wedding photo dilemma- RAW a saving grace?

deechnz · Jul 17, 2013

Hi all,

firstly, sorry for just asking here as my first post. I have used the site for years to check camera reviews for myself. Now I have a potential problem and despite doing research on www I just can't get an answer to the question that I have.

I got married a few months ago and we hired a photographer. I asked him to shoot in JPEG and RAW modes. I also asked him to shoot in HIGH quality format- obviously it's our wedding and we organised a lot for it so we would be stupid to want anything else. I always shoot HIGH myself and each pic is ca. 5MB and about 4000 x 3000. From the wedding we would like to blow some pics up to A3 minimum (possibly more- we got married on a beach and it was very picturesque).

Anyway, the pics come back and they are 1MB file size and 2880 x 1920! I asked the photographer and he said that he used MEDIUM and that is what he always uses. He said that this size is sufficient for A3 size shots (although my recent www search tells me 3969 x 2806 is needed!). He said that if I want really high res shots, I can convert the corresponding RAWS, which he tells me are 3960 x 2400. I cannot view the file size of the RAWS as I'm not that advanced yet and the general RAW files that I have don't contain that information straight up. He tells me that once I convert the RAWs to viewable images, they will still retain 3960 x 2400.

OK, my questions:

1) is he correct in saying that MEDIUM, 2880 x 1920 is sufficient for good quality A3 pictures?

2) is it even possible for the JPEG file to be 2880 x 1920, and the corresponding RAW to be 3960 x 2400?

3) is he correct in saying that when the RAW is converted to JPEG, it will still retain 3960 x 2400, and not become 2800 x 1920?

4) if he is incorrect about all of this, i.e. the 2880 x 1920 JPEG doesn't produce good quality A3 pictures, and also the RAW is actually 2880 x 1920 (not 3960 x 2400)- will it be possible to still create an excellent quality A3 picture from the 2880 x 1920 RAW (since, from what I can see on the www, RAW provides opportunity for better quality shots)?

5) with the above specs in mind, how large could I reasonably expect to be able to make a photo in excellent quality (or maybe just really good quality!)

I have to say that this is something that really is pis.ing me off a lot, and the sort of thing that is going to continually stew in my head for years to come- I really hope that I hear on this forum that it will be possible to achieve excellent quality A3 shots (and possibly larger). My own hobby shots are larger than those we got from a paid photographer for our wedding! Stupid stuff.

Thanks in advance

AnthonyL · Jul 17, 2013

deechnz said:
deechnz wrote:

I got married a few months ago and we hired a photographer. I asked him to shoot in JPEG and RAW modes. I also asked him to shoot in HIGH quality format- obviously it's our wedding and we organised a lot for it so we would be stupid to want anything else.

Was this in writing?

deechnz said:
OK, my questions:

1) is he correct in saying that MEDIUM, 2880 x 1920 is sufficient for good quality A3 pictures?

Possibly/probably. It's just under 200 pixels/inch which for general scenes etc is likely to be quite sufficient unless you propose to sit their with a magnifying glass looking at every bit of detail. Why don't you ask him to print one which you will pay for if you are satisfied.

deechnz said:
2) is it even possible for the JPEG file to be 2880 x 1920, and the corresponding RAW to be 3960 x 2400?

Yes, some cameras allow the JPG size to be set to different to the full native resolution.

deechnz said:
3) is he correct in saying that when the RAW is converted to JPEG, it will still retain 3960 x 2400, and not become 2800 x 1920?

Yes if you choose not to downsize

deechnz said:
4) if he is incorrect about all of this, i.e. the 2880 x 1920 JPEG doesn't produce good quality A3 pictures, and also the RAW is actually 2880 x 1920 (not 3960 x 2400)- will it be possible to still create an excellent quality A3 picture from the 2880 x 1920 RAW (since, from what I can see on the www, RAW provides opportunity for better quality shots)?

RAW will have to be converted to something before printing. If the photographer knew what he was doing then he will have the right settings to produce good JPG's

deechnz said:
5) with the above specs in mind, how large could I reasonably expect to be able to make a photo in excellent quality (or maybe just really good quality!)

Depending on the nature of the photos you probably could go down to 150 pixels/inch, maybe even 100 pixels/inch which would give 28.8" x 19.2".

deechnz said:
I have to say that this is something that really is pis.ing me off a lot, and the sort of thing that is going to continually stew in my head for years to come- I really hope that I hear on this forum that it will be possible to achieve excellent quality A3 shots (and possibly larger). My own hobby shots are larger than those we got from a paid photographer for our wedding! Stupid stuff.

Not necessarily. Anyway if the RAW are available you've always got fall back. I've got some nice 10x8 prints from a 3megapixel camera.

Do you know what camera he used? There's lots more to photography than just megapixels and as said earlier, just ask for a sample to be printed before getting to het-up about it all.

Chris R-UK · Jul 17, 2013

deechnz said:
deechnz wrote:

Hi all,

firstly, sorry for just asking here as my first post. I have used the site for years to check camera reviews for myself. Now I have a potential problem and despite doing research on www I just can't get an answer to the question that I have.

I got married a few months ago and we hired a photographer. I asked him to shoot in JPEG and RAW modes. I also asked him to shoot in HIGH quality format- obviously it's our wedding and we organised a lot for it so we would be stupid to want anything else. I always shoot HIGH myself and each pic is ca. 5MB and about 4000 x 3000. From the wedding we would like to blow some pics up to A3 minimum (possibly more- we got married on a beach and it was very picturesque).

Anyway, the pics come back and they are 1MB file size and 2880 x 1920! I asked the photographer and he said that he used MEDIUM and that is what he always uses. He said that this size is sufficient for A3 size shots (although my recent www search tells me 3969 x 2806 is needed!). He said that if I want really high res shots, I can convert the corresponding RAWS, which he tells me are 3960 x 2400. I cannot view the file size of the RAWS as I'm not that advanced yet and the general RAW files that I have don't contain that information straight up. He tells me that once I convert the RAWs to viewable images, they will still retain 3960 x 2400.

OK, my questions:

1) is he correct in saying that MEDIUM, 2880 x 1920 is sufficient for good quality A3 pictures?

First of all, the aspect ratio of the image (ratio of the long side to the short side) is 1.5:1 (standard for just bout all DSLRS) whereas as A3 is 1.414:1. The image will therefore need to be cropped slightly to get to the A3 aspect ratio.

The general rules for prints is that you need a minimum resolution of 150 PPI (pixels per inch) and 300 PPI is the limit above which there is no noticeable improvement in quality. However, these numbers really depend on how sharp the image is in the first place, how much detail there is in the image and from how far away the image is viewed.

A 2880x1920 pixel file would give you an A3 resolution of about 164 PPI which is low. However, you may be able to get very good A3 prints from the file, especially if the shots are portraits which don't normally include a lot of detail. You may be able to print larger - I have seen an outstanding A1 print made from a 6MP image file.

deechnz said:
2) is it even possible for the JPEG file to be 2880 x 1920, and the corresponding RAW to be 3960 x 2400?

Yes and no. When shooting raw+JPEG it is possible to specify different sizes for each. However, 3960x2400 is an aspect ratio of 1.65:1 and I can't think of any camera with a sensor with that aspect ratio. He has probably just given you the wrong numbers. If not, ask him what camera he used.

deechnz said:
3) is he correct in saying that when the RAW is converted to JPEG, it will still retain 3960 x 2400, and not become 2800 x 1920?

Yes, there is no loss of resolution when converting to JPEGs. However, if he has done any post processing on the original JPEGs that will need to be redone for the raw files.

deechnz said:
4) if he is incorrect about all of this, i.e. the 2880 x 1920 JPEG doesn't produce good quality A3 pictures, and also the RAW is actually 2880 x 1920 (not 3960 x 2400)- will it be possible to still create an excellent quality A3 picture from the 2880 x 1920 RAW (since, from what I can see on the www, RAW provides opportunity for better quality shots)?

5) with the above specs in mind, how large could I reasonably expect to be able to make a photo in excellent quality (or maybe just really good quality!)

I have to say that this is something that really is pis.ing me off a lot, and the sort of thing that is going to continually stew in my head for years to come- I really hope that I hear on this forum that it will be possible to achieve excellent quality A3 shots (and possibly larger). My own hobby shots are larger than those we got from a paid photographer for our wedding! Stupid stuff.

Thanks in advance

A wedding photographer expects to get some of his fee by charging for any large size prints that you want that weren't in the original contract. If you are trying to get the prints done cheaply elsewhere then it is not unreasonable for him to object to this and, under the contract that he has with you, he probably isn't required to give you full resolution digital images.

I should read your contract and maybe you ask him to supply the A3 prints.

Glen Barrington · Jul 17, 2013

And if the photographer never even made a statement that he WOULD shoot in that mode, then you never should have assumed he would and kept on looking for a photographer.

Medium, in this case, is probably good enough. the suggestion of asking him to prove it is a good one, I think.

You can always negotiate with the guy until one of you gives up. Based on my experience as both a guy who both got married and hired a photographer, and who used to shoot weddings, this should not be the final arbiter in determining how well he has captured this important event.

If he has done a reasonably good job in capturing the event, you should count yourself lucky. There are a LOT of really bad wedding photographers out there. I was at a wedding 3-4 weeks ago where the photographer literally stood in one spot and took photos from a single postion, the only variation being the change in what appeared to be the standard kit zoom lens.

During the reception, she ate dinner, (paid for by the Bride & Groom) and never took any photos of the dinner, the guests, etc. I know this because she sat next to me. In our converstaion, I discoverd this was her first wedding EVER, and she mostly took baby photos. I suspect they are going to HATE their photos when they come back regardless of format

--
I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7267302@N03/

salla30 · Jul 17, 2013

Ask to have a copy of the RAWs on a CD or even just a sample of them.

Or do you have them already?

Windows 7 has a plugin you can download to view RAWs or you can even download a trial version of Lightroom or another Raw converter i guess? Windows 8 can display them without further software (at least they are displayed in windows picture viewer on my W8 laptop).

If you get stuck I am sure any of the good folk here can help analyse one of your raws if you PM them, me included.

Hope you solve the dilemma!

Cailean Gallimore · Jul 17, 2013

It should have been in the contract.

Not generalities, but particulars.

Jeff · Jul 17, 2013

deechnz said:
deechnz wrote:

Hi all,

firstly, sorry for just asking here as my first post. I have used the site for years to check camera reviews for myself. Now I have a potential problem and despite doing research on www I just can't get an answer to the question that I have.

I got married a few months ago and we hired a photographer. I asked him to shoot in JPEG and RAW modes. I also asked him to shoot in HIGH quality format- obviously it's our wedding and we organised a lot for it so we would be stupid to want anything else. I always shoot HIGH myself and each pic is ca. 5MB and about 4000 x 3000. From the wedding we would like to blow some pics up to A3 minimum (possibly more- we got married on a beach and it was very picturesque).

Anyway, the pics come back and they are 1MB file size and 2880 x 1920! I asked the photographer and he said that he used MEDIUM and that is what he always uses. He said that this size is sufficient for A3 size shots (although my recent www search tells me 3969 x 2806 is needed!). He said that if I want really high res shots, I can convert the corresponding RAWS, which he tells me are 3960 x 2400. I cannot view the file size of the RAWS as I'm not that advanced yet and the general RAW files that I have don't contain that information straight up. He tells me that once I convert the RAWs to viewable images, they will still retain 3960 x 2400.

OK, my questions:

1) is he correct in saying that MEDIUM, 2880 x 1920 is sufficient for good quality A3 pictures?

2) is it even possible for the JPEG file to be 2880 x 1920, and the corresponding RAW to be 3960 x 2400?

3) is he correct in saying that when the RAW is converted to JPEG, it will still retain 3960 x 2400, and not become 2800 x 1920?

4) if he is incorrect about all of this, i.e. the 2880 x 1920 JPEG doesn't produce good quality A3 pictures, and also the RAW is actually 2880 x 1920 (not 3960 x 2400)- will it be possible to still create an excellent quality A3 picture from the 2880 x 1920 RAW (since, from what I can see on the www, RAW provides opportunity for better quality shots)?

5) with the above specs in mind, how large could I reasonably expect to be able to make a photo in excellent quality (or maybe just really good quality!)

I have to say that this is something that really is pis.ing me off a lot, and the sort of thing that is going to continually stew in my head for years to come- I really hope that I hear on this forum that it will be possible to achieve excellent quality A3 shots (and possibly larger). My own hobby shots are larger than those we got from a paid photographer for our wedding! Stupid stuff.

Thanks in advance

I'm a little puzzled by some aspects of this. What exactly did you contract for the photographer to deliver to you? Did it include raw files?

Glen Barrington · Jul 17, 2013

Glen Barrington said:
Glen Barrington wrote:

And if the photographer never even made a statement that he WOULD shoot in that mode, then you never should have assumed he would and kept on looking for a photographer.

Medium, in this case, is probably good enough. the suggestion of asking him to prove it is a good one, I think.

Of course since you know it wasn't what you thought you were asking for, ANY imperfection that others would miss will stand out to you. The damage is done, now you need to come to some sort of settlement with the photographer and get past this. Easier to say than do!

Glen Barrington said:
You can always negotiate with the guy until one of you gives up. Based on my experience as both a guy who both got married and hired a photographer, and who used to shoot weddings, this should not be the final arbiter in determining how well he has captured this important event.

If he has done a reasonably good job in capturing the event, you should count yourself lucky. There are a LOT of really bad wedding photographers out there. I was at a wedding 3-4 weeks ago where the photographer literally stood in one spot and took photos from a single postion, the only variation being the change in what appeared to be the standard kit zoom lens.

During the reception, she ate dinner, (paid for by the Bride & Groom) and never took any photos of the dinner, the guests, etc. I know this because she sat next to me. In our converstaion, I discoverd this was her first wedding EVER, and she mostly took baby photos. I suspect they are going to HATE their photos when they come back regardless of format

--
I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7267302@N03/

Trevor G · Jul 17, 2013

deechnz said:
deechnz wrote:

He said that if I want really high res shots, I can convert the corresponding RAWS, which he tells me are 3960 x 2400. I cannot view the file size of the RAWS as I'm not that advanced yet and the general RAW files that I have don't contain that information straight up. He tells me that once I convert the RAWs to viewable images, they will still retain 3960 x 2400.

Sounds like you already have the RAWs. If so, then you have everything you need.

Generally RAWs expose at the maximum resolution of the camera, irrespective of what size or quality is set for JPEGs.

Looks like a 10MP camera, wonder what it was? You can see that by checking the file details, even in Windows, just by right clicking on a JPEG, selecting Properties, then Summary, then Advanced.

Processing RAW is super easy with the right software. I use Silkypix exclusively and really enjoy it. Other people hate it with a passion.

If you like, upload one RAW file or two to dropbox or somewhere similar, and I (or others) could show you what you could get.

--
Cheers ;-)
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

carl english · Jul 17, 2013

As said if you have raws then no problem with going to A3

deechnz · Jul 26, 2013

Thank you very much for everyone's help. I have had a really hard week so have just been in the head space to revisit this topic. Some really awesome replies which I will go through individually now.

Thanks again

deechnz · Jul 26, 2013

thanks for the great reply. Nothing was in writing and I have already paid him. I have copies of both the JPEG and RAW. The camera he used was Canon EOS 5D Mark III. I'm not going to try to get anything out of the photographer due to this- just trying to find out how dire the situation now is for me with what I have.

deechnz · Jul 26, 2013

Thanks- I don't need to ask him to supply the pics to me- I have all the JPEG and RAW files myself so will print as I choose. He used a Canon EOS 5D Mark III. I'm going to supply some RAW files to a member here that has offered and see just what the RAW files that I have are able to produce. BTW- here's a sample of the type of shot we are talking about

deechnz · Jul 26, 2013

Thanks. There's no negotiation needed. He's done, I've paid and have the files that I have (both JPEG and RAW). I'm really just trying to see how bad the damage is since it was our wedding and really an amazing day that I would have used HIGH quality for. BTW- he did an amazing job, some great shots, which is why I really would love for them to be in HIGH not MEDIUM. Here's another sample

deechnz · Jul 26, 2013

Yep, included both JPEG and RAW files. He maintains ownership to use as he sees fit, but I have all files both JPEG and RAW myself- some 2000 shots were taken!

deechnz · Jul 26, 2013

Trevor G said:
Trevor G wrote:

Trevor G said:

deechnz wrote:

He said that if I want really high res shots, I can convert the corresponding RAWS, which he tells me are 3960 x 2400. I cannot view the file size of the RAWS as I'm not that advanced yet and the general RAW files that I have don't contain that information straight up. He tells me that once I convert the RAWs to viewable images, they will still retain 3960 x 2400.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you already have the RAWs. If so, then you have everything you need.

Generally RAWs expose at the maximum resolution of the camera, irrespective of what size or quality is set for JPEGs.

Looks like a 10MP camera, wonder what it was? You can see that by checking the file details, even in Windows, just by right clicking on a JPEG, selecting Properties, then Summary, then Advanced.

Processing RAW is super easy with the right software. I use Silkypix exclusively and really enjoy it. Other people hate it with a passion.

If you like, upload one RAW file or two to dropbox or somewhere similar, and I (or others) could show you what you could get.

deechnz · Jul 26, 2013

Thanks very much. I do have the RAWS and I have asked Trevor G if he can analyse a few for me.

Cheers

Jeff · Jul 26, 2013

deechnz said:
deechnz wrote:

Yep, included both JPEG and RAW files. He maintains ownership to use as he sees fit, but I have all files both JPEG and RAW myself- some 2000 shots were taken!

The good news is that you've got 2000 raw images of your wedding. The bad news is that you've got 2000 raw images of your wedding.

If you're new to this (and judging for your questions, you are), you're going to find that post-processing 2000 images is a lot of work.

You'll want to think through your work flow before getting too far along. Do you have some sort of editing software to help with this?

Trevor G · Jul 26, 2013

deechnz said:
deechnz wrote:

Thanks. There's no negotiation needed. He's done, I've paid and have the files that I have (both JPEG and RAW). I'm really just trying to see how bad the damage is since it was our wedding and really an amazing day that I would have used HIGH quality for. BTW- he did an amazing job, some great shots, which is why I really would love for them to be in HIGH not MEDIUM. Here's another sample

I know that spot! ;-)

--
Cheers ;-)
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Trevor G · Jul 26, 2013

Jeff said:
Jeff wrote:

Jeff said:

deechnz wrote:

Yep, included both JPEG and RAW files. He maintains ownership to use as he sees fit, but I have all files both JPEG and RAW myself- some 2000 shots were taken!

Click to expand...

The good news is that you've got 2000 raw images of your wedding. The bad news is that you've got 2000 raw images of your wedding.

Not many people actually want or would use 2000 pics fronm a wedding.

It's not a big job to choose 20 good/best ones, and 200 great ones.

wedding photo dilemma- RAW a saving grace?

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts