Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Should I shoot JPG or RAW?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hark" data-source="post: 753478" data-attributes="member: 13196"><p>I've always heard many wedding photographers shoot jpeg simply because of the high number of images involved. But if you are shooting an outdoor wedding at high noon without the ability to use flash, then I'd consider shooting RAW. You asked whether shooting RAW for landscapes would be better. In a nutshell - yes for both of these scenarios. The reason is during bright outdoor scenes, the sensor might not be able to capture all the brights and darks in images that we can see with our eyes. A camera sensor doesn't have quite the dynamic range that the human eye has. And that's where editing in RAW has its advantages.</p><p></p><p>What this means is if you shoot jpeg for an outdoor wedding where you can't use flash (or if you are shooting landscapes), you might very well blow out your highlights if you are exposing for the people. RAW has the ability to bring back detail within overexposed highlights than what jpeg offers. The same goes with shadowed areas: if you expose for the highlights, the people might very well be underexposed. RAW can bring back details in underexposed areas better than jpegs.</p><p></p><p>One way around blown skies is using a graduated neutral density filter such as the ones Cokin or Lee offer especially if shooting jpeg. Years ago I worked for a portrait/sports/wedding studio. Only the owner and one person did the weddings. When I saw images taken along the Delaware River, the sky was blown out in every photo. When I asked why they didn't use a graduated neutral density filter, one of the employees asked why I was suggesting it. The scenery was beautiful, but the sky was completely blown out.</p><p></p><p>For your weddings, I agree with Jake. If you are exposing properly in camera with consistent results and taking a high number of images, then stick with jpeg. Not sure if you have to take low light images without flash - that would be an exception as details within shadows are better recovered when shooting RAW.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hark, post: 753478, member: 13196"] I've always heard many wedding photographers shoot jpeg simply because of the high number of images involved. But if you are shooting an outdoor wedding at high noon without the ability to use flash, then I'd consider shooting RAW. You asked whether shooting RAW for landscapes would be better. In a nutshell - yes for both of these scenarios. The reason is during bright outdoor scenes, the sensor might not be able to capture all the brights and darks in images that we can see with our eyes. A camera sensor doesn't have quite the dynamic range that the human eye has. And that's where editing in RAW has its advantages. What this means is if you shoot jpeg for an outdoor wedding where you can't use flash (or if you are shooting landscapes), you might very well blow out your highlights if you are exposing for the people. RAW has the ability to bring back detail within overexposed highlights than what jpeg offers. The same goes with shadowed areas: if you expose for the highlights, the people might very well be underexposed. RAW can bring back details in underexposed areas better than jpegs. One way around blown skies is using a graduated neutral density filter such as the ones Cokin or Lee offer especially if shooting jpeg. Years ago I worked for a portrait/sports/wedding studio. Only the owner and one person did the weddings. When I saw images taken along the Delaware River, the sky was blown out in every photo. When I asked why they didn't use a graduated neutral density filter, one of the employees asked why I was suggesting it. The scenery was beautiful, but the sky was completely blown out. For your weddings, I agree with Jake. If you are exposing properly in camera with consistent results and taking a high number of images, then stick with jpeg. Not sure if you have to take low light images without flash - that would be an exception as details within shadows are better recovered when shooting RAW. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
Should I shoot JPG or RAW?
Top