready files - that means everything from shooting to editing is done by the photographer (or their team).
> 
> 
> As said earlier most are unwilling to part and put RAWs into a customers hands and those that do tend to charge a lot (if they are good).


You're right, certainly most are unwilling as I've experienced. We're paying him to edit a certain amount of images. I'd really like the RAWs for our own needs for down the road and to do any editing on photos we like.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 5, 2010)

Here is the thing... all the files that I like I have RAW, PSD, and JPEG.  3 different files.  What do you guys recommend?  Delete RAW and just keep PSD and JPEG? What do you do?


----------



## Tee (Aug 5, 2010)

I can't get past the fact that you want to process the photos he is taking.  Is that really the reason you're concerned he is shooting JPEG?

I'm sorry but if I was the photographer, I would probably be "iffy" about you.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 6, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Here is the thing... all the files that I like I have RAW, PSD, and JPEG.  3 different files.  What do you guys recommend?  Delete RAW and just keep PSD and JPEG? What do you do?



I am not sure who your question is towards so if its me Ill answer and if not I guess Ill answer anyways but whoever can offer there two cents. How many images do you keep? I mean really. I may take 20-30 or more shots of a scene, but in the end Ill only keep a few of the ones I like maybe 3 or 4 out of them and delete the rest. I only keep the ones I like the best. In a situation like a wedding or work you are doing for someone else its a impossible call as you never know what the client will like. You may hate a pic they love or vise versa so here I burn the images to a DVD to store them and I charge it to them. At less than a buck its more than fair and you figure 2-3 copies I would keep on hand of each disk. They pick you print and deliver and if they want more later rinse and repeat.  I do this on my regular files as well where I have like a dozen DVDs worth of files in case my PC ever crashes (Gods have mercy) I have back ups. So HD space is really a non issue. I have only a 250GB HD and I am still sitting pretty with all my photos and MMO games, CS4 lightroom2 and tons of music files I have installed.


----------



## ghpham (Aug 6, 2010)

I've never seen so much absurdity in a thread.

1.  You hired the photographer to take your wedding pics.
2.  You seen some of his work and they seem to be good.
3.  You are now coming on to a forum asking a bunch of strangers whether you should or should not fire him based on the fact that he is using....JPEG over RAW?? WTF??

Why don't you ask him for references, and call the people he have done work for in the past to see if they were satisfied.  You pay him based upon the results, not how he achieved it.  In the old days of film, would you ever have ask a photographer how he does his work in the lab when creating the prints?? do you expect the photographer to give you the negatives?? 

A big WTF to those who say he should use RAW and be fired otherwise.  Only an amateur would make such a ridiculous statement.


----------



## ghpham (Aug 6, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> If I worked as a press/sports tog then I'd be shooting jpeg to hit the picture desk on a deadline, as a wedding tog I want the best quality my tools can provide, I shoot raw+jpeg, the jpegs get a slight tweak through batch processing and go out as proofs, the album selection from raw gets whatever is required, I process, not my camera.
> 
> *If he shoots jpeg imo he's lazy, or, inexperienced*, because if he was that good he'd be working for NG or some other large publication, anyway he wouldn't figure high on my choice of togs for a wedding.
> 
> The OP wouldn't be on my client list either, no-one, without exception get my raw files to mess around as they choose. The work produced is the benchmark if you like the work pick him, if you have reservations about anything drop him like a sack of $hit. H


 
:er:  what an amateurish statement.


----------



## Sam6644 (Aug 6, 2010)

It's not like you can't edit jpgs. 

I really don't understand what the issue is.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 6, 2010)

ghpham said:


> I've never seen so much absurdity in a thread.
> 
> 1.  You hired the photographer to take your wedding pics.
> 2.  You seen some of his work and they seem to be good.
> ...



Fact is fact whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Bottom line is simple as I said before. He is purposely doing a act that will needlessly degrade the work he is being paid to do when there is no reason in the world to do so. None! That is not professional no matter how good the persons skill is. If you want that kind of work anybody who knows a guy (or woman) with a camera can get the job done.


----------



## Sam6644 (Aug 6, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen so much absurdity in a thread.
> ...




If you can set a white balance correctly and read a light meter, can anyone explain to me the fantastical benefits of shooting raw? Printers don't print raw files, websites don't display them, when people look at the final product they don't know whether it was shot raw or jpg...


----------



## ghpham (Aug 6, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen so much absurdity in a thread.
> ...


 
  Many professional can output better Jpeg than you probably can using RAW.  The truth is in the prints.  If the prints didn't look good, then why in the world would the OP considered this photographer in the first place.  Again you have no understanding what being a "professional" means (hint: it has NOTHING to do with shooting Jpeg or RAW).


----------



## MichaelPieren (Aug 6, 2010)

I'm by no means an expert at post processing, but my understanding is that while RAW images do contain more information and are able to be manipulated more than jpegs in post they are really only necessary for very large prints.  If the photographer can get the correct exposure out of the camera jpegs should be fine.  If you want to put your alter shot on the side of your house or on a billboard than maybe RAW format is what you need.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 6, 2010)

> Many professional can output better Jpeg than you probably can using RAW.  The truth is in the prints.  If the prints didn't look good, then why in the world would the OP considered this photographer in the first place.  Again you have no understanding what being a "professional" means (hint: it has NOTHING to do with shooting Jpeg or RAW).



Maybe he can, I don't recall ever stating anything saying he can't. You are also missing the point on what I was saying. Having not looked at his shots I have no idea how good he is. Maybe he is the greatest of all time, probably not, but who knows, maybe. Thing is it don't matter. I would fire him for being unprofessional not on how good he was. You use a portfolio to determine that before you hire him. Reread my post.

For the record It is true I would never give out the RAW files. I have only done one wedding (Not the area I want to do) The prints I gave came off of Tiff files which is what I always save as. Yeah I could of used JPEGS but again a strive for quality and producing the best quality I can, especially if being paid.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2010)

ghpham said:


> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> > If I worked as a press/sports tog then I'd be shooting jpeg to hit the picture desk on a deadline, as a wedding tog I want the best quality my tools can provide, I shoot raw+jpeg, the jpegs get a slight tweak through batch processing and go out as proofs, the album selection from raw gets whatever is required, I process, not my camera.
> ...




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. 

With photography in days of old we shot medium format for weddings, not because we wanted to lug heavy gear around but we did want the larger neg/file to work with, 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.

We know that in today's lazy/want everything yesterday/cant be bothered/to read/learn/work hard society its a bit too much to actually earn your fee but if you want to constantly give the best service, both in terms of quality and performance then having those large raw files is the way to go.

"Many professional can output better Jpeg than you probably can using  RAW.  The truth is in the prints.  If the prints didn't look good, then  why in the world would the OP considered this photographer in the first  place.  Again you have no understanding what being a "professional"  means (hint: it has NOTHING to do with shooting Jpeg or RAW)."

Do you get paid for this work, if not then STFU, if you do then you have certain obligations to the client regarding quality which don't include in camera algorithms.  H

This professional statement should speak volumes to you.


----------



## Arch (Aug 6, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> 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.



Flash Harry said:


> 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.


----------



## Steve01 (Aug 6, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Here is the thing... all the files that I like I have RAW, PSD, and JPEG. 3 different files. What do you guys recommend? Delete RAW and just keep PSD and JPEG? What do you do?


 
The RAW is the original and has all of the data the camera captured, I keep it.

The PSD is the Edit, I keep that, and that's the largest file if you've done any editing, not the RAW's

You can make JPG's from the PSD if you need to post it or pass it to a friend, I delete them after posting.

Some folks here say it's OK to delete the RAW file after you're done with the editing. Would you throw away your negatives after you printed your images? 

Raw is a digital negative, if you ever want to go back and rework an image, you go back to the Raw file, maybe the PSD and definitely not the JPG.

As for opening a JPG in ACR, yes that's what I always do but you can't compare the differences between RAW and JPG editing.
Shoot a RAW and JPG with the wrong white balance setting and see what happens. In Raw you just change it to the right setting or use the slider to pick an exact color temperature, in JPG you use the white balance tool, and play with the sliders until it looks good enough.
Then you probably have to continue in PS with Thresholds & Curves.

As it turns out *biostockman's* photographer IS shooting RAW and is only willing to give him the JPG's so the whole issue of not hiring him for not shooting RAW went out the window. 

I don't know what the standard wedding photographer agreement is but that seems reasonable to me. I wouldn't give away the digital negatives.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 6, 2010)

JPEGs deteriorates every time you save.  Even if you didn't make any change and always save it as the highest jpeg quality, it will deteriorates!


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2010)

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

You can qualify this statement? I think it is you who is misinformed, why is it a "lossy" format then, I spent years researching this info before going digital along with college professors during my two years there all saying the same thing, jpegs are useful for web, email etc and have their place within the genre but are most definitely not a great format for demanding photographic situations, Tiff is/would be preferred but as these are space hogs for camera memory RAW offers the best option of capture in 2010 for any "Pro" worth his/her salt.

I also had my own darkroom and every shot chosen from the proofs from the lab were hand printed by me, the proofs went in the trash, THEY WERE NOT MY WORK. 

"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'm in total agreement with him here as stated in an earlier post, the OP wouldn't be on my client list as there's no way he'd get files from me unless he was spending a great deal of money, that includes jpeg. That too, is my professional opinion. H


----------



## Steve01 (Aug 6, 2010)

MichaelPieren said:


> .... RAW images do contain more information and are able to be manipulated more than jpegs in post they are really only necessary for very large prints. If the photographer can get the correct exposure out of the camera jpegs should be fine. If you want to put your alter shot on the side of your house or on a billboard than maybe RAW format is what you need.


 
That's not really correct.
A 10MP camera shoots a 10MP image, JPG or Raw.
In either format they can only be printed so big before the quality starts to go down.

The RAW file contains all the all the data the camera collected and has a wider dynamic range than the JPG.

When you shoot in JPG you take all that data and let the $2 computer in the camera bake in the white balance, sharpness, tint, saturation, brightness, exposure, and more.

In RAW you get to choose those things yourself.
If the RAW image is perfect as is, it added 1 mouse click to your work-flow.
If not you, not the camera, can make those adjustments in your RAW editor and pass the image with the adjustments to your image editing program.

Also, all of the adjustment you made to the RAW files are saved as data and are non destructive and reversible.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2010)

^^^ +1


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 6, 2010)

adjustment on JPEG is non destructive also if you save it as other file


----------



## Arch (Aug 6, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> "Here you are misinformed, Jpegs do not deteriorate with every opening."
> 
> You can qualify this statement? I think it is you who is misinformed, why is it a "lossy" format then,



Sure, it is a lossy format because each time the image (as a jpeg) is edited and saved it further compresses the image, often making simliar toned pixels the same tone etc. This deteriorates image quality.
However, non of this happens to an image which is just being opened and closed, you can only get the deterioration after an edit and a save has taken place. Therefore the quality of product given to the customer won't ever degrade.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2010)

I wouldn't see any point opening and closing an image to not edit do you, I rarely open images just to view unless they belong to someone else, by the time any image of mine gets to a jpeg stage I'm over it, all my editing is via psd layered files which if flattened are saved in tiff format, all lossless, this tells me something, compression/recompression is not the way to go. H


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 6, 2010)

So what is the conclusion?  LOL


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2010)

Question   *My  camera uses JPEGS Canon Powershot G5. Images are stunning. Do I need to  convert to TIFF for any reason or should I edit and save willy nilly in  JPEG format?*

Answer

 JPEG images are compressed.  That means that information has been thrown away during the compression process
That  however is not the only way information is thrown away - if you reduce  the resolution, or use the lower quality sensors that you find in  consumer priced digital cameras, or you use a scanner with 24 rather  than 36 bit resolution, you are taking a decision to throw away  information.
We just do it rather better in JPEG(!) as the process  takes account of how we 'see' pictures.  So it is much better, for  example, to keep a picture as a JPEG at high resolution, rather than  reducing the resolution to get a TIFF image of the same file size.
Save  willy nilly - unless you want the very best your camera can do, in  which case save it as a TIFF.  Just don't mail the TIFFs around....


From Here: Welcome to JPEG

Which for all you experts here is the "Joint Photographic Experts Group" jpeg as we know it


----------



## Arch (Aug 6, 2010)

Flash, im not sure where your going with this, my comment about Jpegs not lossing data when being opened was made about what you said here...



Flash Harry said:


> 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.



Of course RAW is better than Jpeg for most uses, i have always been an advocate of that on this site, however in defence of jpegs, you can edit them without loosing alot of data, and you certainly won't loose data just by opening them. That is the only point to be made.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2010)

Arch said:


> Flash, im not sure where your going with this, my comment about Jpegs not lossing data when being opened was made about what you said here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not what the JPEG site says, "DATA IS THROWN AWAY", discarded on every subsequent compression, nothing about editing, just compression/recompression. H


----------



## Arch (Aug 6, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> Arch said:
> 
> 
> > Flash, im not sure where your going with this, my comment about Jpegs not lossing data when being opened was made about what you said here...
> ...



yes and how do you get compression/recompression?... by re-saving, not by opening/closing.


----------



## inov8ter (Aug 6, 2010)

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.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 6, 2010)

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 (Aug 6, 2010)

inov8ter said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2010)

*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 (Aug 6, 2010)

biostockman said:


> 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.



Flash Harry said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2010)

Arch said:


> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> > 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 apologize for the confusion, indeed he told us that most of the time he ONLY shoot JPEG.


----------



## biostockman (Aug 6, 2010)

Garbz said:


> biostockman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Aug 6, 2010)

Please answer why you want to edit the photos.


----------



## biostockman (Aug 6, 2010)

Tee said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2010)

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


----------



## biostockman (Aug 6, 2010)

Tee said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2010)

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


----------



## Overread (Aug 6, 2010)

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 (Aug 6, 2010)

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 (Aug 6, 2010)

Steve01 said:


> 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 ....*_​
> ...


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!


----------



## biostockman (Aug 6, 2010)

Overread said:


> 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.


Very good points, Overread.. Thanks!


----------



## Steve01 (Aug 6, 2010)

Well I wish you the best in your marriage and suggest you contact a bunch of photographers to compare prices and what you get for those prices.

A good place to start is the banquet hall your having the reception in.
Ask them for recommendations and get some detailed quotes. 

I think you're being unrealistic in what you're entitled to though. 
Steve


----------



## biostockman (Aug 6, 2010)

Steve01 said:


> Well I wish you the best in your marriage and suggest you contact a bunch of photographers to compare prices and what you get for those prices.
> 
> A good place to start is the banquet hall your having the reception in.
> Ask them for recommendations and get some detailed quotes.
> ...


Thanks mate, your candidness is much appreciated as is your advice!


----------



## Steve01 (Aug 6, 2010)

biostockman said:


> Thanks mate, your candidness is much appreciated as is your advice!


 
:thumbup:


----------



## ghpham (Aug 6, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> ghpham said:
> 
> 
> > Flash Harry said:
> ...


 
:er: And you call yourself a professional? you should be ashame of yourself.  My only obligation, if I was in the business, is to deliver the client final quality product, and if JPegs can do the job, so be it.  I've never seen such snobbishness and unprofessionalism from a so called "professional". :er:


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 6, 2010)

ghpham said:


> :er: And you call yourself a professional? you should be ashame of yourself.  My only obligation, if I was in the business, is to deliver the client final quality product, and if JPegs can do the job, so be it.  I've never seen such snobbishness and unprofessionalism from a so called "professional". :er:



And there lies the problem. When all you care about is delivering the final prints over the quality of the work, and don't say JPEGS can, they cant do the job that RAW can, most have agreed on that part.


----------



## rommeeeezy (Aug 6, 2010)

@ 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. 

@OP
You should ask him what he's comfortable with, and look around for another photographer in the meanwhile. Look at his work,if it looks spot on and it's what you like and within your price range. do it. However, I believe that shooting JPEG is a downfall with his PP and with the quality of photo he'll give to you. Definitely look around still for another photographer in my honest opinion.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 7, 2010)

ghpham said:


> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> > ghpham said:
> ...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 7, 2010)




----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 7, 2010)

Garbz said:


> biostockman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I'll concede the open/close/save does not affect the original jpeg quality but I personally will not be shooting jpeg at any wedding or other professional work I undertake, I'll not be editing any j's either unless its batch process proof for weddings, any other proof work is not supplied till I'm 100% certain its top quality, in the last 14 or so years I've had no complaints from clients, only referrals, I talk straight, I don't take weekend warriors advice, I've done the twenty years hobby bit, all with film, ever heard the don't tell your granny how to suck, it applies here. H


----------



## Garbz (Aug 7, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> I've done the twenty years hobby bit, all with film, ever heard the don't tell your granny how to suck, it applies here. H



Never tried to give you advice, what you do is your own business. Just pointing out to you how compression in programs actually works.

Good for you that you've never had a complaint. There's a good chance the JPEG shooter hasn't either. Keep doing what works!


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 8, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Flash Harry said:
> 
> 
> > I've done the twenty years hobby bit, all with film, ever heard the don't tell your granny how to suck, it applies here. H
> ...



The reply wasn't intended for you Garbz, apart from the concession, I know your right into this and as far as calibrations/colour profiles and many other points you raise on this forum are educated and respected responses, usually correct and eloquently put, I do however take offense at getting slagged off at not being professional and being a "snob" for using what I consider to be the best digital format for production of the best quality work. JPEG has its uses and applications, where its required I use the format, in time and with further improvements on the jpeg 2000 standard it can only get better, this I consider normal progression whichever field your in but imo it is not the best format for present day capture.

While I'm on here I don't see a need to keep up on professional etiquette, if I'm rude to someone then big deal, get over it, I'd be exactly the same to some cheeky nerd down the pub face on, as that too, is my time off. H


----------



## JAmadoPhotography (Aug 9, 2010)

There really is not a big difference. I rarely shoot in RAW anymore because of my editing knowledge in Lightroom. You can change anything without disrupting the quality of the picture in Lightroom. Print out a straight JPG and convert your RAW to JPG (no editing) and you would see no difference. If you can work Lightroom (fairly easy) you can change anything you want in the picture. With all these new cameras that have a lot of megapixels, there is enough data there that RAW is rarely needed anymore. Please feel free to view my work. Half of my work is in RAW and the other in JPG. No difference! =) http://www.jamadophotography.com


----------



## ghpham (Aug 9, 2010)

Flash Harry said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Flash Harry said:
> ...


 
You are being slagged for being an ass.  You can't judge another professional without seeing their work.  That is why you are unprofessional.  You can tell me to STFU all you want.  It just goes to show what an ass you are.


----------



## justindavid (Aug 9, 2010)

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.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 9, 2010)

rommeeeezy said:


> @ 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 (Aug 10, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> rommeeeezy said:
> 
> 
> > @ Idaho
> ...



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 (Aug 10, 2010)

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 (Aug 10, 2010)

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 (Aug 10, 2010)

biostockman said:


> 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 (Aug 10, 2010)

justindavid said:


> 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 (Aug 10, 2010)

biostockman said:


> 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 (Aug 10, 2010)

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 (Aug 10, 2010)

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


----------



## biostockman (Aug 10, 2010)

MarkF48 said:


> 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 (Aug 10, 2010)

Sure sounds like it


----------



## biostockman (Aug 13, 2010)

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 (Aug 13, 2010)

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 (Aug 15, 2010)

Moe said:


> 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 (Sep 2, 2010)

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'.


----------

