Should a professional event photographer shoot RAW if exposure and white balance are already dialed in?
Asked 5/6/2013
3 views
2 answers
0
I hired a photographer for an event, and he says he shoots JPEG because he already has the lighting, white balance, and exposure figured out. If those settings are correct, are there still good reasons for a professional to shoot RAW? Iām wondering whether RAW offers meaningful advantages for event work, or whether JPEG is reasonable when the goal is to deliver finished images efficiently.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source Ā· Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
7
RAW certainly gives a lot more after-the-fact flexibility. But, it's generally true that if the exposure is correct and white balance set to match the lighting, that flexibility is less important. If you're happy with the processing options the camera gives (and, especially for higher-level cameras, such options are extensive), RAW isn't really a necessity.
Were I doing professional shoots, I'd want to use RAW in order to give myself a little more of a safety net. But, on the other hand, were I hiring a professional to do a shoot for me and the agreement was for finished images, I would relax and trust her or him to do the job.
If you want the RAW images yourself, or would like the photographer to do extensive and careful processing of the images after the fact, you should negotiate for that, or find a photographer who will offer what you want ā but be prepared to pay extra for the effort of extra processing or for the loss of creative control in giving you the RAW files.
Originally by user1943. Source Ā· Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1943
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community ā verify before relying on it.
YesāRAW still has advantages even when lighting is controlled, but JPEG can be completely reasonable depending on the job.
RAW mainly gives more post-processing flexibility: it provides a safety net if exposure or white balance are slightly off, preserves more dynamic range, and allows better control over sharpening, noise reduction, and other processing in external software instead of relying only on the cameraās JPEG processing.
That said, if the photographer is working in a controlled setup and delivering finished images quicklyāespecially for on-site printing or fast turnaroundāJPEG may be the practical choice. In that kind of workflow, shooting RAW can slow delivery without much benefit if the files are already being nailed in-camera.
So the real answer is: RAW is useful as insurance and for maximum editing latitude, but it is not mandatory for every professional job. If youāre happy with the photographerās delivered results, JPEG alone is not automatically a red flag. If you want the RAW files or expect extensive post-processing, that should be discussed and agreed on in advance.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Should you shoot RAW or JPEG for wedding photography?
Why do wedding and event photographers usually deliver only edited photos, not all unedited files?
Why are photographers often reluctant to deliver RAW files to clients?
Why is white balance adjustment more accurate with RAW than with JPEG?
Can I use wedding photos I shot as a substitute photographer in my own portfolio?