Are just jpegs OK?

[ameerat42]

Mainly for the pros, but not only:
What is the place of "jpegs only" (I mean, not even jpg+raw) at functions such as weddings and big parties, where you might take about 500 or so pics?

(My own idea: maybe for the candids at the receptions? And I mean maybe.)

Is there any justification for this approach?

Am.

[I @ M]

Is there any justification for this approach?

No, choose your poison as far as memory card format is concerned but whatever it is they are very very cheap in this day and age so the "argument" about file size is lost right there and then.

Your idea of maybe for the candids at a reception doesn't fly with me any more than a lead balloon because I consider all or indeed any photos taken at such an event to have equal value so they should all be captured at the highest quality level available.

[arthurking83]

In an environment where speed of getting the images to the client, nothing really makes sense other than raw!

The only reason I could see for the use of jpg only mode, is for the speed of getting images to the customer/publisher/press/etc.

[ameerat42]

No, choose your poison as far as memory card format is concerned but whatever it is they are very very cheap in this day and age so the "argument" about file size is lost right there and then.

Your idea of maybe for the candids at a reception doesn't fly with me any more than a lead balloon because I consider all or indeed any photos taken at such an event to have equal value so they should all be captured at the highest quality level available.

I must hasten to point out that the only part of the idea that I can own is the heavily qualified one in the original post. I put forward no other arguments about the idea.

In an environment where speed of getting the images to the client, nothing really makes sense other than raw!

The only reason I could see for the use of jpg only mode, is for the speed of getting images to the customer/publisher/press/etc.

Thanks Andrew and AK.

Am.

[Rattus79]

I only use Jpg when I'm going to be using some one elses pc, like for friends at a party or a motorcross outing.

[ricktas]

JPG has its place when the photographer understands both RAW and JPG and therefore the compression/limitations of JPG. Until you know the benefits/limitations of anything, I would suggest their use is compromised. Shooting RAW can be a limitation if the photographer has no understanding of RAW.

If you fully understand how JPG compression etc is going to affect the result, and you are happy to accept that, use JPG for any situations you wish to.

[swifty]

As others have noted, when speed is of the essence then jpegs may indeed have an advantage.
Cost of storage may be low but wireless bandwidth's still catching up.
I can imagine a fair few sports images for web publishing are jpegs.
The photographers may be shooting RAW+ jpegs, I'm not sure, and perhaps reworking those RAWs later for print publishing?

[ving]

cameras will often shoot at a faster fps in jpg mode. also the buffer doesnt get used up as fast so it'll shoot more frames in continuous mode

[Epoc]

I was told on another Aussie tog forum, quite harshly I might add, that most if not all sports togs use purely jpeg. Speed and having no use for the RAW editing capabilities being the main reason. Personally, I shoot RAW.

[JM Tran]

Nope, dont do jpegs, especially at weddings where lighting is a pain sometimes. Its not just about lighting, but the total control I have with a RAW file later.

I only take less than a week to edit a full wedding from myself and my 2nd shooter - processing and editing RAWs, and I believe in quality for the end product. Having less controls in the PP for jpegs does not lead to a quality end product.

[Eberbachl]

I shoot mostly jpg+RAW. The jpegs speed my workflow and allow me to get them to the client quickly. The RAW acts as cheap insurance in case I need further headroom in post. There's no right or wrong, but this approach works for me.

[ameerat42]

Ta to everyone for your responses. I have recently had reason to consider this question when talking to a professional photographer.
I will only say that our discussion left me surprised at first, as it challenged some ideas of my own. On the other hand, he had evidence to support his point of view.
It took me a while to make up the question for this thread (and I hope it's not too far off). Also, I did not want to make a poll out of it as I felt it had the potential to make the replies
rather too polarised for any useful discussion.

If anything, it's shown me that more things are possible than I might routinely think.

Personally, I like using raw for their potential, and also because in working them, it makes [me/you/the photographer/OK a passer by] think more about the image taken.

Again, thanks to all for your responses and I look forward to any more.
Am.

[bconolly]

Hi Am, I use both. Raw for later processing (typically much heavier editing) and Jpegs for quickly posting to blogs, Facebook etc when out and about and don't want to / have time to pfaff about with editing.

BC

[Eberbachl]

I shoot mostly jpg+RAW. The jpegs speed my workflow and allow me to get them to the client quickly. The RAW acts as cheap insurance in case I need further headroom in post. There's no right or wrong, but this approach works for me.

Coincidentally, whilst I don't often need to do it I had occassion to refer to a RAW file tonight, and it saved the image for me.

99% jpeg is just fine for my work, but when I need RAW I appreciate it.

[AVALANCHE]

I use to use jpeg when I first started out ten months ago, which was fine however as time went on and I explored what raw did I jumped onto the raw train quickly. I haven't used jpeg since no matter the amount of photos I take.

As for the comment regarding candid shots at weddings and deeming them not as important as staged shots, which I feel you are inferring by asking if it is fine to just use jpeg for candid yet keep using raw for 'quality shots', is a mistake in itself. I have shot a handful of Weddings now and have quickly tacked onto the idea the candids are actually the shots people love and end up throwing on their walls instead of static photos. I remember a number of times now I would have to shoot grumpy couples with a troublesome child and they didn't want a family shot, so I would wait throughout the night and check on them, sure enough I would capture a candid of the three of them with nothing but smiles and being together with either parent holding onto their child. The reaction usually is with those photos, "Wow, when did you get that!?". Don't underestimate candids for Weddings and events! In fact, they are a vital component of that kind of photography I feel.

[ricktas]

I use to use jpeg when I first started out ten months ago, which was fine however as time went on and I explored what raw did I jumped onto the raw train quickly. I haven't used jpeg since no matter the amount of photos I take.

As for the comment regarding candid shots at weddings and deeming them not as important as staged shots, which I feel you are inferring by asking if it is fine to just use jpeg for candid yet keep using raw for 'quality shots', is a mistake in itself. I have shot a handful of Weddings now and have quickly tacked onto the idea the candids are actually the shots people love and end up throwing on their walls instead of static photos. I remember a number of times now I would have to shoot grumpy couples with a troublesome child and they didn't want a family shot, so I would wait throughout the night and check on them, sure enough I would capture a candid of the three of them with nothing but smiles and being together with either parent holding onto their child. The reaction usually is with those photos, "Wow, when did you get that!?". Don't underestimate candids for Weddings and events! In fact, they are a vital component of that kind of photography I feel.

I am confused? Are you trying to say you should choose RAW for the official stuff and JPG for the candids here? I cannot work out what you post has to do with the original question. This thread is about the benefits/disadvantages of shooting RAW and/or JPG, not about shooting candids at a wedding

[atky]

Sports shooters that are working from my experience shot jpeg. They tend to shot 1000's of shots in a day and have to meat very tight deadlines.

[kiwi]

Besides what Steve said, often sport you are shooting outdoors in sun, so really if you are pro should nail the exposure and white balance so you should not need to do any, let alone extensive, post processing and with 1000's of shots really you dont want to either

[AVALANCHE]

I am confused? Are you trying to say you should choose RAW for the official stuff and JPG for the candids here? I cannot work out what you post has to do with the original question. This thread is about the benefits/disadvantages of shooting RAW and/or JPG, not about shooting candids at a wedding

Yes, this thread is about the pros/cons of jpeg and raw, and OP was using Weddings as an example of such shooting.

He then wanted to know the place of jpeg shooting for a Wedding and suggested candids at the reception, which inferred in my mind that he might not consider candid shots as important as his other shots if switching from raw to jpeg for them, though as you can see above I feel it is important, so the point of my post was to stay in raw when shooting at weddings, unless of course you dont understand/appreciate what it can do, so in that case, one would stay in jpeg the whole time for sanitys sake when it comes to uploading them.

[ameerat42]

Yes, this thread is about the pros/cons of jpeg and raw, and OP was using Weddings as an example of such shooting.

He then wanted to know the place of jpeg shooting for a Wedding and suggested candids at the reception, which inferred in my mind that he might not consider candid shots as important as his other shots if switching from raw to jpeg for them, though as you can see above I feel it is important, so the point of my post was to stay in raw when shooting at weddings, unless of course you dont understand/appreciate what it can do, so in that case, one would stay in jpeg the whole time for sanitys sake when it comes to uploading them.

Oh Avalanche! So did I utterly fail to convey my meaning again? Oh well, here goes.

Every now and then a thread comes up specifically asking the benefits of shooting jpgs vs raw.
This thread is NOT one of those. It sort of assumes - you see I said, "Mainly for the pros..." That meant such as wedding photographers - that they are not the only people who understand both file formats.

Instead, it is about whether there are ANY MERITS in shooting the likes of a wedding - or pick any other event where the potential to generate masses of images is high - using jpeg instead of raw, given that you know about both.

Since I took the example of a wedding, with the attendant reception as the likely high-volume-image-generator, I then offered as a "start-off" the possibility that, if anywhen, there would be the place that perhaps it might "do". Noticed I wrapped it fairly snugly in a "maybe" qualifying blanket.

But, from that opening post, you cannot infer that it is my predilection to do so. Cripes! I do not even photograph people! But you wouldn't have known that.

OK, so from your reply I know you think there is no place at weddings, at least, for a professional photographer to shoot jpegs only.
Ta, Am.