Should I use RAW or JPEG for wedding photography?

Question

I am about to shoot in a wedding ceremony and would like to know, Should I shoot in RAW or JPEG?

I asked a photographer (outside the US) and he said converting RAW into JPG changes color (or something like that) so they always shoot in JPG. I won't buy it unless someone convinces me here. I see the convenience of shooting in JPG: no conversion, smaller size — and, adjust lighting and the photo is ready.

I have a Nikon D5100 and a 16 GB card, so I can take plenty of RAW pics. My RAW file size is +22MB vs JPEG is 1.3-4 MB.

Is RAW always required or is RAW for some times and JPG is fine too?

I know there are related question but this question is related to wedding photography only. Thanks. Let me clarify. I think in Pakistan photographers never shoot in RAW.

Answer

JPEG offers two advantages (other than how many images you can fit on a card) that may be extremely significant under the right circumstances: the speed of workflow after the shoot (assuming you've gotten things right in camera) and the speed at which you can shoot.

RAW files take a lot longer to write to the card than JPEGs do (and RAW+JPEG takes longer still), so in the genres of photography where you need to take a lot of pictures quickly, a given camera will almost always perform better when shooting JPEGs. That is important to sports and wedding photographers as well as to photojournalists. The absolute last thing you want is to have your shutter release locked or delayed because your camera's buffer is full. And it doesn't matter whether that means getting the 9-10 FPS of a high-end speed demon like the Nikon D3s or the Canon EOS 1D Mk. IV or squeezing 3-4 FPS out of an older or entry-to-mid-level camera, having to wait for the buffer to write out to the card may mean missing the only shot that counts.

And while JPEGs limit you in what you can do in post-processing, they also limit what you have to do in post-processing. That difference in turn-around time can make a big difference to the amount of work you are able to take on, especially when you're working at the lower-priced, more cut-throat end of the industry. It may take (on average) a thirtieth of a second to take a picture, but it takes a lot longer than that to review, cull, and refine them afterwards. Even an extra ten seconds per picture (or series) can mean giving up another shooting day, so the financial advantages to shooting RAW and getting it right in-camera are very real at that level. Most of the better cameras will let you set custom picture settings (more than one) so that your "signature look" can happen primarily in the camera.

Of course, if you get it wrong in-camera shooting JPEGs, you can't hide your mistakes nearly as easily or as well. So you need to balance the business risks of missing the shot, taking too long in post and having the ultimate control in post. A best-case compromise might be to shoot the formals (the ones that you can take some time over, and that have to be absolutely perfect) in RAW and the spontaneous action in JPEG. But it is a business decision, not a photographic one.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the real-world differences between Canon, Sigma and other third-party 70-200 f/2.8 lenses?

Question

I'm getting started with wedding photography, and was looking for a fast telephoto zoom to compliment my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (on a Canon 500D/T1i).

After extensive online research, the 70-200 f/2.8 came out as the clear winner.

The problem is, there are a number of variants available from different manufacturers and I'm finding it difficult to pick the best one for my use. The options are:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM ($2100)

This is undoubtedly the big daddy and a clear winner with amazing quality and performance. However it is also very expensive which is why I'm looking for equivalent lenses from third party manufacturers.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO HSM OS ($1300)

This is a fairly new lens but has some really good reviews. More importantly, it has 3-stop stabilization and is much cheaper than the stabilized Canon.

---

Update: Based on the comments, I have narrowed it down to the two contenders above featuring Image Stabilization. While the non-IS Canon below is an excellent lens, it seems to be less useful when handholding is required in low light conditions.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM ($1200)

This is another amazing L series glass and is available at a much lower price but it lacks Image Stabilization.

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD ($700)

The cheapest one of the lot, This one is said to have good optical quality, but lacks stabilization and supposedly has autofocus issues.

---

Based on these available choices, I have a few related questions.

• Given that most of my photos will be indoor or at night, how important is stabilization in such a lens?
• If stabilization is indeed a must have, how much better is the stabilized Canon from the Sigma? And is the price difference justified?

Note: I eventually plan to get a full frame body, possibly the Canon 5D Mark II

Answer

Comparing the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM against the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD you will find that the Canon excels in almost every aspect, and the price reflects that.

Sharpness

The Sigma lens provides a very compelling option on a crop sensor camera. It performs well when stopped down to f/4.0 and beyond. The issue is that in wedding photography especially, shooting at f/2.8 or wider is almost always a requirement, especially with the high ISO performance of most crop sensor cameras today. You can shoot a wedding with a f/4.0 lens, especially with IS, but you will find a lower amount of keeper shots, and you will have to really stretch to get some of the images worthy of a wedding album.

On full frame, the lens falls apart at the edges of the aperture and focal length range. Below you will find the full frame comparisons on the Canon 5D Mk II, a camera body that is very much the bread and butter camera body for wedding and portrait photographers. The results at f/2.8 are not very good at all, at either 70mm or 200mm. You will have to stop down to f/5.6 to get excellent results, and f/5.6 in my opinion is not going to be an option for most indoor available light shots.

On a crop sensor camera(7D):

• Comparison of the corner sharpness at 70mm and f/2.8
• Comparison of the corner sharpness at 200mm and f/2.8
• Light fall-off at 200mm at f/2.8

On a full frame camera(5D Mk II):

• Comparison of the corner sharpness at 70mm and f/2.8
• Comparison of the corner sharpness at 200mm and f/2.8
• Light fall-off at 70mm and f/2.8
• Sharpness at 70mm and f/4.0

Bokeh

I am not very happy with the bokeh of the Sigma lens. It gives an almost smeared effect to the bokeh, and I think you will find the same. This page has a comparison of the bokeh on full frame as compared to the Canon lens. Bokeh is very important to wedding photography and portrait images. The fact that you are already using a crop sensor camera, means that you will achieve less bokeh at the same focal lengths and apertures. Less bokeh, and less pleasing bokeh and not really a great combination. You surely will have to supplement this lens with a wider aperture lens such as a f/1.4 to get the amount of bokeh that most professional wedding photographers are achieving commonly. The amount of bokeh is not a disadvantage to the Sigma over the Canon, it should be very similar on both on the same body, but the quality of the bokeh is the concern here. Of note, is that the less then optimal bokeh is more apparent at longer focal lengths.

Other Considerations

The image stabilization is one of the main reasons why one would consider the Sigma lens. As far as its performance as compared to the Canon lens, at least one account considers the Sigma to provide about 3 stops of IS, while many accounts I have read give Canon the full benefit of the 4 stops that they list in the specs. Another user here on Stack exchange in this answer also thinks that the IS is about a stop less in the Sigma implementation as compared to the Canon. Three stops of IS is not a bad thing, and in real world use the difference between the two is not very important.

The Canon lens offers full weather sealing, and the Sigma does not. Weather sealing is a huge deal when you are a wedding photographer. Your current camera body does not offer weather sealing, but this should be a consideration. Do you plan on having an assistant with you whenever the weather turns foul as to protect you and your gear so you can continue shooting? I have had to shoot wedding shots in the rain on many occasions and having gear that is not weather sealed really complicates the situation.

The Canon lens offers better maximum magnifcication and a better minimum focusing distance. The Sigma's minimum focus distance is 1.4m, and the maximum magnification is only 0.13x, compared to Canons 1.2m and .21x. The Canon is not going to be considered a macro lens by any account, but it is better in a pinch. Paired with an extension tube the Canon can achieve .36x which is quite nice if you don't have a macro lens in your bag.

Conclusion

Overall, either lens is generally considered a great lens overall. The Canon provides weather sealing, an added stop of IS, better macro capabilities, more pleasing bokeh, a larger focusing ring, and a focus limiter switch. The Canon also excels in corner sharpness, * especially* on a full frame camera body, and especially at f/4.0 and larger. This in my opinion is the biggest reason that the Canon is better fit for professional wedding photography.

The Sigma is a great value, especially at its current price as compared to its price at introduction. If wedding photography was taken out of the equation, I would almost fully endorse this lens, with the caution around the weather sealing. The fact is, that wedding photography requires in many cases the best equipment, to shoot in very demanding low light situations or wet environments with moving subjects, who will then require images to be printed on canvases and on display at home. With that said, I would either recommend for you the Mark I version of the Canon lens, or the non-IS f/2.8 version.

Check more discussion of this question.

Will a prime lens help me get better portraits at a wedding?

Question

I have a Canon 600D with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I have a friend's wedding coming soon, and I'm not sure if my zoom lens will do a good job or not. I was thinking of buying a prime lens so I can get better portraits, but I'm not sure if this is true.

The wedding will be in a hall with different light situations (sometimes it's bright, sometimes it's dark, and they'll use laser lighting a lot), there is a garden associated with the hall, and the wedding will be at night. I'm not the official photographer for the event.

Answer

Prime lenses are excellent options for portrait work, especially at wedding venues. Prime lenses are less forgiving when it comes to varied situations and framing. Instead of moving the zoom ring, you have to move your feet. If you are the main photographer for an event, no one is going to mind you moving around to get the shot. If you are an audience member attending the wedding as a guest, it may be considered rude to get move around so much for a shot.

Typically indoor weddings have poor lighting, at both the ceremony and reception events. Because of that, fast lenses of at least f/2.8 are usually the standard. You could fill your gear bag with zoom lenses at f/2.8, and shoot weddings very well, but it would likely be less expensive to purchase a few f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2.0 lenses that are wider yet.

Another benefit of prime lenses is that typically they are smaller and lighter then a professional grade zoom lens.

For portraits specifically, a wider aperture will provide you with a more blurred background, referred to as bokeh. It also will let you stop action such as a moving bride or groom, and allow you to use a lower ISO setting if you are worried about noise.

Overall, prime lenses are a great option for wedding photography, because they are particularly good at portrait work, especially in low light.

To get started these questions may help you with your first purchase:

• Is it worth it to have the 50mm f/1.8 Canon lens?
• Is a 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 a good lens for portraits in low light?

Check more discussion of this question.

Suggestions for photographers / videographers to best work together at the same event?

Question

I want to get a wedding photographer's perspective on videography. It seems like there can exist a natural tension between the two, as they are both under pressure from the bride to shoot the same once-in-a-lifetime experience and the presence of another person vying for the same camera angles can complicate matters. Specifically, how do you as a wedding photographer interact with and share the same space with a videographer?

Also, what advice do you have for photographers and videographers to make the best of working together and maybe even cooperating to helping each other out?

Answer

I work as a professional photographer AND as a professional videographer. I have worked with other photographers and other videographers on a shoot. There is more than enough space at a wedding for everyone to get the good angles if you have a shooting plan and discuss it before the event. Decide who will be where at which moment and stick to the plan.

What photographers don't get is that for video you need to maintain good framing and smooth movements the whole time you are recording. It is therefore much more difficult to move around. When I shoot photography it is the simplest thing in the world to move and shoot. I can crouch under the video camera or shoot around it without having to worry about my movement affecting the shot. We can EASILY stand next to each other in the aisle to get the ring shots etc.

ultimately, the client doesn't care about the technical difficulties. She has hired 2 people to do a job for her. No vendor is more important than another. We are all equally responsible for providing the best possible product to the person that hired us. This means you need to have the inter-personal skills to negotiate the shooting plan so EVERYBODY wins and the client gets what they paid for. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar... and do you really think a bride is going to enjoy working with a pompous ass who thinks he is running the show? Do you think the bridesmaids will hire that guy for their wedding? Do you think the other vendors will recommend them to future clients?

Check more discussion of this question.