Question for RFM KennyG and the like (those who shoot a lot)

[timmyquest]

When you go to an event do you still shoot raw?

It would seem like an awfully teadious thing to do when you have that many images to sort through.

Just wondering...

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's a good question....

The best part is.. if my memory serves.. you are going to get two different answers from the two photographers you mention...

Personally,.. you will get two answers from me as well.

I sometimes shoot stage events.. and when I do I take LOTS of pics... way more than when I'm out in the feild. Usually in a cast of say 80 or more.. I want to get good images of everyone.. just in case they want a pic for posterity. I have events with over 1,000 images.

In this case I do tend to shoot jpeg... with the 10D I did this mainly becasue of buffer issues as opposed to workflow concerns. I found that during a Ballet for instance.. if an intense impressive dance took place I could easily saturate the buffer leaving me without any room to shoot at a decisive moment.

The MkII alleviated that particular concern but introduced a new one. File Management and storage and editing time with 1,000 RAW files! :shock:

The MkII's RAW files are just enough larger than the 6MP 10D files that it has forced the limits to the breaking point on my current PC. This camera is going to essentially force me into a new PC. Just viewing the RAW images takes about twice as long for the images to load. (this is partly because of the browsers used for the different file types)

So, for my part if anyone is interested.. :roll: the answer is;

"It depends"

[defordphoto]

No, I do not. The only exception is if I'm doing a special shoot, then I'll shoot RAW. Otherwise I shoot Large JPEG 8 on the MKII. And also always shot JPEG on the 10D.

And, all my magazine photos were JPEG from the 10D. I did the basic adjustments on my end, re-saved them to JPEG and then emailed them to the publisher. I have no idea what process they put them through after that. I had offered TIFF files to them, but they said JPEG was fine. And after seeing them in the mag, JPEG is fine.

I always quote one of the other pro shooters when I was on my first digital shoot. I asked him if (they) shot RAW. He said, "If you have to shoot RAW, then you don't belong out here."

Now, if I am out on a nature shoot, portrait shoot or something like that, I always shoot RAW.

[timmyquest]

portrait shoot or something like that, I always shoot RAW.

For sure, the reason i'm wondering is that i'm going to be doing this football season pretty seriously and i was wondering if i was "skimping" by not shooting raw.

The replies so far are pretty much what i expected.

[BigRed450]

Always High Fine jpeg... RAW for portraits and commercial shoots..

[wcapald]

I shoot 25,000 images every year. Here is my web site www.pictureweddings.co.uk. I do 14x22 prints straight from fine JPEG. Unless you're into spending all your life in front of a PC, or doing bill boards forget RAW. Some out and out professionals may need it for VERY LARGE layups, but I don't know any...... Wayne

[Canuck]

If you don't mind...I have a few pence to chuck into this one...
When I do airplane pics, I shoot RAW only because over here the lighting is really wierd! It may came from the fact Iam so far North (52 deg N) and it alows me more leeway in tweeking the pics after the fact and it seems to me to be more forgiving. That said, I have probably 3K in airplane pics from my favourite (Concorde) to all kinds of commercial airliners like A330, A340, CRJs, A320, A321, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, and probably more. It takes more to get the the pics looking better, but it seems woth it, the end of the day to me. Then again, I don't do this for a living, but for fun. I'm awaiting a few airshows to start having fun with high subsonic planes vs the commercial airliners that seem to hang around for what seems like an eternity.

[timmyquest]

Unless you're into spending all your life in front of a PC, or doing bill boards forget RAW.

Now ya done it
:lol:

[Cadwell]

OK, for what it's worth here's my take on it.

I shoot RAW for paddock and pits work and JPEG for track shots. Reason being I like (and sometimes need) the post processing ability that RAW gives you for the pits and paddock stuff but I've found myself stuck waiting for the buffer to flush whilst shooting RAW trackside. If the 10D flushed it's buffer faster or had a larger buffer I'd probably shoot RAW all the time.

[Scottes]

My thoughts echo RFM and Cadwell. JPG when you need a lot of pics quickly (ie; action) but RAW when you have a bit of time and may want/need some tweaking.

That said, I shoot very very little action and always shoot RAW. I process 2-3% of my photos so this requires very little time in front of the system. Then again, I'm processing for me, and I know which ones to process. If the editor wants to look through 200 shots you'd have to process them all...

[evilenglishman]

I always shoot raw for magazines as my client wants raw.
On my last shoot i did over 800 photos in one session, its actually not a lot of hassle.
I sort the files into folders called card01, card02 etc and then I create a browsable "web" album of all the files. I send the originals on dvd and the browsable album on a cd - that way the magazine editor can click through all the photos quickly and select the ones he wants to use.

[Pekka]

I shoot always RAW because I'm always using high ISO with unpredictable lighting and I want the best quality camera can give me.

[Big_B]

When you go to an event do you still shoot raw?

It would seem like an awfully teadious thing to do when you have that many images to sort through.

Just wondering...

I vary according to my needs but when I do sort RAW I always get the camera to do a smaller jpeg. That way I can work out 90% of keepers by examining the jpegs and so sorting is just as quick (if not quicker) then shooting high quality jpegs.

BB

[blinking8s]

I shoot always RAW because I'm always using high ISO with unpredictable lighting and I want the best quality camera can give me.

RAW can save your ass...i love it

who sig is it in here "shoot in RAW, memory is cheap, but memories are priceless" no doubt...

[paul162brown]

I have recently started shooting RAW exclusively. I find that shots that are sharpened and processed on the PC are of a much higher quality compared to those processed from within the camera. Plus the ability to adjust exposure and white balance after the shoot is invaluable to me.

But then again, if you can achieve a quality of picture that you or your client are happy with, and you are confident enough with your camera and your ability that you do not need the safety net of post shooting exposure compensation or adjusting white balance, then shooting JPEG makes much more sense.

Personally, from my point of view, most of my best shots are adjusted RAW files that I would not have achieved with a JPEG.

To some extent, I think it boils down to your ability as a digital photographer and the ability of your camera to produce consistent high quality images from JPEG. If you can, well done! I know that I still need the extra options that RAW gives me. My processed RAW pictures are so much better than my JPEGs, but I am still on a learning curve.

:D :wink: :D

[Rob Larsen]

I am a strong RAW advocate. But when commercially shooting sporting events, I use JPEG nearly exclusively. This alleviates buffer overflow issues (so did the 1DMII), maximizes my storage space, and -- most importantly -- improves my workflow. For high volume sport shooting workflows, I find that a very small percentage of the images require post processing beyond simple batch edits. Therefore, when I'm only significantly editing maybe 5 out of 1200 shots, the JPEG advantages out-weigh the RAW benefits.

But, for all other subjects (portraits, landscape, wildlife, architecture, etc...), I only shoot RAW.

As for RAW workflow, I make a first cut with a Breeze Browser slideshow to preview the RAW files. In the first pass I tag and delete all losers (OOF, bad composition, way off exposure). In the second pass I tag all favorites that I want to process further and then move those to a "keeper" directory (still saving the non-"losers"). I then use C1DSLR to tweak and process the keepers to TIFF and edit in PS if needed. While all of that could be done in C1, I find the fullscreen BB slideshow with tagging to be a faster and more accurate way to do the initial screening.

JPEG workflow is done nearly similar but without the RAW conversion process which is very time consuming for large image quantities. The screening processes also runs much faster.

[KennyG]

Unless you're into spending all your life in front of a PC, or doing bill boards forget RAW.

Now ya done it
:lol:

Who waved that red flag to this bull?

I shoot 100% RAW (I am personally clothed and well cooked, I refer to the images) and post-processing takes no longer than JPEG.

Tonight I have just done 100 images for a magazine where they have asked for a large selection to pick from for a centre page spread and it took less than an hour including burning them to DVD. Obviously wcapald has not got his workflow sorted out.

I'll repeat what I have said many times before - get it right in the camera and you have less post-processing to do. Batch workflow is easy if you feed it with the right quality in the first place. I don't crop or sharpen, all my images, including those you see here and on my website are as they come from the camera and C1 (well OK, re-sized for the web). I leave all cropping and tweaking to the magazine's staff, they prefer it that way.

It isn't so much having the ability to rescue an image, although that is one consideration, it is the end result that matters, particularly when it comes to detail in dark or very bright areas and noise introduced by the JPEG compression. Nearly all my published work goes into color magazines where they would end up in the trash can if they didn't meet certain standards. I have never had an image rejected on technical quality.

[defordphoto]

And I digress. :wink:

Now if I had a specific magazine assignment, I would shoot it all RAW, without a doubt.

There's a time and place for both formats. Neither one is right. Neither one is wrong. Technically, JPEG is not a format, but we use it that way. Anyway, it's great to have that versatility when you need it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... My memory served! :)

The last ballet I shot I shot in 100% RAW... man did I use a lot of HD space!

But I was able to get the best images I ever have from any Ballet I have shot. :wink:


Still.. there will be events where I'll shoot jpeg again..

//checks IDE ports to see how much room is left for more hard drives....

[mjordan]

I shoot about 99.9% of the time in raw with my 10D (and my D30 before that) and it doesn't matter if it's a small shoot of only a few hundred pictures to over 1500 in one day. Yes, it eats up space and yes, I have over a terebyte of hard drive storage on one of my computers, but I still feel better with shooting in raw. I pull the jpeg out for processing into a photo gallery, so that saves me a lot of time getting the images up on my web site.

I don't always have the luxery of having perfect lighting or even the sun behind me, so I find raw gives me more flexibility than jpeg. Yes, there have been times I've wanted to shake my camera while I've waited for the buffer to empty enough for me to take another picture and I have had to let BreezeBrowser do it's thing over night, but it's just something I've learned to live with.

Mike

[Motorsports Photo]

Well its about time some others actually admitted that they use jpeg for their pics instead or hearing that raw rules and why would anyone want to shoot other than raw??!!

I think Pekka gave the only good reason for shooting raw: Unpredictable low light sources. My light source is unpredictable too. The sun turns on and (mostly) off here in Ohio. :D

When you are doing event photography you dont have time to do raw conversions! People want to see their pictures. They even hate to wait while I give a quick sort.

-Pete

[wcapald]

Every weekend I regularly shoot 800 images on a Saturday or a Sunday, and by getting all my images right in-camera, especially exposure, I can post my clients work on the web site for them to view on-line immediatley on a Monday morning, sometimes before they even make the airport for honeymoon. Their are far better tools available as plug-ins in Photoshop to make any final adjustments from this site or Fred Miranda's site, iCorrect is brilliant and a new tool ColorWasher had just been upgraded with some great features. The end result, I can take the day off because I don't have additional workflow time. So I'll repeat what I said before unless you are a professional working for magazine clients RAW is well over the top. Shoot JPEG, and you'll also save on storage space all the way from camera to hard drives and backups.

The WPPI Award in Las Vegas has been awarded again in 2004 to an inspired and talented photographer in Melbourne Australia and he never shoots in RAW, he shoots in fine JPEG. So you decide. And he uses both 6m and 11m pixel Canon bodies for his work.

Cool.......

[blackviolet]

same here - sporting events or things that i just don't care that much about - jpeg (you know - shooting a boatload of silly or weird things - things where maybe 1 out of 20 may be a good shot). for people and portraits, buildings and landscapes or any time someone books me to take their child specifically, then i go raw

sometimes i forget to change it and i only know when i see it in breezebrowser or catch the file names.

[RichardtheSane]

I'm a RAW shooter... and while my weekend shoots do not geneally go above 200-250 shots. I would estimate to browse through them, remove the junk, and develop the rest takes well under an hour. In fact I ususally have a selection of 25 of the best on the web within the hour, so raw processing times are really a non-issue.

The two biggest issues with raw are storage space and also buffer/write times. Storage is cheap, and buffer/write times can be managed well if you want too.

But there is no right way and wrong way of shooting, no right format or wrong format for everyone

There is only the right format for you.

[MrKickalot]

I love JPEG!! I have blown up JPEG's on large/fine to 20X30 straight from my DRebel(except for adjusting brightness in PS Element, shutterfly.com comes back darker than I like). Plus like everyone is saying the buffer clears faster.

BUT...

Here's something to consider... you want to shoot football... I'm assuming high school football games... I have never been on a HS football field with even decent lights!! RAW can save you in low light conditions!! If you catch the field lit up one night maybe you can take a friend down and have them move around the field and you take pictures from where you will be!! Take them home and check them out!! If light is no issue, jpeg it is!! It light is an issue then you have only lost pictures of your friend, not of a game!!

Just my opinion for what it is worth!!

[cmM]

Man, this is one controversial thread... lol
I love JPEG
I'm a RAW shooter

Well, I shot JPG until I got C1 ... from that point on, it's been RAW. Post processing takes an extra minute, and beccause... well, I ran out of space on my hard drive, I bough a dual layer DVD burner... 9 GB on a disk - I don't think I'll have space issues any more.

[evilenglishman]

I bough a dual layer DVD burner... 9 GB on a disk - I don't think I'll have space issues any more.


should have waited - 16x dual layer burners are expected in the next couple of months :wink:

[defordphoto]

This is probably one of the most civilized RAW vs. JPEG threads I have ever read. It's an excellent testimonial showing the advantages and disadvantages of both formats. We've shown how the different format work to the advantages of the variety of different shooters we have here.

It's just so nice to have all the different options with these awesome cameras we have, and to be able to change them on the fly as our needs changes sometimes from minute-to-minute when we're out on a shoot.

[Shockey]

If you have tons of photos use Lightroom it is turbo fast. It is equally fast whether you are processing Jpeg or Raw other than the importing exporting speed.....Jpeg is WAY faster.

In Lightroom you can do everything to a Jpeg that you can do to a Raw file.

In processing with Raw you have great ability to save any blown out hightlights, other than that processing and the end result is pretty much the same.
It is impossible to tell the difference between a decently exposed photo taken in Raw and one taken in Jpeg after complete processing.

[ppucci]

Man, have you noticed this thread was 6 years old? "Lightroom-what?" would they ask, back then... LOL

[bacchanal]

Man, this thread reminds me how much LR changed my life. I think I was using PSE before that.

[GSH]

Man, have you noticed this thread was 6 years old?

I was rather surprised at one particular response in this thread, until i looked at the date.

:D

[ppucci]

I was rather surprised at one particular response in this thread, until i looked at the date.

:D

which one was it?

[Shockey]

Not me....it popped up on the new posts que and I didn't notice the date.

[GSH]

which one was it?

I'm not naming names ;)

[robscomputer]

Interesting to read about the problems of converting mass amounts of images in RAW format. I remember my 10D could bog down with RAW, a bit faster with jpg's, and the converting process was difficult at first.

Now 6 years later, RAW is standard, and thanks to tools like LightRoom it's so much easier to convert again.