RAW, JPEG, high resolution, black and white, vintage effects? Everything you need to know about the files you receive.
Post-production (or post processing, with a hyphen), also called development of digital images, is a delicate topic in our work. The bride and groom, perhaps those less knowledgeable about photography (particularly digital photography), could find themselves in situations ranging from confused, to dissatisfied, to enthusiastic, depending on how the photographer develops the photos they took, regardless of the beauty of the original shots. Let’s talk about wedding photo post-processing.
If, on one hand, it must be said that “post” is necessary in digital photography almost as much as development was in traditional film photography, we must be careful not to overdo it. Let’s see why…
The starting file: the “RAW” format
It’s the raw format of information captured by the camera. A sea of information! Much more than what’s contained in a Jpeg file (JPG), which is defined as a “closed” format, because it doesn’t allow the same freedom of development given by the large amount of information contained in RAW. A RAW file, in itself, is not an image, just as an old negative is not a print and cannot be viewed without having the proper tools. The RAW file must necessarily be developed (and transformed into a viewable image… for example a JPG or a TIFF). Opening a RAW file also requires a specific RAW converter. The RAW converter interprets the data captured by the camera and provides us with an initial image that, according to it, is a good visual representation of that data. But it’s a very raw and basic image.
If you don’t properly develop the RAW, the base image can appear dull, faded, with muted colors. This is because the converter will show us a version of the scene in the most neutral way possible. In what “direction” we want to develop our photo is a task (and a decision) that is up to us alone. This is why post-processing is necessary!
There are photographers who, however, don’t shoot in RAW, but directly in Jpeg: the JPG provided by the camera’s converter. An already closed file, normally good-looking, with good contrasts and colors if shot properly. It’s a solution that can work for those in a hurry (the file doesn’t need to be developed ad hoc) and for those who don’t have too many demands for control over the final appearance of the photo or the entire reportage. In general, I don’t have much respect for those who shoot directly in JPG, unless they’re a reporter or sports photographer who needs to send images in real-time to the news agency (and therefore doesn’t have the necessary time to develop the RAW).
The RAW file also attests to the “authorship” of a photograph. If you want to prove you’re the original author of a photo, having the RAW file can help a lot, since (except in rare cases) only whoever took the photo can have it. Why? Because all the images you see on the web, precisely because you see them, have already been developed, and therefore are mostly JPG or other image formats (PNG, GIF, TIFF…), but not RAW! Consequently, if someone steals an image from the web to reuse it dishonestly, they will necessarily steal a developed file, but never a RAW.
For this very reason, asking the photographer to give you the RAW files will hardly lead to a positive outcome, mostly for issues related to this matter of authorship and copyright. On the other hand, most clients don’t really know what to do with a RAW (development is a delicate matter that requires experience) and would probably also encounter some difficulty in trying to open and view it. In fact, to properly develop a RAW, you would need to have the color profile of the camera used by the photographer. Not just any of the same model, but their personal one, because every camera is different from another! Without it, the work that comes out, done even by any other professional, won’t be accurate. Just forget about it…
High and low resolution
Every image is made up of various pixels (dots). And every pixel has a color. The set of various colored pixels forms the digital image. As long as we’re talking about digital files, talking about resolution is slightly inappropriate. It would be better to say, however simplistic it may seem, large images and small images, where large images are made of many pixels and small ones of few pixels. This is because the concept of resolution is strictly linked to printing and the physical representation of an image (even if it were on a monitor), and indicates the quantity of pixels or dots (which translates to “details”) present in a given space, expressed in inches or centimeters. Having a large image, composed of many pixels, we can print, for example, a 20×30 cm with excellent detail, or we can print with acceptable detail on a much larger surface. For convenience and habit, therefore, the word resolution is associated with the dimensions, expressed in pixels, of the photo.
If we try to print in a large format a small digital image (or low resolution), we’ll see it with little detail, it will appear blurry and… ugly! It means a larger file is needed! The more detail we have, the larger we can print. So… always demand the largest possible photos or “in the highest resolution”.
Low resolution photos, meaning made of few pixels, can be fine (for a little while longer to be honest) as long as you view them on the computer, phone, home TV (unless it’s a 4K), and for all those situations where we need a light file, for example to make a selection from the many delivered, to send them via email to a friend or to share them on social networks. But “low resolution” photos are not suitable for printing!
Effects: vintage, sepia, lomo, desaturations, vignettes, HDR…
Sometimes we’re asked for post-productions that recall this or that effect. When it’s not about black and white, we’re mostly talking about those “effects” related to old films, low-cost photography, pastel tones that follow a very feminine and Franco-British low-contrast fashion, and so on. I don’t want to be markedly critical of this type of taste. It can be liked or not. Normally in photography everything that visually deviates from realism produces the effect of wonder, arousing appreciation. Especially in public domain photography it is, unfortunately, an indisputable truth. However, I would like to express some considerations that I believe should be taken into account when preparing to make this type of request to the photographer:
1. Once the file is developed, that’s what you keep!
Closing a JPG file is an irreversible operation. Are you really sure you want it, perhaps also printed in your album, with a fairly important, if not invasive, effect? Are you really sure it’s worth giving all this space to the current fashion or to what can be a fun exercise, perhaps more suited to sharing on social networks?
In case you really have a weakness for these types of post-production, consider the option of having the files delivered also in a version with a neutral post, which won’t suffer the weight of years in some time. In short, imagine reviewing your photos in 5, 10, 20, 30 years… An invasive or anyway marked post is like a too bright color for your car, your dress, your hair. Sooner or later it could bore you and you might regret it.
2. Often a photo to which many effects are applied is a photo that has little to say.
It’s not a rule, obviously, but I see many photographs that tell nothing and rely so much on this french/british aesthetic of soft and pastel tones, without blacks, without whites, washed out. Joking, with a friend I called them “laundress” tones. I like them too sometimes, they impress, yes, they’re soft and pleasant to the eye, but don’t be fooled by colors and effects in choosing your photographer. Look at the content, the substance, the captured moment… the emotion and not the nuances. Because asking for a post of this type, as you can see, there’s always time!
3. If you’re here, it’s probably not your case, but you never know… Avoid asking for:
-
Partial desaturations. Those things like “him in color, her in black and white”; “everything in black and white and the bouquet in color”; “only the red lips, the rest in black and white”. I won’t go further because I don’t have sick bags handy…
-
HDR. That type of effect that, if done badly (as in 99% of cases you see around), seems like looking at ugly copies of those paintings for sale on the street or in the little squares of historic villages, which I highly respect, but why imitate them?
Please, let’s get back to talking about photography!
Continue reading: Part Two ☛
