Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-17-2009, 02:08 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,450
Original Poster
Thanks for the replies. I'm surprised it's all raw, but there ya go! And not as many shots as I anticipated, you guys can't be trying hard enough!

10-18-2009, 09:50 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 642
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I shoot everything in DNG format.
Me too! When you can't re-shoot it, don't take the chance; raw allows the greatest flexibility in post processing.
10-18-2009, 10:05 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 851
RAW - DNG for me

99% of all pictures I take at a wedding would be fine captured as JPG - but it seems that at every wedding I blow the exposure on ONE shot that I want to save. Its a strange coincidence that it seems to always be just one picture and that it seems to be at every event... but having 8GB worth of pictures in RAW instead of 400MB of pictures in jpg is worth it just for the ability to save that ONE picture.
11-02-2009, 09:49 PM   #19
Veteran Member
MJB DIGITAL's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: st. louis
Posts: 1,170
RAW DNG here too.

If I don't shoot weddings, I don't get to pay rent. So I want to do a perfect job. The truth is, I can confidently shoot JPG and will do it if I have a memory pinch...

But think of it like this:
I'm running Adobe Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 2.4 for processing. That is a TON more processing power than any camera has. When you shoot JPG in the camera, the truth is you are still shooting RAW, but the camera applies the settings (saturation, sharpness and contrast) and converts it to JPG for you. I would rather keep the digital negative (RAW) and process it myself. When I shoot, I am thinking about what the conversion process is going to be. I know that if I'm shooting in a green green park, the camera will probably add magenta in the whitebalance...and I don't want that (because of skin tones).

Shoot RAW if you are going to shoot weddings. It takes a lot of balls to shoot JPG.

Just think of the time you see a fantastic shot happening, and your flash is still recharging from the last shot, so you have to shoot natural light in low light conditions. You are going to have an underexposed shot......that is not a situation where you want to be shooting JPG. RAW will give you the insurance you need to pull the exposure up.

Mitch.

11-08-2009, 07:33 PM   #20
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by opfor Quote
RAW.

Usually I would say that for simple weddings I have gotten away with 200-400 total shots, depending on the light and general conditions, to get at least 100 usable. Usually 20 to 30 in a formal album and about 50 in an informal one. Depends on what the B&G want.
Back in the days of film, it would have been about 2-4 rolls of 24/36 exp to get 50 usable. Digital gives you the freedom to try things you wouldn't do with film, because you wouldn't risk using up film on something you can now try to save in PP if it goes a little wrong.
My preference has always been smaller weddings as the stress level is usually lower and there tend to be fewer problems.
That's what has worked for me, your results may vary...
When I shot weddings with film I'd go through at least 8 rolls usually 10 of 36 in 2 cameras. With just me shooting.

Mitch I've got another photog who only shoots jpeg. When I went over for her to shoot our pregnancy shots she had no idea about raw and how to process.
11-08-2009, 11:34 PM   #21
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
Thanks for the replies. I'm surprised it's all raw, but there ya go! And not as many shots as I anticipated, you guys can't be trying hard enough!
Shooting lots and shooting good are not the same thing. Something to remember, and it is hard for us sometimes, is that we are merely one part, and probably the least important part, of the wedding.
At some point, as shooters, we can step over the line, and go from recording the day to being part of the day. When we do this, we are no longer doing our jobs.
Every time we click the shutter, we are risking overstepping our bounds. We aren't there to shoot everything that moves, we are there so that in the future, the people involved will have a keepsake of the day, something that will trigger a fond memory.
If we've done it right, perhaps we can bring a tear to an eye or a smile to a face sometime down the road.
If we've done it wrong, then they remember us, and not the important stuff.
They don't remember the smile on the bride's face as a ring is slipped onto her finger, they remember the fat ass in cheap corduroy that kept blocking the view.
I read on mail lists and camera forums of photographers who shoot several thousand exposures during a wedding and I cringe. Why are they subjecting their customers to this? It's not what they signed up for. They didn't sign up for a three ring circus and a trained seal wearing a bad suit.
Weddings aren't about photographers and pictures, no matter what we think.
11-09-2009, 12:48 AM   #22
Senior Member
opfor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 276
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Shooting lots and shooting good are not the same thing. Weddings aren't about photographers and pictures, no matter what we think.
x2
You're not there to stamp you feet when you don't get your own way, you're there to make the bride happy about spending all that money. Remember that half of all marriages end badly. Chances are that all your hard work will get binned in a couple of years anyway...

11-09-2009, 01:00 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 851
QuoteOriginally posted by MJB DIGITAL Quote
RAW DNG here too.



Just think of the time you see a fantastic shot happening, and your flash is still recharging from the last shot, so you have to shoot natural light in low light conditions. You are going to have an underexposed shot......that is not a situation where you want to be shooting JPG. RAW will give you the insurance you need to pull the exposure up.

Mitch.
Here's an example. She REALLY wanted shots with the city as the backdrop (which we got) but the lights hadn't recharged for this shot. I pushed the raw file 1.3 stops to get this image which I think turned out really cool

11-10-2009, 07:12 PM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 199
I noticed that the default RAW setting on my K20d is PEF. I'm about to shoot my first wedding by myself and to add to the discussion, I'm wondering what are the differences between RAW PEF and RAW DNG? Thanks.
11-10-2009, 08:22 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,482
QuoteOriginally posted by MidwestMax Quote
I noticed that the default RAW setting on my K20d is PEF. I'm about to shoot my first wedding by myself and to add to the discussion, I'm wondering what are the differences between RAW PEF and RAW DNG? Thanks.

There are three differences, two technical ones and a third that's simply a practical difference.

First, PEF files (at least on the K10D and K20D) are compressed, while DNG files are not. So the PEF files are smaller on the storage disk. The difference in size is significant enough that I personally shoot PEF always, simply so I can squeeze more photos on the disk.

Second - and this is actually related to the first difference - because the DNG files are not compressed, they do write to the card faster. So if you want to get the maximum shot speed while shooting raw, shoot DNG.

Third, some raw processing programs will support one format but not the other. Bibble Pro supports "open raw," which means it doesn't like DNG. Most other programs prefer DNG to PEF. I use Adobe Lightroom. I shoot PEF in the camera, and convert to DNG after importing into Lightroom. When I convert to DNG, the files get compressed and become even smaller than they were originally as compressed PEFs. So I get the best of everything.

Will
11-11-2009, 07:52 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 199
Will, thanks for the explanation. Considering that RAW PEF files are already pretty large, I think I'm going to stick with those over DNGs.
11-11-2009, 09:12 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,482
QuoteOriginally posted by MidwestMax Quote
Will, thanks for the explanation. Considering that RAW PEF files are already pretty large, I think I'm going to stick with those over DNGs.
Well, here's my process.

Since I do not need the highest frames-per-second rate possible, I don't care that the camera can write DNG files faster. But I do care that the PEF files are smaller on the SD card (because, as I said, they are compressed). So in the camera, I shoot PEF. It's been a while since I checked these numbers but if I recall correctly the PEF files are a good 20% smaller than the in-camera DNG files. That's not insignificant.

Then after I copy the PEFs to my computer and import them into Lightroom, I convert them to DNG inside Lightroom. That makes them even smaller.

If I had any hope of ever using Bibble (which alas, I don't) I would keep the PEFs. The other programs I use or am interested in (Lightroom, Photoshop Elements, Lightzone, SilkyPix and others) all read DNG files.

*

By the way, I think that another problem with shooting DNG in the camera is that you can't easily compress the DNG files later. Somebody please correct me if I'm mistaken here, but I am pretty sure that, a long time ago when I did some testing here, I found that if the files appeared on my hard disk as uncompressed DNGs, there was no way I could compress them. This is a BIG DEAL. I just did a test here. I took a photo in DNG. It's about 23 MB. The same photo as a PEF would be about 14 MB. The same photo as a compressed DNG would be about 12 MB. But Lightroom 3 beta won't convert a non-compressed DNG to a compressed DNG - it only seems to know how to convert non-DNG raw files (like PEF) to DNG. Adobe's Raw Converter might be able to do it - I can't remember and don't have it installed right now.

Will
11-11-2009, 09:32 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,643
Raw for me as well. I average around 550 - 650 depending on the way the day is laid out. But I'd say 20% of those are intentional throw away shots. If I'm doing a bridal party posed shot, I'll take 5-6 shots to make sure all the eyes are open etc. So out of 6 shots, there's only going to be one used.

I agree with Wheatfield on who's the most important and work hard to be an out of the way observer. I also never worry about the shot count and have fired as many as 800-900 per wedding depending on what I wanted to get that day. Like maybe we have a cool location and want to try several different things if there is the time. Who cares if you take 100 shots there. As long as you're serving the B&G's wishes and not your own. It's all good.

Nice Hi Key looking shot kunik.

I hate to be an a$$ MidwestMax, but if you are asking what the difference between PEF and DNG is, are you really ready for this? How many weddings have you done as a second shooter or as a trainee?
11-11-2009, 09:49 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,207
Heh, on DPR a lot of people say they shoot JPEG (don't think it was in the pro-forum, though), I was a little confused (it was a Pentax vs other brands argument)

For sports, I'd prefer RAW to get the lighting right especially when the sun is going down or if its indoor, but the K-x's buffer is a bit too small in RAW. Generally the JPEGs seem to hold out okay in my experience.

Thankfully DNG's are compressed now on the K-x

Last edited by Eruditass; 11-11-2009 at 10:09 AM.
11-11-2009, 10:04 AM   #30
Forum Member
Kcjacoby's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 50
I would say not shooting in raw is crazy in a wedding situation. The lighting has to be right, and if its not... RAW saves you time and time again!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, jpeg, photography, wedding
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Contest Attention Bicycling Photogs... Tamia Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 4 10-18-2010 10:47 AM
More photogs are terrorists BS propaganda casil403 General Talk 14 09-23-2010 11:54 PM
Wedding & Portrait Photogs - I Need Your Help edolyne Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 01-06-2010 01:02 PM
Machinery Kawasaki ZRX, flash photogs 5 pics cb750r Post Your Photos! 5 11-14-2009 09:50 PM
Calling all insect photogs...HELP! w6wat Post Your Photos! 7 04-14-2008 04:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top