Video University: Video University Forums: Digital Photography for Videographers: 14MB photographer

VideoUniversity.com
Home	Free Library	Store
Free Catalog Please support VU by making your B&H purchases and links through this B&H ad. Doesn't cost a penny more.

See The New VU Postcard Catalog

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.

Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members

Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index	Search Posts
Who's Online	Log In

Home: Video University Forums: Digital Photography for Videographers:
14MB photographer

szerangue
Veteran

May 5, 2007, 1:16 AM

Post #1 of 23 (1855 views)
Shortcut

14MB photographer	Can't Post

I just came in from this weeks wedding. The photographer (3 of them) very nice people was shooting photojournalist style. At one point during the ceremony I was in the back with all 3 photogs around me and all I could hear was camera motors and shutters,,, it was crazy.

Anyway I was talking the photographer and was inquiring about how he was shooting... he said he had a 14mb camera I think it was a Canon 2D, and he was shooting all raw images... at 14mb each!!! He had like 4 4gb cards that he would fill up, along with the other 3 photographers cards. 16gb of photos plus!!! That is insane.

Can you imagine that? That is crazy.
Miracle Pictures
"If it's a good picture, it's a Miracle!"

"Life Productions, coming out of the dark, into the light"
4EVER GROUP AFFILIATE

Jeko
Enthusiast

May 5, 2007, 8:18 AM

Post #2 of 23 (1843 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

I don't thinl a Canon 2D has been released yet. The file size sounds like 5D/raw.

As for the amount of data, why not? Flash cards are much larger, faster & cheaper now, S/W handles RAW files effortlessly now (and can thus save many images), and card upload is not difficult.... So why would you hesitate to get oodles of full-size images that are the building blocks of their albums??

I always tell my second video shooters that "tape is cheap, so roll when unsure". Yeah, you sort through some junk later, but you have it as an option, right? Well, camera pixels are much cheaper now.

Anyhow, with a second photographer package well come home with near 20-25GB of raw files (on 8GBs and 4GBs cards). These include multiple images of group shots (try to get one with all eyes open), and blind shots (I reach up and shoot down at action), experimental shots, poor artistry attempts... just not all winners. But the clients only see the best ones, and we get praise for them. And we get REFERALS out the wahoo now (no Beidal Shows needed when prospects are told they MUST use us by friends).

Jeko

Sony VX2100's, iRivers, M-audio 24/96, Canon 5Ds/20Ds (and too much glass), Vegas6, PhotoShop CS3, Lightroom, etc.

szerangue
Veteran

May 5, 2007, 1:42 PM

Post #3 of 23 (1824 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Jeko] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hey, I am not saying its a bad idea to take a lot of pictures.. I know cards are cheap and coming home with 2000 pictures in most cases is probably a good idea... it may take a few pictures of the entire group to get the one where everyone looks ok or is just right...

My issue here is the 14mb Raw files he is shooting... my question is.. why? I hardly think that any shot you will shoot will end up on a billboard somewhere in the city. His argument was that he can crop this monster size file down to just the bouquet if he wanted to... OK, I understand that, but why not just shoot 14 1mb shots of the bouquet in JPEG? or just shoot 5 shots of just the bouquet in JPEG. Why shoot in RAW? Other than the lattitude that you have to fix your mistakes.

A 1mb file can be printed on an 8x10 successfully and beautifully, so why shoot a 14mb file? Plus, when you get back in post and begin to edit, how long is it going to take you to upload 16gb of photos, plus the disk space you have to store 16gigs, plus the DVDs to save the 16gigs, plus the additional 16gig+ to store the edited files... your edit time per photo is going to be much higher than if you shoot 1mb or so files in JPEG format.

Every professional photographer I have ever talked to is shooting JPEGs. And I used to think that shooting RAW was the only way to go, but I think now, JPEG is a better and more economical option. You can shoot more shots without the need for more gigs, you can program your camera to create the proper data in the JPEG file to begin with, you can upload your JPEGs quicker with less storage space, you can still color correct your JPEGs, if needed, and you can still print just about any size photo your client wants. My suggestion if you get a client who wants a larger print, find out what shot she would want in that print and take larger file sizes for only those shots.. the rest are probably going to end up 4x6 or 5x7 or 8x10 in a album book or frame print.

I know that you guys have been photographing successfully now for a while and I understand that you have more experience than me and I am not trying to offend or come across as an experienced photographer. But I don't see anything wrong with this logic.
Miracle Pictures
"If it's a good picture, it's a Miracle!"

"Life Productions, coming out of the dark, into the light"
4EVER GROUP AFFILIATE

Jeko
Enthusiast

May 5, 2007, 3:26 PM

Post #4 of 23 (1814 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

I too once elected to shoot JPEGs only. At the time, I still think it was the right choice too. It was a business decision more than anything else... for many of the reasons you've identified. Excessive card space and slower processing were my two primary reasons for sacrificing the advantages of RAW. My point above was that those are no longer the case. CF cards are large and reasonably priced, and the computers/software can process large RAW files very well now. So, I shot my 5Ds in RAW, and the files are actually 16MB on average (I get approx 500 on an 8GB CF).

Now I'll try to describe the RAW adavantages: I know you have a sense for compression from video. Well, same thing in photos. When you want to reduce the data to only what is needed, you sacrifice what is perceived to be of no importance. Perhaps shades of black are dropped, or degrees of white because the eye will not distinguish between them at their current levels. Go further, and drop cetain colors that a specific color-space (aRGB or sRGB) won't include. This is what JPEG conversion is doing.
But, what if you later wanted to take the image and lighten it ALL up. The details that conversion dropped are forever lost in your JPEG, but not in the RAW file. Similar scenario for the darkening of over-exposed frames. And yes, white balancing shifts are truer if the colors out of your working color-space haven't been dropped. All these post-processing efforts to save/improve images respond much better coming from RAW files.
As for the timing/storage issues you've mentioned.... I upload all the cards when I get home, they run while I sleep (many at one time unlike video) for about 90 minutes I estimate. I review all images in lightroom all day Sunday, organize and delete (many) before I make my basic adjustments (exposure and white balance primarily). Once ready, the remaining 5-700 are converted to JPEGs (Sunday overnight). Thus, it is then the JPEGs (not he RAWs) that get backed-up and stored, and later used to album build from there.

RAW (which I just returned to using this 2007 season) has already saved a few key shots here and there, or improved my results a little bit here and there. I feel it simply makes my overall product a bit better, at no productivity loss and minimal investment in larger CF cards.

Jeko

Sony VX2100's, iRivers, M-audio 24/96, Canon 5Ds/20Ds (and too much glass), Vegas6, PhotoShop CS3, Lightroom, etc.

Postal Boy
Veteran

May 5, 2007, 11:09 PM

Post #5 of 23 (1790 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Jeko] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

Yea...what he said. Tongue

Except I shoot JPEGs at my daughters' soccer cames (two daughters) because I am using the 5 fps mode (machine gunning) because they are running around so much. My camera (30d) can only push images so fast to the card, and pushing an 8 mb raw file is not as fast as a 2-3mb jpg. I still get "large" files because I only have a 28-75 lense (not much reach on a soccer field - even a little kid's soccer field) so I have some room for zooming/cropping. Besides I shoot so many I need the room (machine-gunning is addictive, and the AI-Servo autofocus is great for soccer games and machine-gunning)

I guess there is a place for each kind of image.

-Postal

Brackish
Veteran

May 6, 2007, 4:20 AM

Post #6 of 23 (1781 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

My thought is that, until you get a lot of experience
under the belt, shooting RAW is supposed to give
you more leeway for recovery if you should
screw up the exposure on an important shot.

Now, I've heard that guys like Gary Fong only shoot
medium jpeg - but he's been shooting for years so
probably doesn't screw up the exposure much. Same
may be true about the photogs you talked to.

----------------------------------------------
"We'll always show up at the wedding with a gift bag for the bride. Inside we have these incredible fuzzy slippers in the teal of our branding."

RustyB
Veteran

May 6, 2007, 4:50 AM

Post #7 of 23 (1779 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

....machine-gunning is addictive, and the AI-Servo autofocus is great for soccer games and machine-gunning.... .....

I had one of those photogs at the wedding tonight. During the dancing, he would just walk in circles around the guests, holding the camera up in the air, blasting away 5fps non stop. I could see the value in that with a sports game, not for randomly aimed shots at a wedding. I'm surprised I didn't go into an epileptic fit from all the flashing. It wouldn't have been so bad, but then he wanted to show me all the terrible pictures he took. Laugh

All I could think was,"yep, that one sucks, that one sucks, that ones out of focus, that one sucks, that one is pitch black, that one sucks, that one sucks..........."

Then he said he'd be happy to send me a CD of the photos, and how they would look good in the video. Laugh

He says he may have as many as 2600 pics AFTER post-processing. Shocked

Jeez, this is why I have no desire to be a wedding photog. Just like editing video, I could see getting seriously burned out on crap like that. Then again, he's furnishing a huge new photo studio/wedding "boutique" on some prime real estate in town, and I feel guilty because I spent $2.50 on a frozen pizza tonight. Laugh

the People's Video Collective blog
wedding video and the means of production

(This post was edited by RustyB on May 6, 2007, 4:51 AM)

Brackish
Veteran

May 6, 2007, 5:08 AM

Post #8 of 23 (1774 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Then he said he'd be happy to send me a CD of the photos,

Just like how some here recommend that the videog should offer to send the photog a copy of the video. I'd be just as interested in looking at the photos as they would to be watching the video, would be my guess.

----------------------------------------------
"We'll always show up at the wedding with a gift bag for the bride. Inside we have these incredible fuzzy slippers in the teal of our branding."

RT Steele
Veteran

May 6, 2007, 1:49 PM

Post #9 of 23 (1753 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

Then he said he'd be happy to send me a CD of the photos, and how they would look good in the video.

I would actually like that if offered to me - just to see what they do. Most photogs around here are low-ballers like me and don't have websites. Also, 90% of them are still using film so I don't have to put up with that rapid fire crap. Even the last one I worked with was digital and between he and his wife I don't think they took more than 200 pics all day.

I really like these senior photographers. Nothing shakes them up, nothing upsets them. They just know what they want and get it in one or 2 shots.

- RT

RustyB
Veteran

May 6, 2007, 3:26 PM

Post #10 of 23 (1750 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RT Steele] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Then he said he'd be happy to send me a CD of the photos, and how they would look good in the video.

That's true...I should ask him for one just to see what an average "real" wedding looks like. Just like video, all I see are people's samples on their websites. And you don't normally post your "crap" on your website. Just like many videographers send out a "demo" to book a client, when in reality, that may not be exactly what you get.

That still cracks me up about people in your area shooting film. It is really a FREAK rare chance to see a film photographer, even with medium format, for me. I wouldn't think it would be an economic thing...digital is way cheaper than film, with the exception of getting into the habit of "keeping up with the jones" and constantly buying new digital bodies, versus film where a good body last forever.

I just found out my brother has my Dad's old Canon AE-1 packed away in storage....the first SLR I ever shot with, and is sending it to me. Cool

I remember what a big deal it was when he bought it, since it was a big investment for him. He and I went down to, I think, either "Best" or "Service Merchandise" to finally buy it after reading all sorts of magazines and catalogs. I can't wait to fire it up...it should still take better pictures than today's DSLR's. (Ironically, I think he got it because shooting home "movies" was such a PITA to edit and cost too much. Sounds familiar. Laugh

)

the People's Video Collective blog
wedding video and the means of production

RT Steele
Veteran

May 6, 2007, 5:15 PM

Post #11 of 23 (1746 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

That still cracks me up about people in your area shooting film. It is really a FREAK rare chance to see a film photographer, even with medium format, for me.

I think here, it's because digital requires another learning curve they don't care to get into - that being a PC and the internet Laugh

. Only a few of them even have a website and they never maintain them themselves.

I asked one of these guys once if he would ever make the switch to digital and he said if any of his clients ever needed that, he could just scan the pics. Sly

And these 35mm photogs I'm talking about are really old dudes. (even by my standards). Nice enough people but by 7pm they're sucking for air, clutching their chests in agony and pestering the DJ to, "get on with the god-damned bouquet toss!" so they can go home. Laugh

- RT

Brackish
Veteran

Jun 25, 2007, 6:07 AM

Post #12 of 23 (1552 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

It wouldn't have been so bad, but then he wanted to show me all the terrible pictures he took. Laugh

All I could think was,"yep, that one sucks, that one sucks, that ones out of focus, that one sucks, that one is pitch black, that one sucks, that one sucks..........."

I was reading on a photog forum recently and thought of this post of yours. What happened is a writer and photog were supposed to show up to do some story. The writer showed up but for some reason the assigned photog didn't show. The writer came across a guy with a cam nearby - a top-of-the-line Canon 1d-something with a bag full of L pro glass. The writer struck up a conversation with the cam-guy and the guy agreed to shoot the event in place of the photog who didn't show up. At the end of the shoot the cam-guy handed over the images and was bragging to the writer about how great they turned out. The writer looked at them later and said they were far from great. He said some were either pitch black or all blown out from the flash. Just makes you wonder about peoples' different standards.

----------------------------------------------
"We'll always show up at the wedding with a gift bag for the bride. Inside we have these incredible fuzzy slippers in the teal of our branding."

AbracadabraTV
User

Jun 25, 2007, 11:37 AM

Post #13 of 23 (1532 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

Rusty...You really articulate my sentiments regarding wedding photography and videography on the whole. I would join in this discussion but I think you are hitting all the points dead on. Actually, we're deciding if $200 per hour is better spent on a shrink or on a wedding buisness expert to coach me on how to enjoy the wedding profession.LOL.
I continue to say that shooting corporate work even with their staff lawyers to please has never been as difficult as dealing with a bride. Fortunately we have never actually had a bad experience with either, but the unpredicatblility of a bride terrifies me (so do pit bulls). BTW...what about a 25MB Hasselblad or the Red Cinema camera for shooting a wedding...would that finally be good enough?
Keep up the great writing Rusty!
Best, Craig

Brackish
Veteran

Jun 25, 2007, 11:54 AM

Post #14 of 23 (1529 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

That still cracks me up about people in your area shooting film. It is really a FREAK rare chance to see a film photographer, even with medium format, for me. I wouldn't think it would be an economic thing...digital is way cheaper than film,

I run into a fair number of film shooters - or they're shooting a mix of digital and film. Still, though, I think all-film is the minority. One guy I talked to who recently switched to digital told me that, while it's cheaper out-of-pocket than film, he ends up spending a lot more time in post (at the PC) than with film. With film, he would just have the pro lab take care of all the color correction.

----------------------------------------------
"We'll always show up at the wedding with a gift bag for the bride. Inside we have these incredible fuzzy slippers in the teal of our branding."

StillMotion
User

Jun 25, 2007, 11:24 PM

Post #15 of 23 (1507 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Every professional photographer I have ever talked to is shooting JPEGs. And I used to think that shooting RAW was the only way to go, but I think now, JPEG is a better and more economical option.

I would question wht 'professionals' your talking to. I think it would be hard to find a photographer that charges $3k and up, really knows what they are doing, and doesn't shoot raw. For us, it has nothing to do with the size of the file or the size of te print, it is simply because raw retains more data so you can pull in the highlights if needed and the image itself looks better than a JPG. Post production is also much quicker when shooting in raw. The file size of the 5D files are a hassle, but we have never considered not shooting raw as there are so many advantages for us. On the other hand, Nikon cams have a compressed raw option with much smaller files- and I wish Canon (the 5D) offered that.

RustyB
Veteran

Jun 26, 2007, 12:49 AM

Post #16 of 23 (1504 views)
Shortcut

Re: [StillMotion] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Every professional photographer I have ever talked to is shooting JPEGs. And I used to think that shooting RAW was the only way to go, but I think now, JPEG is a better and more economical option.

I think you'd also get varying opinions about RAW vs. JPG from someone who's been a professional wedding/portrait/school/event photographer for 26 years with a studio and standard pricing, and someone who's been shooting weddings and pictures of their dog for 4 years...charges 3X more than the average photog for heavily PhotoShop'd wedding "photo journalism"....maintains a blog....spends more time talking about photography than actually shooting...has a closet full of the latest photo gadgets...and shoots WITH the intention of cropping and color correcting every single image they shoot.

Sometimes I like to get the old-school photog's opinions on it when I'm at weddings. But now, even the old-schoolers don't use film for weddings...not even medium format...around here. They're few and far between. And I've yet to meet any wedding photogs that were shooting in RAW...at least the ones I asked...young and old. Maybe they're just ignorant, and not spending enough time on the internet reading forums. Tongue

the People's Video Collective blog
wedding video and the means of production

Brackish
Veteran

Jun 26, 2007, 2:29 AM

Post #17 of 23 (1489 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

I know of a top slim pro who shoots only jpeg. I'm a bit
hesitant to mention the name, though, because some here are
so ... sensitive. Do you think it would be okay
to say?

----------------------------------------------
"We'll always show up at the wedding with a gift bag for the bride. Inside we have these incredible fuzzy slippers in the teal of our branding."

RustyB
Veteran

Jun 26, 2007, 2:47 AM

Post #18 of 23 (1487 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Brackish] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

I know of a top slim pro who shoots only jpeg. I'm a bit
hesitant to mention the name, though, because some here are
so ... sensitive. Do you think it would be okay
to say?

Wow, he must be really xtreme to only shoot JPG!

the People's Video Collective blog
wedding video and the means of production

Brackish
Veteran

Jun 26, 2007, 4:25 AM

Post #19 of 23 (1479 views)
Shortcut

Re: [RustyB] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Wow, he must be really xtreme to only shoot JPG!

Well, Rusty, I guess it would depend on what you'd
consider "xtreme". If yer talkin' about a pro
who's never shot a RAW image in their entire
life ... well ... this pro would fit the bill!

----------------------------------------------
"We'll always show up at the wedding with a gift bag for the bride. Inside we have these incredible fuzzy slippers in the teal of our branding."

Postal Boy
Veteran

Jun 26, 2007, 9:13 AM

Post #20 of 23 (1467 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Brackish] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

I bet they use a really fast f1.2 lense, though, which would help with the JPG only files...

RustyB
Veteran

Jun 26, 2007, 1:26 PM

Post #21 of 23 (1448 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal Boy] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

I bet they use a really fast f1.2 lense, though, which would help with the JPG only files...

Wow, I bet that's a nice piece of glass...if only someone made some sort of purse to carry it around in?

the People's Video Collective blog
wedding video and the means of production

DGates
Veteran

Jun 26, 2007, 6:12 PM

Post #22 of 23 (1430 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

The photographer I worked with this weekend always does a nice montage at the reception. But at this wedding, he forgot to select 'raw+jpeg' during the first half of the day, so he was shooting straight raw. Consequently, didn't have time to do the montage because raw files take too long to load and convert.

Brackish
Veteran

Jun 28, 2007, 4:42 AM

Post #23 of 23 (1357 views)
Shortcut

Re: [StillMotion] 14MB photographer [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Every professional photographer I have ever talked to is shooting JPEGs.

I would question what 'professionals' your talking to. I think it would be hard to find a photographer that charges $3k and up ...

"i've never shot a RAW image in my life"

----------------------------------------------
"We'll always show up at the wedding with a gift bag for the bride. Inside we have these incredible fuzzy slippers in the teal of our branding."