Shooting RAW is a waste of time

[pistnbroke]

God I think I might be getting through to you lot ...

Quote

I am simply amazed at the number of weddings one can do a year, 50 weddings in 52 weeks... that's awesome!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks ..on some weeks we do fri sat sun and friday weddings at 3 pm very popular as it 30% cheaper at the venue and most can get the afternoon off
and we do get a holiday in france in June ..not popular kids on holiday...

first wedding was Jan 5th and last is Dec 24th !!!! 2013 ....but its a bad year 13 13 bad omen only 38 booked so far ...sad dont you think.....(sorry cannot shift the bold)

​

 

[theregsy]

Its true, its all horses for courses, I started out with a Fuji S2 Pro, I knew little really about post processing except for the usual crop straighten routine and using photoshop to work through 1-2000 RAW images was a complete nightmare. So I always shot in jpeg, it was easier and as I said before unless you are looking at exceptionally high quality imagery then high quality Jpegs or Tiffs were fine, as some were being fed to the local press it was all acceptable. As my computer power has gone up so RAW files are easier to handle, and with lightroom processing a couple of thousand RAW images is far easier and faster and with the purchase of 32Gb cards RAW shooting is no longer a hassle, so I shoot RAW, but to say that either way is wrong is stupid. Its like saying that all of the compositional rules MUST be followed at all times.

Remember people photography is personal, how you see and record those things that interest you is up to you, how you process your images is up to you. While I know that you can do more with a RAW image so for people making a living it makes more sense to shoot RAW, you could still shoot Jpeg even though you choose not to. As to saying if you take that many photos you are spraying and praying, get a grip people shoot how they want, I come away from a festival weekend with 4-6000 images easy, because i like to shoot that way, people I have shot alongside are old film users and take a quarter of the images I do, nothing wrong with that each to their own. But this whole RAW vs Jpeg thing is starting to sound like a Canon vs Nikon argument please respect others views people

 

[Eye-level]

Well, perhaps you can explain to me more clearly because I don't follow it.

As for not posting work ie giving my website address its counter productive as google searches bring customers to the arguments you get on here which is not good for business.

Clear as mud to me Helene...

 

[ohkphoto]

Remember people photography is personal, how you see and record those things that interest you is up to you, how you process your images is up to you.

Read more: http://nikonites.com/learning-photography/12138-shooting-raw-waste-time-5.html#ixzz2OOIUEjQo

Exactly.

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

I know you all think Steve is crazy and at one time I did as well but more and more I am beginning to think there IS something to what he is saying. As you know I am fixing to buy the famous "wedding camera". Nearly every pro wedding photographer that uses it uses guess what - jpeg!

Sometimes it is a good thing to put aside your thoughts and try to understand another's...you just might learn something...we all know it takes some effort to learn right?

And I think Jake's post #17 is indeed rude and uncalled for.

Famous wedding camera? never heard of it... I happen to agree with Jakes #17. any "pro" that shoots weddings in JPEG is asking for a lawsuit IMO. If 100,000 well known pro photographers tell me that it is tried and true that even on your best day you might have a few screw ups during a wedding and suggest that I shoot RAW, you better sure as heck believe I am going to shoot RAW. And why wouldn't you shoot raw? With memory as cheap as it is, why wouldn't you shoot RAW? If your facing the bride and groom at th wedding and Aunt Edna makes a funny you want to be able to turn the camera on her for that split second right? well guess what your turn has just taken you WB away from the perfect spot. Why wouldn't you shoot RAW to be able to adjust that? kind of makes sense to me...

 

[ohkphoto]

Clear as mud to me Helene...

Ha-ha, Jeff!

 

[Eye-level]

I really think if your photographs are run of the mill shwag (like the vast majority of folks photos are - myself included) than RAW isn't going to help you one iota. So maybe it helps that we can shoot a thousand and one jpegs or 500 impromptu portrait sessions in a year so that we learn better technique and feel...

I would also like to add that since the vast majority of us post snaps only on the computer and almost never print them a lot of this stuff megapixels, resolution, IQ, etc is really a moot point...

All that being said I do believe in post production...

 

[pistnbroke]

but if all the wedding photos on your website were in large/basic and they were happy with what they saw how can they complain ????( and they were even more compressed by the website)

 

[pistnbroke]

I like that eyelevel thinking ,,,,,

 

[Dave_W]

Pistnbroke, are the examples of images on your 1and1photography website full size images or do you shrink them in order to save space?

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

God I think I might be getting through to you lot ...

Quote

I am simply amazed at the number of weddings one can do a year, 50 weddings in 52 weeks... that's awesome!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks ..on some weeks we do fri sat sun and friday weddings at 3 pm very popular as it 30% cheaper at the venue and most can get the afternoon off
and we do get a holiday in france in June ..not popular kids on holiday...

first wedding was Jan 5th and last is Dec 24th !!!! 2013 ....but its a bad year 13 13 bad omen only 38 booked so far ...sad dont you think.....(sorry cannot shift the bold)

​

I call BS... it is not April 1st yet dude.

 

[SkvLTD]

~2000 shots per 1 wedding?

My take on the topic though- if you're shooting a boat load and lighting conditions are good and all that, why not jpeg indeed. If you do RAW, then perhaps 1 shot for every 10 machinegun ones in jpeg. Get the right moment, at the right time, and be done w/ it.

 

[ohkphoto]

but if all the wedding photos on your website were in large/basic and they were happy with what they saw how can they complain ????( and they were even more compressed by the website)

Read more: http://nikonites.com/learning-photography/12138-shooting-raw-waste-time-5.html#ixzz2OOLY3wV5

I'm trying to follow your logic here.

Shooting Raw and posting photos to your website are mutually exclusive.
Having RAW photos is like having a negative. It never changes. When you upload to a website, you're uploading and exported JPEG file. You can't upload RAW files to a website . . . you could, I guess if you wanted to really slow it down.

So, I guess I don't really understand what you meant here.

 

[Eye-level]

~2000 shots per 1 wedding?

My take on the topic though- if you're shooting a boat load and lighting conditions are good and all that, why not jpeg indeed. If you do RAW, then perhaps 1 shot for every 10 machinegun ones in jpeg. Get the right moment, at the right time, and be done w/ it.

Basic fundamental sound technique...meter for the light set the white balance proper...ONE TIME...blast away until the conditions change...when they change reset and then get on with it again...time tested and true.

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

Basic fundamental sound technique...meter for the light set the white balance proper...ONE TIME...blast away until the conditions change...when they change reset and then get on with it again...time tested and true.

With a wedding conditions change rapidly sometimes. Specially if it is an outdoor wedding. It is not as clear cut as you may think.

 

[Eye-level]

Oh so before digital and RAW came along wedding photographers couldn't function???

I've been to a few weddings sir...I know what happens...

 

[BackdoorArts]

Well all I see in this thread is about 65 posters gang banging a dude because he doesn't shoot RAW like they do...as if they are the all and be all and the end to all things photography.

No one gang bangs a dude for shooting the way that suits him and his craft. But when your post has far more to do with provoking a reaction than sharing information, then a reaction you'll get. No one here would argue that there are times when shooting JPEG is both expedient and beneficial. That's not what he said - at least not until he got called out on it. It's a pattern, and regardless of how much talent there may or may not be behind the photographer in question, having to parse through the perpetual BS and pomposity that surrounds any real information in his posts is beyond ridiculous. And standing by what I said, an absolute waste of time.

 

[Eye-level]

Well there is always the ignore button you know...

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

I went to his website, I stand by my posts. shoot Raw!

As for the comment about what happened before digital? Photographers did not shoot 4000 images at a wedding before digital plain and simple. Each shot was/is calculated. Most people have been to weddings so whatever, but have you been to a wedding as a paid photographer charging better than craigslist togs where this spray and pray mentality has almost destroyed the proper picing by photographers who have studied their craft. true masters of the art...

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

Pistnbroke, are the examples of images on your 1and1photography website full size images or do you shrink them in order to save space?

So his site is 1and1photography ? I always wanted to see his photography.

As far as shooting raw I have stated several times that I shoot probably 95% in JPEG BUT I shoot for fun. If I were doing this for a job then I would always shoot in RAW and JPEG That would always at least give me a chance to save a photo or a full shoot if needed. Belts and suspenders so to speak. I think the people who have read many of my posts will see that my thinking is that how you shoot is up to you and NO ONE has the right to tell you that you are wrong, stupid, and idiot for shooting the way you do.