[bladerunner6]

My niece is getting married on a tight budget and I was volunteered to do the wedding photography.

I as just going to bring my wife’s laptop and download all the photos on a thumb drive to give them although I will keep the photos for my self also.

I usually shot RAW but I wonder if this is a situation for JPEGS?

Any opinions on this please?

Thanks.

[Adam]

Definitely raw (or raw+ if you don't plan to do any of the processing yourself). These are once in a lifetime photos, so you'll want the absolute best image quality you can get.

[Angel Perez]

Definitely raw (or raw+ if you don't plan to do any of the processing yourself). These are once in a lifetime photos, so you'll want the absolute best image quality you can get.

I concern with Adam21. Raw or Raw+jpeg this way you have a backup. Will you be using off camera flash? How is your bounce flash? Make sure you find out about the venue(s) to avoid any problems with location or lighting. Get a punch list from your niece so that you make sure you get your must haves. She probably has a pinterst board she can share with that gives you a idea of what she would like.

Most of all, have fun and dont forget you are family, so balance the photographer role and the family member role.

[aleonx3]

If you really care about the image quality of your photos, I recommend that you shoot in RAW. I shot in RAW+ before a couple of times and never even touch it.

[pathdoc]

I was volunteered

"Volunteers were found", LOL.

RAW is mandatory. Whether you also shoot JPG depends on the size of your memory card and how quickly your niece wants the pictures.

You can do a better job of pulling an underexposed or otherwise suboptimal shot back from the brink with RAW. If you don't have Lightroom, Raw Therapee can be downloaded for free and works a treat. Give her the best shots as JPGs immediately and work on the ones which are compositionally excellent but otherwise perhaps not quite up to scratch.

[btnapa]

Any opinions on this please?

Have you ever shot a wedding before? If not, I would think really hard about doing this. You are photographing a once-in-a-lifetime event for someone.... and for free!

I have shot well over a 100 weddings and my rule is no freebees no matter who. The reason is that I am responsible regardless of how much I get paid or not. Are you willing to face the consequences if something goes wrong and they end up with nothing. Think about it.

If you must do it, then always RAW so that you have a chance to fix screw ups later. I shot a wedding a few months ago and my Pentax system (mainly the flash system) which is not the best for wedding photography, let me down. I had to do a lot of fixing in post and shooting RAW saved the day. This was for my best friend's nephew and yes it was NOT for free. My wedding photography days are long gone but they insisted and I agreed to do it.

You need two bodies, multiple flashes, multiple lenses. Bringing a computer to the venue. I will never do that. What if someone walks away with it. You will never hear the end of it from your wife. They stole my wedding photographer friend's camera and lens worth over $7K from the table right in front of him. Luckily it has never happened to me but the possibility is always there.

Wedding photography is serious business best left to pros. There are two many variables and too many things that can go wrong. You need to be prepared to deal with a lot of unknowns.

One more thing, if you are shooting a wedding as the only official photographer, you cannot be a guest. You are on call for a every minute of the event.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Shoot RAW+ to get a jpeg & RAW file. Copy the jpegs & give her a set.

If there is a photo that she REALLY likes, you can then post process the RAW file later for a large print or something.

[C_Jones]

I have shot events JPEG only and the images have come out very nice. I have also shot RAW and JPEG and it was nice, but the storage was quite a lot. I do not plan on post processing most of the time, so shooting JPEG only does not disappoint me in that case. RAW have more data, but if I shoot effectively with JPEG it works for me and the storage is not strained. Of course if the user is interested in RAW only or JPEG only it is up to the user, RAW being the alternative if post processing is an absolute need or goal. Large prints can be derived from both JPEG or RAW files if a sensible ISO is used to avoid noise/graininess.

[Dipsoid]

My vote is for raw, I don't like Pentax's jpeg engine very much. Pentax jpegs generally come out very bland although there is a lot of customization you can do. Plus, if you plan to do any of the typical back-lit portraits, jpeg is not going to do you any favors. Either your subjects are going to be too dark or the background will be super blown out. Also, what if you accidently shoot with the wrong white balance setting? I've accidently changed the color profile to vivid before, which thankfully only affects the thumbnail preview on raw files.

If you want to deliver some quick images, think about in camera raw processing too.

[pschlute]

I as just going to bring my wife’s laptop and download all the photos on a thumb drive to give them although I will keep the photos for my self also

As others have said, the point about RAW is you have all the captured data to do extensive editing if you wish. But if you intend to give a copy of the pictures straight away, then you should shoot RAW+ and give them the jpegs.

The RAW files on their own will look awful

[bladerunner6]

RAW+ it is.

I am convinced.

Thanks everyone for the input.

[E-man]

If you have a couple of sufficiently large memory cards, RAW+ is the way to go. Give her the JPEGs on a thumb drive and then if she wants some specific shots tweaked or enlarged or whatever, you've got the RAW files to work from. The average non-photographer simply isn't going to know what to do with RAW.

I think several other posters have given you some great advice RE: balancing your roles as photographer and family member. I highly recommend that you have a conversation with her ahead of time to try and head off unrealistic expectations that either of you might have.

[Paul the Sunman]

I shot my former PhD student's wedding a year ago, free of charge. However, I was the backup for the professional photographer who they had hired, so there was no real pressure on me. I shot just RAW with a K3. It was an outdoor wedding on a nice day, although there were lots of shadows to deal with from overhanging trees. RAW allowed me to recover details in both shadow and bright sun; this would not have been so successful in jpeg.

So, I was able to give the happy couple a very attractive (electronic) album within two or three days. They were delighted. It was particularly welcome since the professional photographer took over 6 weeks to supply the shots. As it turned out, the pro had adopted a very low-key look across the board. I could see what she was doing, and it was attractive, though not the way I shot/processed it. So in the end, the couple had two very different looks to their two wedding albums. Everyone was happy.

[SpecialK]

Shoot raw. Do not give away unedited sets. Do not let other people edit your work. You do not need to spend days on the shots but you do need to level the horizon, clone out the red solo cup on the table, and other niceties.

[reeftool]

I'll chime in with the others; shoot Raw! I shot 2 weddings this fall. The lighting conditions for both were horrendous and I needed all the room I could get in PP. Actually, just about every wedding I have ever done has had very difficult light.