Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberdemon
My wedding photog shot JPG, and overall we were very happy with the images we got. While I would have liked RAW I talked to him briefly about it and he made valid points:
The storage overhead when shooting RAW is massive, and if you are able to properly expose the image the first time the number of tweaks you need to do after is limited. They store all their images on the cloud for backup and have to pay for that overhead. As well as the time overhead of processing images, which is time that they aren't out shooting or making albums. That would push their costs up higher (and they were not cheap).
With a certain level of arrogance he pointed out "I've been doing this since film when I had 24 chances to get the picture right - it makes you work harder to make sure your shots are exposed correctly". And after having seen the images we got, exposure and focus were never an issue, even for our wedding which had some tricky shots since we were getting married at sunset.
.
|
Bull shit. Storage is cheap. He's a pro and it should be built into his infrastructure.
He's probably using flash for most shots, so DR is seldom and issue. The only issue left is, are you happy with the RAW conversion parameters decided by a committee of Japanese engineers? If so, the shoot JPEG and forget about DR.
"Exposed Correctly" is an old film term. Optimal Exposure will end with a converted JPEG that is Exposed Correctly, showing more DR than an in-camera JPEG exposed in the camera. Much of wedding photography doesn't require a lot of DR, so, if you can get away with it.
For landscape, non-flash portraits, wildlife, Expose Optimally and convert to a pleasing ending product.