Destruction by jpeg

[mrinmoyvk]

If this is your work flow, I suspect that you are not getting the best results out of raw and are working under the premise that raw is going to get you better results all the time.

If you are shooting the same subjects under the same conditions, I would have no issues at all with your workflow. That being said, these conditions happen so rarely that I suspect this is not what is happening in for you. Examples of this type of "ideal" conditions would be shooting portraits in a studio; your lighting and subject material will be consistent from shot to shot.

If you are a real world photographer, then this is not what you are doing and the shooting parameters, lighting (quality, quantity and direction), exposure, subject matter will change from shot to shot. This means the tweaks required to the raw data will also vary from shot to shot.

When I shoot raw (and frankly I do so more often than I need to), I will manually adjust a lot of parameters, from lighting, to lens correction, to white balance, contrast, sharpness, etc. If I have a series of images shot under near identical conditions, then small batch processing will work fine. Frankly, I can't say I've ever done more than 40 or 50 shots under similar enough conditions to use this process.

Normally, my individual raw shots are hand tuned, especially for contrast, white balance and sharpness, while many of the other parameters could be automated. The jpegs coming out of the camera, especially for the run of the mill shots are often as good as I would get out of a raw file.

So, please continue to shoot and process the way you are, but I'm willing to bet your end results are likely suboptimal and may not meet the quality expected out of a SOOC jpeg.

My only intention of shooting raw is to have that extreme control while editing in photoshop. As I generally enjoy shooting portraits, I am at engagements and weddings as secondary photographer (will be covering an angagement in 2nd week of July as the primary photographer) with very less or no control over lighting except for my pop up flash (Nissin DI 866 M2 to be delivered in 10 days) and that videographer frequently switching on and off his tungsten light every now and then is a add-on to ruin my shots (I feel difficult to change WB before clicking the picture and manual WB is something I have never figured out till now). Only time when I shoot JPEG is when I am on a picnic with family or friends because I dont have to circulate those images with an intention to be appraised.
Do you suggest to get the best SOOC JPEG rather than a normal RAW and then make it best by PP?

[xpatUSA]

My purpose when I write these is to be understandable to the non-technical readers, rather than the engineers or programmers that are members.

For instance a binary value of 127 is 100000000100110111111111 (mid-point of 8-bit channel)
whereas 2048 is 100000000100110111111111100000000000100000000000 (mid-point of 12-bit channel). Half of the data is gone in going from one to the other.

Sorry, Manfred, I must also split a hair or two here. It is true that 127 is the mid-point of an 8-bit channel - representing as it does the upper value of the 128 counts from 0-127 (a zero-based count). By the same token, that makes the mid-point of a 12-bit channel 2047, not 2048.

I do, however, admire your patience in trying to type 2048 in binary! I almost don't have the heart to tell you that you can't string binary numbers together like that. I expect you were fooled by the classic photographic obfuscation of calling three channels of 8-bit data "24-bit" (horrible!).

127 = 0000000001111111 (word format)
2048 = 0000100000000000
2047 = 0000011111111111

Of course, it would be from hard to impossible to distinguish 128 from 127 on an average monitor or print, so it's all a bit moot, eh?

More seriously, I seem to recall from somewhere (Doug Kerr?) that mid-gray is not 127 and neither is it 128. It is 118, if memory serves. A hint in that direction is offered by the Macbeth card mid-gray patch with values of RGB = 122, 122, 121 (sRGB) - or by CIELAB, where L* = 50 converts to RGB = 119, 119, 119, again sRGB.

The raw file is never saved and remains as either a 12-bit or 14-bit data string

This is not true of all cameras (if you are referring to the image data array in a raw file, e.g. X3F, NEF, CR2, etc). Some cameras do scaling and offsetting in-camera before writing to the card. On the Sigma SD14, channel values of over 7,000 or so are quite common in specular highlight raw data, even though the ADCs are 12-bit. I've read too that some Canons add 1,000 to the raw values for some reason.

Did you mean that the ADC output data in the camera's temporary buffer is never saved?

In my cameras, four MSB's (most significant bits) are added in-camera so that the data is saved in 'word' format (16-bit). Some of those bits are indeed used during processing by the camera firmware (they are not just zeros).

[Manfred M]

My only intention of shooting raw is to have that extreme control while editing in photoshop. As I generally enjoy shooting portraits, I am at engagements and weddings as secondary photographer (will be covering an angagement in 2nd week of July as the primary photographer) with very less or no control over lighting except for my pop up flash (Nissin DI 866 M2 to be delivered in 10 days) and that videographer frequently switching on and off his tungsten light every now and then is a add-on to ruin my shots (I feel difficult to change WB before clicking the picture and manual WB is something I have never figured out till now). Only time when I shoot JPEG is when I am on a picnic with family or friends because I dont have to circulate those images with an intention to be appraised.
Do you suggest to get the best SOOC JPEG rather than a normal RAW and then make it best by PP?

What I a suggesting is that all the wedding photographers I know (and I know about 6 quite well) shot their weddings primarily in jpegs, although one does shoot jpeg + raw.

Their reasoning is simple; a wedding photographer makes money by shooting and producing output that is acceptable to their client with the least amount of work. They DO NOT get paid any extra for spending hours behind the computer. One of them told me that he spends less than 30 seconds on a image after the shoot; and that includes download, creating albums, cropping, etc.

So if you plan to be a successful wedding photographer your images should be good enough straight out of camera, if you want to be competitive.

The one that shoots jpeg + raw told me he uses raw for large prints only. His view is for the amount of money that he sells an A3 sized print for, he will spend around 10 minutes on it cleaning it up before he sends it out to be printed.

If a videographer is adding additional light to a scene, then neither raw nor jpeg is going to help you as you will be shooting in a mixed light situtation.

[Manfred M]

Sorry, Manfred, I must split a hair here. It is true that 127 is the mid-point of an 8-bit channel representing as it does the upper value of the 128 counts from 0-127 (a zero-based count). By the same token, that makes the mid-point of a 12-bit channel 2047, not 2048. I do, however, admire your patience in typing 2048 in binary!

Of course, it will be from hard to impossible to distinguish 128 from 127 on an average monitor or print, so it's all a bit moot, eh?

More seriously, I seem to recall from somewhere (Doug Kerr?) that mid-gray is not 127 nor is it 128. It is 118, if memory serves. A hint in that direction is offered by the Macbeth card with values of RGB = 122, 122, 121 (sRGB) - or by CIELAB, where L* = 50 converts to RGB = 119, 119, 119, again sRGB.



This is not true of all cameras (if you are referring to the image data array in a raw file, e.g. X3F, NEF, CR2, etc). Some cameras do scaling and offsetting in-camera before writing to the card.

Did you mean that the ADC output data in the camera's temporary buffer is never saved?

On my cameras, four MSB's (most significant bits) are added so that the data is saved in 'word' format (16-bit).

Yes, you are right on the math and I wouldn't expect any these from you Ted....

As for the actual value of neutral gray, I have read all kinds of different opinions, and frankly for the most part there is a lot of hair splitting going on. For my own work, I don't really need to know the exact value, so long as I can properly colour balance my shot, which to me means my sample point must have:

1. Three identical values for R, G and B;

2. Should be far enough away from white that I know that I am not looking at a sample point that has one of more blown out channels. I find that values of 210, 210, 210 and lower are probably good enough.;

3. Should be far enough from black to ensure that no channel has clipped at the bottom end. Here I try to find values of 45, 45, 45 and higher.

As for cameras that do the "manipulation" of the raw data, there are all kinds of ways of accomplishing this. Lossy compression of the RAW data is one way that this is done (my D8000 has this features) and other cameras do embed "corrective" data in the raw output (so far as I know, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus do this), so you are right, if we want to start splitting hairs.

[mrinmoyvk]

What I a suggesting is that all the wedding photographers I know (and I know about 6 quite well) shot their weddings primarily in jpegs, although one does shoot jpeg + raw.

Their reasoning is simple; a wedding photographer makes money by shooting and producing output that is acceptable to their client with the least amount of work. They DO NOT get paid any extra for spending hours behind the computer. One of them told me that he spends less than 30 seconds on a image after the shoot; and that includes download, creating albums, cropping, etc.

So if you plan to be a successful wedding photographer your images should be good enough straight out of camera, if you want to be competitive.

The one that shoots jpeg + raw told me he uses raw for large prints only. His view is for the amount of money that he sells an A3 sized print for, he will spend around 10 minutes on it cleaning it up before he sends it out to be printed.

If a videographer is adding additional light to a scene, then neither raw nor jpeg is going to help you as you will be shooting in a mixed light situtation.

Did they start with JPEG in intial phase or once they were perfect they switched to JPEG?
I also play safe always. Who knows what could go wrong at a given point of time? It is not possible to get the shot re done in weddings or engagements. I prefer continuing with RAW untill I get my JPEG best SOOC.
And you never know when "Photoshop Tutorials" uploads a new video about PP in photoshop. If I like it, I might reedit my images. Better to have max control while editing.
Also It looks like their intention is to get paid with least amount of effort, mine is not so. I want to get paid but I enjoy spending hours to edit the images. Sometimes, I just pickup my old images and edit those to create something different which I dont want to share or print as well.

[Manfred M]

Did they start with JPEG in intial phase

I did ask and the answer was yes from all of them.

Of the six I know, four followed the same stream. Formal education at either a university or community college education (degree or diploma in photography). From there they spent a number of years in the business; two started out at newspapers, one was a military photographer for decades and the fourth spent a number of years as an assistant photographer for the largest portrait / wedding studio in the city. They did not start out on their own until they had many years of photographic experience.

The other two (who are now a husband and wife team) were very proficient amateur photographers who worked part-time as wedding photographers (working for established wedding photographers) for several years before branching out on their own. Both had strong business backgrounds before moving into the photography business.

All six are independent business people whose business happens to be photography. They are very good at what they do and understand that the client doesn't care if the images come from raw or jpeg files; the final product is all that matters. Their clients have hired them to produce high quality wedding photographs. These clients do not pay extra to have images that have taken hours to produce in the "digital darkroom". They have all told me that the most important thing is to have a consistent look and feel from shot to shot.

Also It looks like their intention is to get paid with least amount of effort

Not at all; they are looking at getting out the best product they can so they can meet and exceed their client's expectations. One of these expectations is to have the final finished product in their clients hands within a week of the wedding; that way they get paid and can pay their bills, etc.

All have confirmed to me that the actual photography part of their work is around 20%; the rest of the time is spent on running a business.

[DanK]

All six are independent business people whose business happens to be photography. They are very good at what they do and understand that the client doesn't care if the images come from raw or jpeg files; the final product is all that matters. Their clients have hired them to produce high quality wedding photographs. These clients do not pay extra to have images that have taken hours to produce in the "digital darkroom". They have all told me that the most important thing is to have a consistent look and feel from shot to shot.

>>>Also it looks like their intention is to get paid with the least amount of effort

Not at all; they are looking at getting out the best product they can so they can meet and exceed their client's expectations. One of these expectations is to have the final finished product in their clients hands within a week of the wedding; that way they get paid and can pay their bills, etc.

All have confirmed to me that the actual photography part of their work is around 20%; the rest of the time is spent on running a business.

A couple of reactions. Most important, you have explained why their preference for shooting jpeg is irrelevant to me, and I suspect to a number of others on this site. I'll just speak for myself. I am not doing 80% business and 20% photography when I shoot; I am just doing photography. The people hanging my prints on their walls are never in a rush to get them. And I never have anywhere nearly that much in a shoot. If I shoot 150 shots in a shoot, that's a large amount for me, and in most cases, if I end up with a few that I really like, I am happy. So, for them, there is a big payoff for accepting the loss of control that shooting jpeg sometimes entails. For me, and I suspect for some others here, there is essentially no payoff at all.

All of which leads me back to where I was: the choice depends on what you do. If you gain a lot and lose only a little by shooting jpeg, then that's the right decision. If you gain little, then...

[george013]

Some interesting links from Niels van Niekerk.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jp...ion/#more-8537

Pay attention what he says about the Nikon and Canon converters.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/so-i-shot...ormat-now-what

George

[xpatUSA]

As for cameras that do the "manipulation" of the raw data, there are all kinds of ways of accomplishing this. Lossy compression of the RAW data is one way that this is done (my D8000 has this features) and other cameras do embed "corrective" data in the raw output (so far as I know, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus do this), so you are right, if we want to start splitting hairs.

Indeed, Manfred, but some cameras' raw file data bear little resemblance to the "classic" 12 or 14-bit ADC ranges. So I was really pointing out that one size does not fit all.

For example, if I naively started rejecting my Sigma SD14 images with raw tones in excess of the magic 4095, I would be throwing away 1 EV's worth of data because the Sigma SD14 raw data can be well over 8,000 without blown channels.

OTOH, Sigma DP1s images with raw tones anywhere near 4095 would be blown to smithereens because the raw data saturates around the 2,300 mark.

Sigma . . a law unto themselves . . .

[xpatUSA]

Some interesting links from Niels van Niekerk.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jp...ion/#more-8537

Pay attention what he says about the Nikon and Canon converters.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/so-i-shot...ormat-now-what

George

Thanks for the links, George. I habitually shoot raw. My first DSLRs only shot raw (no JPEG option and the embedded JPEGs were 1/4 size). The manufacturer's first attempt at adding JPEGs in-camera was a horrible disaster. That was the Sigma SD14. Later models came with their own nasty quirks and baggage, so I'm still shooting the SD14 . . . and still only in raw

[Manfred M]

A couple of reactions. Most important, you have explained why their preference for shooting jpeg is irrelevant to me, and I suspect to a number of others on this site. I'll just speak for myself. I am not doing 80% business and 20% photography when I shoot; I am just doing photography. The people hanging my prints on their walls are never in a rush to get them. And I never have anywhere nearly that much in a shoot. If I shoot 150 shots in a shoot, that's a large amount for me, and in most cases, if I end up with a few that I really like, I am happy. So, for them, there is a big payoff for accepting the loss of control that shooting jpeg sometimes entails. For me, and I suspect for some others here, there is essentially no payoff at all.

All of which leads me back to where I was: the choice depends on what you do. If you gain a lot and lose only a little by shooting jpeg, then that's the right decision. If you gain little, then...

I agree completely Dan. In general, whatever works for you. The issue I've always had is the people that take the route of one size fits all; in my experience it does not.

My comments were totally aimed at someone who is looking at getting into the wedding business and again, the North American "standard" for wedding photographers seems to be to shoot jpegs. The example Gordon showed me (he and his wife shoot a wedding together or work as single shooters if they have two weddings on the same day) said if they shoot 1000 images each (which may be a bit on the low side for a pre-wedding, wedding and reception), that totals 2000 images. Assume that one devotes 30 seconds to each image (reviewing, edit, PP, packaging for print / disk, etc, reviewing prints before sending off to the client, etc), that works out to 1000 minutes of work; or just under 17 hours (two full working days). They shoot 2 - 3 weddings a week; so if you do the math; they simply cannot afford to spend the extra time working individual raw files.

The other comment (from a different wedding portrait photographer) is that in order to get the most out of raw data, you can do small batches of images shot under the same conditions, but if you do like some photographers and shoot raw, but use the same PP settings, you may as well shoot jpeg.

So if you spend all your time shooting and processing, you haven't got time to set up the next job, build the business and you are out of business before you know it.

[Manfred M]

Some interesting links from Niels van Niekerk.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/raw-vs-jp...ion/#more-8537

Pay attention what he says about the Nikon and Canon converters.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/so-i-shot...ormat-now-what

George

Both of these articles are just over 4 years old, George. I would suggest that referencing anything this dated should be questioned. I'm not saying that it is not relevant today; but frankly technology has come a long way. I would argue that the ACR raw converter at the time this article was written was terrible and I never used it for critical skin tone work, whereas View NX2 / Capture NX2 did a very good job.

A year later, Adobe got its act together in around 2012 and re-wrote the RAW processing engine and the results are as good as what I was getting from ViewNX2 (but not quite as good, at least in the lens correction side with DxO Optics Pro). Nikon totally dropped the ball when Nik (who wrote the Nikon raw converters) was bought out by Google. I haven't tried the most recent Nikon software, because I'm happy with the software I am using now.

[george013]

Both of these articles are just over 4 years old, George. I would suggest that referencing anything this dated should be questioned. I'm not saying that it is not relevant today; but frankly technology has come a long way. I would argue that the ACR raw converter at the time this article was written was terrible and I never used it for critical skin tone work, whereas View NX2 / Capture NX2 did a very good job.

A year later, Adobe got its act together in around 2012 and re-wrote the RAW processing engine and the results are as good as what I was getting from ViewNX2 (but not quite as good, at least in the lens correction side with DxO Optics Pro). Nikon totally dropped the ball when Nik (who wrote the Nikon raw converters) was bought out by Google. I haven't tried the most recent Nikon software, because I'm happy with the software I am using now.

Those articles don't discuss the quality of the converters. The discuss the different approaches of RAW and JPG in general. It are not real articles but thoughts of him, thinking loud.
What I mean with paying attention to the Nikon and Canon converters is the statament that those converters are using the camera settings of there RAW-files. Which Adobe still doesn't. The allways coming back discussions why a NEF, in my example, looks different from the JPG when created in Adobe or any other converter.

What about the new Nikon converter I don't know. I'm happy I found the key of the old one when I bought a new computer.

George

[Manfred M]

Those articles don't discuss the quality of the converters. The discuss the different approaches of RAW and JPG in general. It are not real articles but thoughts of him, thinking loud.
What I mean with paying attention to the Nikon and Canon converters is the statament that those converters are using the camera settings of there RAW-files. Which Adobe still doesn't. The allways coming back discussions why a NEF, in my example, looks different from the JPG when created in Adobe or any other converter.

What about the new Nikon converter I don't know. I'm happy I found the key of the old one when I bought a new computer.

George

George - I can find you other photographers who will muse differently. I listen the the musings and then try to understand the context I make up my own mind. A lot of the time I've determined that they are going on their own experience and do not understand many of the underlying principles and are sometimes wrong (from a technical standpoint) when they try to explain how a particular part of the photographic process works. I've read some of Neil's books and while I agree with a lot of what he is writing, some of it runs counter to my experience (and with my equipment).

As I've said before, I know 6 commercial photographers fairly well. Four of them followed a traditional path and studied photography at university or community college; so the emphasis was more from an "arts" side than a science side (i.e. they were taught how to do things withoug understanding the underlying math / physics / chemistry). The other two; one has a business degree and the sixth one has a degree in physics. I'll give you one guess who understands the technical side of photography best...

[george013]

George - I can find you other photographers who will muse differently. I listen the the musings and then try to understand the context I make up my own mind. A lot of the time I've determined that they are going on their own experience and do not understand many of the underlying principles and are sometimes wrong (from a technical standpoint) when they try to explain how a particular part of the photographic process works. I've read some of Neil's books and while I agree with a lot of what he is writing, some of it runs counter to my experience (and with my equipment).

As I've said before, I know 6 commercial photographers fairly well. Four of them followed a traditional path and studied photography at university or community college; so the emphasis was more from an "arts" side than a science side (i.e. they were taught how to do things withoug understanding the underlying math / physics / chemistry). The other two; one has a business degree and the sixth one has a degree in physics. I'll give you one guess who understands the technical side of photography best...

This is the essence of the first article.

There is NO photographer on this planet who is good enough to get every aspect of the image quality correct during the moment of capture, for every situation they are likely to encounter.

This implies that you will have to do some kind of adjustment on your selected images in post-processing. And then you might as well use the file format that gives you the most latitude and control for your initial edit and adjustment … RAW.

There're 2 main disadvantages on JPG when it's not the endresult. It's 8-bit, RAW is 12 or 14 bit, and it's compressed.

Your photographers have probably developed a standardized setup. They know what to shoot and they probably know what NOT to shoot. For me it's guessing.



George

[Manfred M]

For me it's guessing.

You have just identified the issue.

I have been shooting digital since around 2002 with point & shoot and superzoom cameras. I bought my first camera that could shoot raw in 2010. I have been using Photoshop since 2003 (I bought Photoshop CS just after it was released), so for the first 7 years of working with Photoshop I only had jpegs to work with. So I learned all about the limitations of jpegs by actually working with jpegs, rather than the theoretical talk about compression, 8-bit versus 12-bit / 14-bit.

That is why I can say with some reasonable level of confidence one can get a good image out of an edited jpeg.

Is it the best approach? No, not necessarily and I fully admit that if one wants to push things, there is a lot more data available for manipulation in a raw file. That's why I shoot jpeg + raw; to give me the latitude when I need it. On the other hand, can I get a great result out of a properly exposed jpeg; of course one can, and in my experience, I can have it done a lot more efficiently than when I hand-tune a raw file.

In fact, from what I have seen, a beginning or intermediate level photographer will often get a better looking image shooting jpeg and going with raw, because he or she can make more mistakes in dealing with a raw file.

My car analogy holds here too. I don't drive a Ferrari or Rolls Royce, which by most measures are probably better than the car I do drive. I don't necessarily need the "best" car; I need the one that works for me. Same argument should (and can) be applied to the jpeg versus raw argument. And that is experience, rather than theory speaking here.

[MrB]

More good sense from Manfred.

Modern cameras have very capable software (firmware) and many available, and customisable, shooting and processing adjustments, which make it eminently possible to get close to the desired output in JPEG format. That can then be fine-tuned in photo software with no perceptible loss in quality. It often makes me wonder - how many of those who go on and on about shooting raw, with the implication that anyone who shoots JPEG cannot be a serious photographer, have actually investigated the capabilities of their cameras and/or how a high quality JPEG is amenable to modification.

But to each his own.

Cheers.
Philip

[xpatUSA]

This evening, from my camera, I shot a raw file and then I shot a JPEG file in FINE quality. I then saved the raw file as a JPEG, best quality (12).

Then I compared the two JPEGs using ExifToolGUI. Both saves had used the Y'CbCr space for compression. However, the OOC save was compressed as 4:2:2 but the save from raw, not surprisingly, was compressed as 4:4:4. 4:4:4 beats 4:2:2 any day of the week, as follows:

4:4:4 (1:1)means that no chroma sub-sampling is used, so your color chroma components CbCr are saved at full res. and will be decoded back to you in their original glowing colors

4:2:2 means that your vertical and horizontal color components are saved at half-res and are interpolated back to full res. during decoding (a double whammy for Bayer shooters).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

So, if you had further editing to do on either of these two files, which would you prefer?

[mrinmoyvk]

I agree completely Dan. In general, whatever works for you. The issue I've always had is the people that take the route of one size fits all; in my experience it does not.

My comments were totally aimed at someone who is looking at getting into the wedding business and again, the North American "standard" for wedding photographers seems to be to shoot jpegs. The example Gordon showed me (he and his wife shoot a wedding together or work as single shooters if they have two weddings on the same day) said if they shoot 1000 images each (which may be a bit on the low side for a pre-wedding, wedding and reception), that totals 2000 images. Assume that one devotes 30 seconds to each image (reviewing, edit, PP, packaging for print / disk, etc, reviewing prints before sending off to the client, etc), that works out to 1000 minutes of work; or just under 17 hours (two full working days). They shoot 2 - 3 weddings a week; so if you do the math; they simply cannot afford to spend the extra time working individual raw files.

The other comment (from a different wedding portrait photographer) is that in order to get the most out of raw data, you can do small batches of images shot under the same conditions, but if you do like some photographers and shoot raw, but use the same PP settings, you may as well shoot jpeg.

So if you spend all your time shooting and processing, you haven't got time to set up the next job, build the business and you are out of business before you know it.

Now I got why they prefer JPEG over RAW. 1000 images in single function and atleast 2 such functions in a week is what they follow.
I prefer 200-300 images per function out of which not more than 50-60 are keepers (which is a decent amount for Indian market). Also as I am not into photography as a profession yet, I hardly have 1 function a week (Not every week ). So 60 images and 15 minutes per image sums up to 15 hours of editing which is done only in after office hours as I am a software engineer by profession. Hence I manage to handover the images to client in 3-4 days after the function.

Quantity of my work is straight away 80% less than what your fiends have. So I can utilise that time in editing. And Yes, I am still learning photography & photoshop, hence I prefer spending time which helps me learn as well as provide the best that I can give.

Just for curiosity, if your friends had more time like say 15-20 min per image for editing then would they have preferred RAW over JPEG to show some extra creativity in PP ? Answer to this will surely help me to either improve my photography skills to get best SOOC or to continue with my current workflow. Please Manfred, have a word with your friends on this and let me know.

Also do they have any online page where I can see their work & get some tips about wedding photography?

[Manfred M]

Now I got why they prefer JPEG over RAW. 1000 images in single function and atleast 2 such functions in a week is what they follow.
I prefer 200-300 images per function out of which not more than 50-60 are keepers (which is a decent amount for Indian market). Also as I am not into photography as a profession yet, I hardly have 1 function a week (Not every week ). So 60 images and 15 minutes per image sums up to 15 hours of editing which is done only in after office hours as I am a software engineer by profession. Hence I manage to handover the images to client in 3-4 days after the function.

Quantity of my work is straight away 80% less than what your fiends have. So I can utilise that time in editing. And Yes, I am still learning photography & photoshop, hence I prefer spending time which helps me learn as well as provide the best that I can give.

Just for curiosity, if your friends had more time like say 15-20 min per image for editing then would they have preferred RAW over JPEG to show some extra creativity in PP ? Answer to this will surely help me to either improve my photography skills to get best SOOC or to continue with my current workflow. Please Manfred, have a word with your friends on this and let me know.

Also do they have any online page where I can see their work & get some tips about wedding photography?

I've sent you a PM with links to the websites.

Would they shoot raw if they had more time? I spent yesterday evening with one of the photographers (Ray) and we got onto the topic and the answer was NO. He does not feel that shooting raw would result in a better product for his clients, but he added that if they insisted on raw (for some of the non-wedding / portraiture work / event work), he would have no problem doing so, but his price would go up due to the additional work involved.

Now just think about it; if your skill level were to the point that you shoot jpeg and spent 30 seconds per image (this includes culling down to 50-60 keepers), you'd be done in 2 hours, rather than 15...