DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Low light Wedding?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 34 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/12/2006 10:41:52 PM · #26
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Judi:

I find that the write time for RAW on the 5D is fast. I do a lot of continous action shooting in RAW. The writing time is complete by the time I take my eye from the eyepiece to look at the preview. That is how quick it is. I know that we are talking about the Canon Rebel here but I thought I would add this information for people who are looking to upgrade and love to shoot RAW.


The write time isn't BAD with the 300D on 40x cards, but I rarely chimp shots. (35mm upbringing) So, at weddings I'm ALWAYS in the viewfinder. You have to be ready for every shot that comes your way.


Oh Judi you're making me jealous!!! I want your camera! ;)

I have found quite often I am waiting for the camera to complete saving fairly often on my 300D during weddings. You have to be aware of it otherwise you'll miss the important shots. The more you do weddings, the more you'll understand when those important moments are about to occur!
 03/12/2006 10:42:11 PM · #27
Originally posted by Makka:
I shot a wedding on Friday and I easily took over 800 shots in RAW. Normally I would shoot about 500 but there were 20 members in the bridal party alone. It easily adds up once you start shooting individual shots of them all.

I used about 5gigs worth of memory for all those photos. I just enjoy having the freedom of adjustments to the RAW files once I have taken them, especially if I'm shooting inside a church. As mentioned, Rawshooter Essentials is free and it's damn good. Find it here!


I shot almost 900 pictures on Friday and I was absent a 'second shooter' for this wedding.

I agree with you on prefering the freedom of adjusting RAW files after the fact. Especially at weddings where, as people move around, the lighting can change *so* much. If I were shootin jpeg, I'd either have to continually remember to adjust my WB, or just live with the widely different lighting from one shot to the next. And with RSP (the upgrade from RSE, which I like a lot as well) it really doesn't take very much time to process the raw files.
03/12/2006 10:43:06 PM · #28
I honestly don't know what the buffer performance is on the 300D first-hand, but I did shoot RAW extensively with the 10D, which I don't think was really any faster. Though it was no speed demon, unless I was shooting long bursts, I really never had to worry about a full buffer. Shooting styles vary, but I really don't know many wedding photogs that shoot so quickly that buffer performance is a major consideration.
 03/12/2006 10:47:19 PM · #29
IF WB is close, you are essentially working with the same info you'd be working with with traditional 35mm film. Digital photographers are IMO anal about WB, again coming from my 35mm upbringing.

The problems introduced by RAW for shooting high-volume shoots such as weddings far outweigh the benefits. Slight maladjustments in WB, for example, can be easily adjusted in Photoshop with minimal loss in quality.
 03/12/2006 10:54:18 PM · #30
Okay, so now you have opinions on both side of the RAW equation... so here's my middle ground suggestion:

Shoot the portraits in raw, because you want them to be as perfect as they can be, and you have plenty of time to shoot.

Shoot the rest of the wedding in jpeg where you have to worry about the slow write times.

FWIW, I have both the 300D and the 20D and find the 20D to be *much* faster at writing raw files, and for this reason am a little more likely to shoot jpegs with the 300D even though I shoot almost nothing but raw with the 20D.

03/12/2006 11:02:11 PM · #31
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
IF WB is close, you are essentially working with the same info you'd be working with with traditional 35mm film. Digital photographers are IMO anal about WB, again coming from my 35mm upbringing.

The problems introduced by RAW for shooting high-volume shoots such as weddings far outweigh the benefits. Slight maladjustments in WB, for example, can be easily adjusted in Photoshop with minimal loss in quality.


This thread should not (IMO) become a debate as to the merits of RAW vs JPEG. Surely both JPEG and RAW are viable ways to shoot, and as I earlier posted, it's unwise to embark on a RAW workflow on a paid shoot without having done some significant prep work.
To state that "problems" with a RAW workflow outweigh benefits is unsupportable, however. A RAW workflow can be every bit as fast and convenient as a JPEG workflow. For instance, a WB adjustment need be made only once to a series of shots taken in the same lighting. WB changes are als much more intuitive during RAW conversion. Exposure compensation is a breeze, as is correction of minor defects like lateral CA and vignetting. The result, after RAW conversion, is MUCH closer to a final product than the starting JPEG file, and the edits will therefore be less time-consuming. All in all, I don't see a significant time penalty in a RAW workflow.
 03/12/2006 11:06:23 PM · #32
So much to take in...as if I didn't have enough to be nervous about. Thanks for ALL the info on RAW and memory (camera and computer). 3GB? Really? Hmm...may be tough to gather that up by the wedding, but I will work on it. I also have some time before then to practice some RAW shooting. I do like the idea of less post processing...could be my 35mm roots as fotoman_forever has said! I don't find it very difficult to correct WB with JPEG, but you have all given me something to try with shooting RAW. Just to see if I see a difference in my own work.

I will have a second shooter working with me. She shoots with a 20D and has a few more lens options than what I have, but is always looking for the practice. I just reviewed her website updates a few minutes ago...wondering why I am the first photographer on this upcoming wedding!!

End Studios
 03/12/2006 11:07:41 PM · #33
Originally posted by kirbic:

This thread should not (IMO) become a debate as to the merits of RAW vs JPEG. Surely both JPEG and RAW are viable ways to shoot, and as I earlier posted, it's unwise to embark on a RAW workflow on a paid shoot without having done some significant prep work.
To state that "problems" with a RAW workflow outweigh benefits is unsupportable, however. A RAW workflow can be every bit as fast and convenient as a JPEG workflow. For instance, a WB adjustment need be made only once to a series of shots taken in the same lighting. WB changes are als much more intuitive during RAW conversion. Exposure compensation is a breeze, as is correction of minor defects like lateral CA and vignetting. The result, after RAW conversion, is MUCH closer to a final product than the starting JPEG file, and the edits will therefore be less time-consuming. All in all, I don't see a significant time penalty in a RAW workflow.


Didn't mean to start a debate... :-( Just stating what I'd do from my expereince with weddings and the 300D. FWIW, I RARELY shoot digital at weddings.
 03/12/2006 11:15:51 PM · #34
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
[quote=kirbic]
FWIW, I RARELY shoot digital at weddings.


Why? I will certainly have my Elan II in tote. Strange, I was sooo intimidated about changing to a digital SLR a year ago, now, I am intimidated to go back!!!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 06:33:40 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 06:33:40 AM EDT.