Wedding photography NEF or JPEG etc.?

[MEPER]

I have been asked to take some images at a wedding.
Primary before going to the church. The plan is some outside images of the wedding pair.
Normally I shot NEF but I wonder if JPEG (Fine) is the way to go as for the whole wedding the number of images can be many and then easier to just give away a stick with all images insted of all the work required to convert NEF to JPG.
Camera is Z50. Lenses are Z16-50, Z50-250, Z50/1.8. I have a Z24-70/4 coming soon. Then I have some AFS lenses etc. I have an AFS 70-200/2.8 VR.
They know I am not a pro and many others will probably takes pictures so the pre-church outdoor images are the most important. Plan is also to bring the D5200 just for backup purpose (hopefully it will not be used).
Should I stay at NEF for those fewer outdoor images and then maybe change to JPEG for the rest?
I think Z50/1.8 could be nice to try for some good background blur. The Z50-250 is surprisingly sharp and 70-200/2.8 VR (1. gen) is very good also for DX and is sharp at 2.8.
I had a thought to upgrade to a Z5 but I would rather like to wait for the next gen Z DX camera as I am quite happy with the Z50. Also the Z50/1.8 is better on DX for portraits.
I will bring my flash also for the outdoor images (SB-400 with diffuser). 

[Birna Rørslett]

Shoot NEF + jpg(fine). Then use jpgs for the client unless you need to process extra.

[MEPER]

Sounds like a good idea with NEF+JPG.
I have never used JPG from camera but it is rumored that they are ok.
Picture control it set to auto and "everything" at zero.

[MEPER]

Wonder if it would be a good idea to put on polarizer for the outdoor shots.
I the film-days I nearly always used polarizer for nature / outdoor.
On digital I have almost forgot I have those filters in various sizes.

[Birna Rørslett]

Some times old habits can safely be forgotten.

[MEPER]

Maybe most people think that they can "create" the "look" in post processing like more saturated colors but they can't get the transparency in still water etc. a polarizer can create.
For wedding photography outdoor the effect may not be that huge. I can try with and without. If I use the Z 50/1.8 at 1.8 (to blur the background) the polarizer could serve a purpose also as a light gray filter if there is too much light so I run out of shutter times :-)

In the film days I remember that film was not 100% linear if very fast shutter times was used but I don't know with sensors. Probably the camera is intelligent and can "adapt" for that. At least I can look at the histogram and adapt myself.

[Ian Watson]

In the film days I remember that film was not 100% linear if very fast shutter times was used but I don't know with sensors. Probably the camera is intelligent and can "adapt" for that. At least I can look at the histogram and adapt myself.

Digital sensors do not suffer from reciprocity failure.

[Roland Vink]

I used polarizers a lot when shooting landscapes with film. Somehow, the effect is different is not the same on digital sensors. I still use them for removing reflections from water or deepening the colour and filtering out haze in the sky, if the effect improves the image. Sometimes it is useful for taking reflections off foliage but in many cases the difference with/without a polarizer is minimal, or the filter has a strange effect of lowering contrast giving a muddy effect. I now use polarizers much less than I used to, but they are still useful sometimes.

[MEPER]

I will try it out with polarizers to check the effect on digital.

[Birna Rørslett]

Instead of using a polarising filter, with its inherent quirks of uneven sky rendition with wide-agle lenses, plus often muddy or pumped-up colours, invest in an ND filter of good quality to lower exposures in daylight. This will enable using those wide or nearly wide apertures on your 50mm lens and still keep exposures below the max.shutter speed of your camer (1/4000sec if memory serves). An ND2X or 4X would be ideal.

[MEPER]

I think I only have 39mm ND filters and maybe a 52mm but none 62mm or larger.
I can see my usual webshop I use has a reduced price on a 62mm vario filter (+1 - +5).
A B+W nano. Should those vario ND filters be avoided?

[MEPER]

Just realized that vario ND-filters are two polarizers against each other so.....would be stupid decision to use those.

[pluton]

Should those vario ND filters be avoided?

IMO:  Variable NDs are a mixed bag.  They can solve problems but also have drawbacks.
They tend to have a color cast, typically slightly warm and slightly green. They usually have a pola effect, but both the polarizing effect and the color cast is not consistent between brands. 

[MEPER]

When I do a search for ND filters then most hits are those variable ND filters.
I can find the "fixed" filters also but price difference among them are huge. Difficult to judge which to get.
The usual web shop I use sell Haida Nano pro and I was in for those. But just until I found out that their ND1.8 is a x64 filter and a 3.0 is a x1000.
The webshop does not advertise an e.g. 0.9 or 1.2 which is a 3 and 4 stop filter. It is a very strange way to "name" such a filter......it nearly "fooled" me.
I assume that when Birna mentioned a ND2 / ND4 is was 2 to 4 stop filter.......which also makes sense for my purpose.

[MEPER]

I ended up with Hoya PROND HD4 filters in 52,62,77 mm.
I checked which fast lenses I have that I will use on Z-body. So now I am prepared for sunlight wide aperture images......
Those filters where reasonable priced and I think good enough for my purpose.