Hey Sports Shooters!!

[wayovrpar]

If I have the extra HD space....should I be shooting RAW? Do any of you shoot RAW for your kid's soccer pics? When the sun comes out here in the NW it is bright! I would love to be able to better manipulate in post with RAW. Any thoughts?

[MT Stringer]

I'm not a pro so my 2cents worth prolly doesn't mean much. BUT, after shooting 957 pics at a high school volleyball match (JV and Varsity), I surely don't want to deal with going thru all of them. The poor computer would prolly throw up!

I'll most likely shoot upwards of 4000 tomorrow at a tournament. UGH!
Mike

[SnapLocally.com]

Not only do I strictly shoot in jpeg, I don't even use the highest quality setting. It may help when shooting at ultra high iso's, or when significantly underexposing shots, but I find most situations just don't need it.

[tomcat360]

I shoot nothing but raw. They are converted to tiff's when they hit my computer and the raw file is deleted. So don't have to worry about raw files taking up too much HD space.

Of course I don't shotgun away till you hit the buffer like most people these days. We're talking 200, maybe 300 in a football game.

[tfd888]

I shoot RAW period. If there is a need to shoot JPEG's (Client wants shots on-site or they are needed for instant proofing) I will shoot RAW + JPEG Lrg Fine.

[mdaniel]

I'll most likely shoot upwards of 4000 tomorrow at a tournament.

I shoot RAW exclusively as I want the most flexibility possible when post-processing.

You can weed out the junk fairly quickly in Adobe LightRoom..

4,000 pictures in RAW mode is going to be a bit of a pain.. Assuming your images are 20 megs on average you'll need (5) 16gb CF cards to shoot that tournament.

SanDisc does make a 32gb CF card, however it's a 30 MB/s card instead of a 45 MB/s (it's slower!).

Are you paid for each picture taken? 4,000 sounds like an incredibly large number for an afternoon of shooting..

Pardon my noobness if that is the norm (1,000 in a day and my shoulders and wrists will be exhausted).

[wayovrpar]

I don't do the rapid fire like I used to. Maybe 200 shots at a soccer game...less if it's an exciting game (I get caught up in the action). Thanks for the input folks!

[SnapLocally.com]

I'm shooting boxing, which can easily yield 600 on a small card, to over 2000 on a "big" event. I also time my shots and rarely shoot more than 2 consecutive shots, and even then the odd 2nd shot is usually an accident.

I almost never carry more than 4 gigs worth of card with me, and rarely need more than 2 of those gigs.

[kb9tdj]

I shoot raw exclusively for the flexibility in post-processing. I had an issue the other night at a soccer game where my white balance was way off during a time period during the match. I got to thinking about it and it was most likely due to the fact that the field lights were turned on at the start of the game while it was still fairly light outside. As the sun was doing down and it was starting to get darker, I had areas on the field where the mix of natural and artificial light threw off my auto white balance and I ended up with quite a few pictures that were very blue. It was no problem at all to fix these in Lightroom since I had raw images to work with; I shudder to think how many good shots I would have lost if I had been shooting jpeg.

[polarbare]

I shoot JPGs now for most sports. You can open JPGs in camera raw to adjust white balances, etc so it's a huge time & space saver since there are probably only a couple images I want to do that to.

All of your regular adjustments are there.. Also works in Lightroom 2.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c198/wolfpack94/jpg-raw.jpg

[jfphts]

When shooting sports outdoors, we all know the sun can be brutal at times, Shooting Raw will give you that ability to scale back the whites when you won't be able to do that if you shoot Jpeg.

[SnapLocally.com]

Sure you can- it's called Shadow/Highlight <Alt+I+A+W>.

[NVcameraman]

I only shot JPG in the past. At my new job they shot all in RAW and use Lightroom to edit. It is super fast and I really dont see the difference to editing out junk that I did with JPG. It does give lots of freedom to fix shots that would in the past be thrown out. I now will have to rethink my thought process as I see no problem shooting in RAW.

BTW at new job they use Nikon D3 with ScanDisk Extreme IV 4 gig cards. At times I have shot at 9fps with no problem to catch the proper moment.

[AdamLewis]

When shooting sports outdoors, we all know the sun can be brutal at times, Shooting Raw will give you that ability to scale back the whites when you won't be able to do that if you shoot Jpeg.

Sure you can- it's called Shadow/Highlight <Alt+I+A+W>.

Sure you can... But using that adjustment on an 8bit jpg looks pretty ****ty when compared to making the adjustment on a raw file or a tiff. What you can do with a jpg is nowhere even close to what you can do with a raw file.

Both of them have their pros and cons. I used to exclusively shoot jpg and thought raw was just a waste of time. Of course, that was when I thought you had to open up each raw file individually in photoshop, make the adjustments, export it, save it, and move on to the next one.

Then, I was shown the light by a guy I worked with and I learned about streamlining workflow and started to use lightroom.

For me, I just dont understand why I should shoot jpg if Im going home to work on the pictures anyways. Obviously, if Im having to transmit on site, Ill shoot jpg, but otherwise I just dont see why I should stray from shooting raw.

Ultimately, its up to you.

[Aaagogo]

shoot both, raw+jpg

if it needs work, work on the raw, if not, use the jpg.

[SnapLocally.com]

What you can do with a jpg is nowhere even close to what you can do with a raw file.

This is precisely why I make sure I'm shooting correctly in the first place- there are no retakes. Personally, I rarely need the kind of latitude RAW provides. The one exception was when I needed to shoot at iso 3200 and still underexpose my shots by 2 stops in the need for speed. Otherwise, my 40D makes pretty pics at iso 1600.

[4x4rock]

I shoot JPGs for sports, for everything else RAW.

[captainpenguin]

Always shoot raw just to give me the flexibility in post processing

[wyofizz]

Raw all the way. Sometimes both if have to post pics right away.
Big PC cuts down on processing times :)
Dave

[kini]

jpegs for the kids sports.

[slider2828]

For recreation, and just personal use, JPEG for sure fine, but you aren't going to really edit them. If you thinking about going to redit them and/or do it professionally raw is the best....

For culling through images, you have to use adobe bridge, don't bother with photoshop. Period. I go through about 10 pictures with cropping, color correction, etc in about 5 minutes.

[cstewart]

Sure you can... But using that adjustment on an 8bit jpg looks pretty ****ty when compared to making the adjustment on a raw file or a tiff. What you can do with a jpg is nowhere even close to what you can do with a raw file.

Both of them have their pros and cons. I used to exclusively shoot jpg and thought raw was just a waste of time. Of course, that was when I thought you had to open up each raw file individually in photoshop, make the adjustments, export it, save it, and move on to the next one.

Then, I was shown the light by a guy I worked with and I learned about streamlining workflow and started to use lightroom.

For me, I just dont understand why I should shoot jpg if Im going home to work on the pictures anyways. Obviously, if Im having to transmit on site, Ill shoot jpg, but otherwise I just dont see why I should stray from shooting raw.

Ultimately, its up to you.

Ditto what Adam said. Lightroom (or DPP for Canon Users) makes post processing workflow just as fast for working with RAW images as it would (for me anyway) for JPEGS...so then why not get the better quality and full range of processing flexibility I can. I shoot a lot of hockey in dimly lit rinks and lately lots of night baseball, so for me, I need the PP flexibility that RAW provides.

[namasste]

I shoot JPGs now for most sports. You can open JPGs in camera raw to adjust white balances, etc so it's a huge time & space saver since there are probably only a couple images I want to do that to.

All of your regular adjustments are there.. Also works in Lightroom 2.



AMEN!!!! I've been saying this here as well. With RAW, you may have a slightly better file to work from but ACR gives you the same controls with RAW or jpegs basically so unless you need RAW, why bother? I've shot both and pretty much stick with jpegs exclusively. The only thing I alter is the contrast setting for the jpegs in camera, otherwise, shoot, tweak in ACR, pull into PS for final.

I also agree with the others on shot count, rarely do I go over 200 for any game and rare that I'd shoot more than two frames on any given play.

[eigga]

I shoot 100% RAW.. even my events with 15,000+ images. Lightroom makes it the same as working with a .jpeg as long as you have the memory.

I may only NEED the RAW on 1% of the images but its there and has been important enough to me to continue with that route.

Bottom line is there is not a "correct" way. Do what works for you and your workflow. To me the size of files and the depth at which you can work with images are the main things to consider.

[kgauger30]

Sports are ALWAYS shot in JPG with us.. On high, because we made that mistake and changed to large mode so we can print larger. But ALWAYS in Jpg with the amount of shots we take that is what it has to be.

[ronmayhew]

I shoot in RAW and let Bridge read them and convert to DNG. Opening dng from Bridge into CS3 Camera Raw is identical for jpg or dng (raw).

[tomcat360]

Also, I know a lot of papers will require a raw file. As well as if you get any ethics issues about how much PP was done on it, you have the raw file. See the Patrick Schneider case.

[mhall]

I shoot RAW for everything. Usually Raw+JPG. JPGs for displaying on site, RAWs for producing the finished product.

Last event we shot saw 53,680 images delivered to our booth by three photographers. We kept 75% (or 40,536) for sale. That's about 600GB worth of files.

A couple of TB HDDs per event is cheap. CF cards are cheap (we have a couple of hundred 4GB cards). Our RAW processing workflow is faster and higher quality than JPG alone.

I switched to shooting RAW when I switched from the D1x to the Canon 1D back in 2003. The original Canon 1D out of camera JPGs were bad - heavy shadow tones, a funky green cast. Then I saw the results possible with CaptureOne and RAW files and I was sold.

Since then I have switched to Bibble for it's flexible, user creatable work queues, but I still shoot RAW for everything - landscapes, weddings, portraits and even sports. In my view, if it's worth taking a picture of, it's worth having a file with the most information and flexibility possible.

[namasste]

= In my view, if it's worth taking a picture of, it's worth having a file with the most information and flexibility possible.
now that's a point that's impossible to argue.

[eigga]

My view exactly...just spoken much better

[The Moose]

When I shot sports with my old 400D starting out, I was shooting JPEG. Then the last time I used it for sports, I made the mistake of turning up the sharpness and contrast in-camera and they were absolutely terrible. When I got my 1D classic, I left it in RAW all the time simply because I had no firewire cable to fix the parameters but I didn't mind that because they were the size of a large JPEG anyway. I'm getting a 1D2 this week so the sizes will be a bit bigger... hopefully now that I can use SD cards as well, I might buy a few more and shoot RAW all the time. I'll definitely shoot RAW for the first month or so until I have figured out good JPEG settings, if at all.

[Dan-o]

I tried switching to JPG when I got my MIII. For the high light recovery alone I switched back. I shot a 3:30 afternoon baseball game with white unis.in RAW+JPG to see the difference and it was enough to go back to RAW. For those who say "get it right in camera" have never shot afternoon high school sports.The dynamic range is off the charts and every little bit of help I will take.

[Dan-o]

Glenn the file size will be about 8meg.

[Mark II]

For me, it depends on the event and those I'm catering to.

If its pros I'm shooting and there is a good chance at big $$$ ... I'll shoot RAW+ JPEG.
If its just the kids in the hood, I'll shoot only jpeg .... unless the paying customer requests otherwise.

.... sometimes it depends on the "conditions" also.

I shoot a lot of surfing ... and if the waves are really, really good, I'll shoot RAW+JPEGS.

After reading the comments before mine, it seems like the choice is like picking the color of a new car. Individual choice.

[Big K]

I shoot everything in RAW. The only time in the last three years I didn't was when I left home like an idiot without my stack of memory cards and had to borrow a 1GB card from a fellow shooter and needed to keep file sizes down.

JPEG is a compression process so even your original image from the camera has lost some of the original data. If you open it and change anything and resave it, even at a max setting, you are adding a second level of compression and losing even more original data. Granted, this is not really a major issue with the high performing sensors but my thinking is why throw away any of the information the gear I paid big money for captured to delay having to add a new $150 HD by a month or to keep from having to spend $29 for another 4GB memory card.

[DC Fan]

If meeting a deadline is the main goal, as it is for those who shoot for wire services, newspapers or magazines, JPG is the format that will be used.

A deadline photographer in the field needs to get an image to a photo desk as fast as possible, usually before an event is over. For publications, photographers don't edit and process images, editors do. Since there's no such thing as a universal RAW format, and since a publication is likely to have photographers who use several different kind of cameras, JPG is used.

After taking pictures, deadline photographers spend their time selecting pictures, writing captions and uploading images, not editing. Images are processed by publications' photo desks so they look good on a printed page, not for a computer screen.

[Big K]

If meeting a deadline is the main goal, as it is for those who shoot for wire services, newspapers or magazines, JPG is the format that will be used.

A deadline photographer in the field needs to get an image to a photo desk as fast as possible, usually before an event is over. For publications, photographers don't edit and process images, editors do. Since there's no such thing as a universal RAW format, and since a publication is likely to have photographers who use several different kind of cameras, JPG is used.

After taking pictures, deadline photographers spend their time selecting pictures, writing captions and uploading images, not editing. Images are processed by publications' photo desks so they look good on a printed page, not for a computer screen.

This is what a good portion of my work is for. Since I do all the selections and captions in Aperture it does not make any difference if they are RAW or JPEG originals since it does not change my workflow at all but RAW sure makes my life much easier when I am shooting volleyball in a gym with 30 year old lights and the WB is varying 1500K from frame to frame.

The four papers I do work for expect me to also do the editing as well and if they have to do anything besides crop and sharpen I will get a very unpleasant cellphone call within 10 seconds of submission. Maybe if they were the NY Times or Washington Post it would be different but here in small market Indiana the photographer does almost all the heavy lifting.

While they all want JPEGS the extra 15 seconds it takes to change the final output from RAW to JPEG has yet to keep me from meeting a deadline.

Sports Illustrated instructs photographers to shoot both RAW and M1 and my limited experience with wire services also required most of the editing to be complete before submission. The final publication will make their adjustments to optimize printing but they still expect the original to be properly toned with correct WB.

[northpointphoto]

For shooting sports I dont find an advantage to shooting in RAW. RAW files take up much more space on cards/ hard drives and your continuous buffer drops significantly when you shoot in RAW as opposed to jpegs.

If you shoot in RAW for the post processing control you can get the same control with jpgs by processing in Lightroom or if you go into Adobe bridge you can right click on a photo and click "Open in Adobe RAW" to get the same controls as you do with RAW files

Also, in photoshop, you can go to....
Preferences > File Handling

CS3 - click the box that says open JPEGs in Adobe RAW (or something to that effect)
CS4- Click "Camera Raw Preferences" at the bottom under "JPEG and TIFF handling" select "automatically open all supported JPEGs"

[eigga]

If you shoot in RAW for the post processing control you can get the same control with jpgs

This I understand ...but do you have the same information and ability with those controls? The files take up more space for a reason...right?

As far as the speed thing I can import,adjust/edit and export basically at the same speed as .jpegs so I dont really see the advantage there...maybe if your covering the olympics and trying to get the first 100m image sent

[The Moose]

Glenn the file size will be about 8meg.

I thought they would be but I was more referring to the fact that SD cards are a bit cheaper but hopefully fast enough for whatever I throw at it :p

[Sibil]

This was a very interesting thread to read. Thanks to all for info on pro/con of shooting RAW vs JPEG, and various post processing options. I learned a lot.

However, I didn't see one point mentioned and that is the varying ability between bodies to produce sharp JPEGs. Both my 40D and 1DII bodies are rumored (according to what I have read) to be unable to produce sharp JPEGs out of the camera, regardless of parameter / picture style settings, in comparison to the sharpness one can get out of sharpening the RAW versions.

If this is true, does this make a difference in your decision to shoot RAW vs JPEG, strictly from the sharpness point of view?

[TTurrill]

Typically when shooting anything that will be used for advertising or large format when shooting sports, I will shoot both raw and jpeg so that I have both areas covered. When using for just for online and newsprint(magazine) jpeg will be fine. Just my 2 cents!!! :)

[hooookup]

Not only do I strictly shoot in jpeg, I don't even use the highest quality setting. It may help when shooting at ultra high iso's, or when significantly underexposing shots, but I find most situations just don't need it.

On my mk3 I shoot M1 size jpeg set @ quality level 8. I can't transmit images larger than 4mb, it bogs up the server and slows the editors in the office down. For sports, I don't really see the need for making pictures in raw.

[lespaulowner]

Not only do I strictly shoot in jpeg, I don't even use the highest quality setting. It may help when shooting at ultra high iso's, or when significantly underexposing shots, but I find most situations just don't need it.

hmm, I may need to try that out

[cwood]

I don't know any "event" shooters that shoot RAW and I don't know any wedding photographers that shoot JPG - Each brings a benefit to the appropriate shooting environment. When I shoot for some of the big national sports photo companies (no need to drag names in here) they require photos to be shot at 2MP Medium compression. Anybody that doesn't think those files make a nice 8x10 image is a .... very picky person.

The difference between a wedding and sports is that with sports you are shooting from much more of a fixed position. You may wander a bit but you'll have to the chance to dial in your exposure for the changing shot. With a wedding you go from taking a flash picture of the bride getting ready indoors to a picture under full sun outdoors as she gets into the limo... and it all happens very fast. In that environment the chances of a screwed-up exposure are much higher and RAW is a blessing.

Photo volume at a sports event is a perfectly good reason to shoot jpg as long as you know how to expose your image properly. I shot a big marathon last year where I took 6000 (and there were 20 photogs working that day) in 7 hours. I don't even know how much space that would have taken in RAW but since I didn't screw up the exposure on any of the images it would have been a waste anyway.

[SnapLocally.com]

hmm, I may need to try that out

Here's a test I just took for you guys. In the following shot, I shot one image in High quality jpeg, the other in Normal quality.

Both shots were taken with my 40D and Sigma 30 f/1.4 lens at iso 1600, f/2.2 at 1/500. Crops are at 100%, no post-processing (only in-camera NR):

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4637/testr.jpg

[eigga]

^ if posting on a forum at 200 x 400 is the end product you have a point. What do you do on medium quality when the client wants a 20x30 and the image needs to be cropped some?

I shoot 100% RAW because I have the storage and I would rather have all the choices available to me. Even my events with 20,000 plus images I shoot RAW. This is a requirement for my other shooters too. Once the images have been edited the RAW is usually deleted and the jpeg saved. I would guess that in those events I need RAW for only abut 5-10% of the images... but I have it for those images. That is my way and it works for me.

As a media person I shoot RAW because of all the issues with altering images. You have a true original that way.

Editing RAW images should not be the reson though. Programs like Lightrom make RAW images edit the same as .jpeg

I do understand why some prefer jpeg .. it works for them.

[mbaumser]

(Not a pro) I only shoot RAW

[AdamLewis]

With RAW, you may have a slightly better file to work from but ACR gives you the same controls with RAW or jpegs basically so unless you need RAW, why bother?

ACR may give you the same controls but youre not manipulating the same DATA.

Adjusting levels of anything on an 8bit file is nothing like adjusting levels on a 14bit file.

With Canon, I feel like I always have to shoot raw to get results that I find acceptable. With Nikon, Ill shoot straight jpg with d-lighting and NR on.

[tfd888]

ACR may give you the same controls but youre not manipulating the same DATA.

Adjusting levels of anything on an 8bit file is nothing like adjusting levels on a 14bit file.

With Canon, I feel like I always have to shoot raw to get results that I find acceptable. With Nikon, Ill shoot straight jpg with d-lighting and NR on.

Nikon does seem to have an advantage for shooting straight to JPEG.

[SnapLocally.com]

^ if posting on a forum at 200 x 400 is the end product you have a point. What do you do on medium quality when the client wants a 20x30 and the image needs to be cropped some?

It's simple- I don't deal with prints. I know my industry, and who my customers are. Rarely do they insist on prints. If that's all they want, yes, I've made acceptable 20x30 posters from a shot taken in 5mp mode, but largely I sell photo cd's for a set price.

[nicmo]

Almost all jpeg for me. I do a lot of paper work on deadline and have to transmit onsite. I also do a lot of youth sports with the majority of the shots only being 5x7's, so I don't need the larger files. At times I can be covering up to 12+ teams in a day and end up with 3000+ shots that I have to turnaround in 4-5 days and get them to the lab, so I have to shoot it right the first time and spend as little time in post as possible, as time is money.

T&I I shoot in RAW+jpeg, but again I try and spend as little time in post as possible.

[Big K]

Almost all jpeg for me. I do a lot of paper work on deadline and have to transmit onsite. I also do a lot of youth sports with the majority of the shots only being 5x7's, so I don't need the larger files. At times I can be covering up to 12+ teams in a day and end up with 3000+ shots that I have to turnaround in 4-5 days and get them to the lab, so I have to shoot it right the first time and spend as little time in post as possible, as time is money.

T&I I shoot in RAW+jpeg, but again I try and spend as little time in post as possible.

If you shoot it right the first time, what difference does it make which file format you are shooting? How would shooting in RAW add any additional time to your workflow other than uploading the images?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with shooting JPEGs under your situations, just asking the question.

[cwood]

If you shoot it right the first time, what difference does it make which file format you are shooting? How would shooting in RAW add any additional time to your workflow other than uploading the images?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with shooting JPEGs under your situations, just asking the question.

Converting 1000's of RAW files to JPG can take several hours... if you shoot it right the first time why bother with the extra step?

[Big K]

Converting 1000's of RAW files to JPG can take several hours... if you shoot it right the first time why bother with the extra step?

That depends on your machine I guess. I converted about 2,000 5D Mk II RAW files earlier today down to 1800 pixels on the long dimension in a batch process from Aperture and it took about 30 minutes in the background while I worked on something else.

[Big K]

Just did a test with nothing else running. It took 102 seconds to convert 50 full size RAW 5D Mk II files to 1800 pixel JPEGS. Basically, 2 seconds per file.

Again, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with shooting JPG only if that is what you want. I just don't agree with the justifications of doing so because time is such a commodity you can't afford to.

[Big K]

C... if you shoot it right the first time why bother with the extra step?

What steps are you going to take if you don't?

[nicmo]

You know I almost didn't comment in this thread as this almost borders on a religious discussion...:p

5 years ago I would say using RAW would slow my workflow way down for the conversion alone, but if I were to use RAW today I would say the only impact would be the initial load time per card (possibly could be more cards), but I doubt it would slow my workflow enough to seriously impact me or my deadlines.

For me there is no right or wrong to either method, there are so many variables that can come into play to cause a person to choose one over the other. I choose to shoot in jpeg as that is what works for me, so that is what I use. If shooting in RAW is your thing I am 100% behind you. In either case both are still faster than shooting in film and developing in the darkroom.... Ah... Those were the days, now where did I leave my sodium thiosulfate...;)

[Big K]

For me there is no right or wrong to either method, there are so many variables that can come into play to cause a person to choose one over the other. I choose to shoot in jpeg as that is what works for me, so that is what I use. If shooting in RAW is your thing I am 100% behind you. In either case both are still faster than shooting in film and developing in the darkroom.... Ah... Those were the days, now where did I leave my sodium thiosulfate...;)

+1 and I fully agree with you.

My dad and I actually shot and developed some B&W film yesterday after Thanksgiving feasting. It was a fun trip down memory lane that is for sure. I hadn't used an enlarger in probably 15 years. :-)

[Gym Star Photos]

Currently, I shoot Raw+JPEG when shooting an event (2000+ shots a day). I only store the Raw photos on external hard drives as backups and if I need the extra data for PP for a customer order after the event, then I have it. Otherwise I use the jpegs for onsite viewing and printing and only load them to the computer ( LR2 ). I have noticed that I am starting to use the Raw files for editing less and less... soon I hope to be confident enough to only shoot jpeg. I don't spray and pray, so I don't need the buffer space in the camera (MKIII), but it would save me space on the cards...

[SnapLocally.com]

There's a free download that converts RAW files to jpeg in seconds; even hundreds of them. That would save you a little space on the "+jpeg" option.

[tpatana]

I hadn't used an enlarger in probably 15 years. :-)

I haven't used one yet.

Ah, you talking still about photography, yes? :mrgreen:

There's a free download that converts RAW files to jpeg in seconds; even hundreds of them. That would save you a little space on the "+jpeg" option.

There's RAW-converters and RAW-converters. There's huge difference on the quality.

For me, for first 5 years I had RAW-capable camera, I kept shooting in JPEG. The reason: although I understood the benefit of RAW (few more bits, a bit more dynamic range and WB correction), all the tests I did I ended up better pictures with JPEG. Why? Because my POS PC was so slow, that if I took the RAW, it took ages to PP it so basically I didn't do much. For JPEG, it was so much faster and easier, I spent the time editing instead of waiting, so I actually improved the JPEG quality much more as I didn't get frustrated waiting. Also I can't recall missing a good photo once for bad WB, so there wasn't really any benefit for using RAW, instead it seemed to hinder my PP.

Then I got new PC about 1 year ago, and I got Bibble the same time. Again I tried RAW, and I shot funny pictures with difficult lighting conditions. For one, the new PC with Bibble was about as fast as old PC w/ JPEG, so I didn't feel I was wasting time. (Of course new PC w/JPEG was even faster now). Also I noticed that even I had WB correct, the dynamic range helped me in rare cases where there were huge contrasts in the picture. So in most cases, I'd say 95% of the pictures don't matter if it's JPEG or RAW, but as there's no downside to using RAW, I've set my camera now to RAW+JPEG (fine), although 99.9% of the pics I PP from RAW.

I have the Rebel XTi (400D), and the RAW is about 15MB each. So far in 1 year of shooting RAW I've taken some 120GB of pics, but external HDs are cheap so it doesn't matter. I even duplicate the HDs in case one of them fails. And I never delete any of the originals, or the PPd JPEGs out from Bibble. They are all in the external drives, in case I need to go back to check something.

I don't shoot for work, only as a hobby. On my travels, I seem to average about 100pics/day, and now I've taken kendo photography, I've taken about 700-800 pics in ~6-7h event. I have 24GB of cards so they cover quite nice.

So, I'm sure I'd be happy with JPEG alone, but as there's no negative impact (save camera buffer) on RAW, I don't see why I wouldn't use it.

[SnapLocally.com]

there's no negative impact (save camera buffer) on RAW, I don't see why I wouldn't use it.

missed shots = negative impact

[Sibil]

missed shots = negative impact

+1
Shooting RAW + JPEG (short bursts in basketball) on my 1DII, I find myself waiting a lot on the buffer. I think I pushed the body too much, today, because I got an error 99 displayed. This is a first time for me and I need to search what the heck that means :(

[tpatana]

missed shots = negative impact

Like I said, no negative impact save the camera buffer.

My camera takes 10 RAWs to buffer at the max fps (~3fps) until it's full. For my use, if I think at least a bit how I take pictures, I never get the buffer full, so it's really minor impact for me. For someone else, it could be bigger issue, especially with those 8-10fps cameras.

[tfd888]

+1
Shooting RAW + JPEG (short bursts in basketball) on my 1DII, I find myself waiting a lot on the buffer. I think I pushed the body too much, today, because I got an error 99 displayed. This is a first time for me and I need to search what the heck that means :(

Error 99 is the general error code the camera uses when it knows something is wrong but doesn't know exactly what is wrong. In a lot of cases, Error 99 is caused by dirty lens/body contacts or battery grips.

[STONEBLUE]

I shoot mostly sports. When I purchased my camera 2 years ago, I started off shooting all jpg. Then after a few months, I switched to RAW. Since then, I only shoot in RAW. It provides so much flexibility later on for adjusting exposure, white balance, etc. I use DPP and have developed a workflow that makes the process of going through the pictures, editing them, cropping them, and then converting them to jpg's pretty quick. With RAW, I definitely have to delete unwanted pictures from the harddrive to preserve storage space.
Jeff

[tfd888]

Like I said, no negative impact save the camera buffer.

My camera takes 10 RAWs to buffer at the max fps (~3fps) until it's full. For my use, if I think at least a bit how I take pictures, I never get the buffer full, so it's really minor impact for me. For someone else, it could be bigger issue, especially with those 8-10fps cameras.

On my body (1D Mk II) I get 16-18 RAW+Jpeg frames depending on the ISO used. On a few occasions I wished I had a bigger buffer but it cleared out a frame a sec to the card which allowed me to keep shooting.

Personally, I always have and plan to shoot RAW and in cases I need a Jpeg on-site instantly, I'll shoot RAW+Jpeg Lrg Fine. The benefits of shooting RAW in low light conditions is well worth the small amount of effort of converting the file.

[MT Stringer]

Error 99 is the general error code the camera uses when it knows something is wrong but doesn't know exactly what is wrong. In a lot of cases, Error 99 is caused by dirty lens/body contacts or battery grips.

In my case, it was a failed shutter.

[Big K]

I haven't used one yet.

Ah, you talking still about photography, yes? :mrgreen:

Yes, actually film still photography. An enlarger is a device that holds the negative and is what is used to expose the photo paper.

Here is a picture of one.

http://www.amazon.com/Beseler-Cadet-Enlarger-Negative-Carrier/dp/B0000A9ZBD

[tpatana]

Yes, actually film still photography. An enlarger is a device that holds the negative and is what is used to expose the photo paper.

Here is a picture of one.

http://www.amazon.com/Beseler-Cadet-Enlarger-Negative-Carrier/dp/B0000A9ZBD

Yes, I used one of those early 90s at a film photography class. Did lot of fancy stuff with one, as the teacher was one of those fun types who don't limit people's imagination while doing art. I recall flailing hand/objects in the light, covering part of the paper to mix&match several photos to one, placing objects on the paper etc.

But my original (bad) pun was referring to the emails I get lot about enlarging things, and I think those advertisements don't refer to anything photo-related :lol:

[philwillmedia]

This is a discussion that, to a point, like the Canon vs Nikon debate, will never have a right or wrong answer.
Personally, I always shoot high res jpeg.
What others do doesn't affect what I do and vice versa.
When I can look at a photo in a magazine and say unequivocally that it was originally shot as a RAW image (or jpeg for that matter) then I'll care.
Until then, I'll continue to shoot hi res jpeg.

As for anyone else - whatever floats your boat.

[Sibil]

Error 99 is the general error code the camera uses when it knows something is wrong but doesn't know exactly what is wrong. In a lot of cases, Error 99 is caused by dirty lens/body contacts or battery grips.
Thanks for the tip. I took the battery out, reinserted it, and the camera started working fine. I hope that’s all it was.

In my case, it was a failed shutter.
That’s my fear though. I have noticed that sometimes (not often) the camera won’t respond when I press the shutter button, and I have to try press it a couple of times.

Maybe it’s time for a visit to CanonCenter, but I digress from the thread topic.

[captainpenguin]

Even if its just fanily snaps on Xmas day I shoot Raw because the control in PP is just so much more accurate

[SnapLocally.com]

You do that. I'll stick to taking them right the first time.:lol:

[cwood]

You do that. I'll stick to taking them right the first time.:lol:

+1 :lol:

[eigga]

You do that. I'll stick to taking them right the first time.

So basically what your saying is by shooting RAW your less of a photog. Really?? Thats just a absurd statement to make in this debate. There are quite a few good reasons to use both.. whatever works for you is best. But those trying to decide could get good information from this topic without that crap for sure :)

[cwood]

So basically what your saying is by shooting RAW your less of a photog. Really??

Sometimes maybe YES. When jpg is the appropriate format for the workflow but you're still shooting RAW because you're making too many exposure mistakes then its time to improve your skills. Some people are fixated on RAW - and maybe for the wrong reasons. There's nothing wrong with shooting jpg when you know you can get the exposure you want.

Yes disk space is cheap and computers are fast... but I have 4TB of hard drive space thats full up and keeping it backed up is a pain so why deal with all those big files. And I've got over 100,000 actuations on my cameras this year of which about 10% are RAW files (mostly weddings) and the rest are jpg.

[tpatana]

There's nothing wrong with shooting jpg when you know you can get the exposure you want.


I was skeptical about shooting RAW for many reason, one of the biggest was the false reasons people gave for shooting RAW.

First false statement (for me, not for all): WB

In my life, I never recall missing a good photo because WB. I'm sure that happens to many people when they shoot in difficult conditions, but it has never happened to me.

Second false statement: When editing JPEG, you always lost information and can't go back to the original.

This was even more BS, as everyone in their right mind takes back-up of the originals, and then edits the copies. No matter what you do, just copy the original again and you're back to start.

Because of these RAW "ads", which I thought stupid, I was very skeptical about whole RAW idea. Then finally I found my reasons for shooting RAW, which is increased dynamic range, which mostly means saving over- or underexposured spots. This didn't use to be that big thing, as I rarely noticed I had exposure wrong or something, mostly when there were too high contrasts in the image so that the dynamic range of the JPEG just couldn't cover both ends.

And in the end, edit time is marginally longer so it doesn't really matter.

So that's my reason, and I'm sure most people have their reasons for selecting one or other format, I don't select for them. If you never shoot in such condition that you need the extended dynamic range, great. I'd say people should give accurate information on both formats, and let the newcomers decide which reasons they need to select which format.

[Dan-o]

you're still shooting RAW because you're making too many exposure mistakes then its time to improve your skills.

You need to improve your skills Matt.:rolleyes:

[eigga]

Thanks Danny, I always new something was missing just didnt realize it was my file choice. Will make sure to shoot medium .jpeg from now on (except weddings because thats pushing it from what I gather) Sports Illustrated here I come!

[philwillmedia]

There's a free download that converts RAW files to jpeg in seconds; even hundreds of them...

Ummm...
Just one question -

If you're going to convert RAW files to jpeg anyway, why not just shoot jpeg in the first place therefore saving the hassle of converting?
It also reduces the risk, albeit slim, for anything to go amiss in the extra step.

As for RAW being a loss-less file and jpeg not, why not just work on a copy of the jpeg file rather than reworking it each time?
Simply opening and closing a jpeg does not affect the quality of the image as nothing has been done to it.

[SnapLocally.com]

I presented the raw converter option for those who already shoot raw to save them the space of shooting raw+jpeg.

I must have a really good copy of the 40D, because when I look at a "normal" quality jpeg vs an unprocessed raw file at 3200 iso, I'm not seeing any quality disparity, only more noise in the raw file. Then again, my exposure is properly balanced, negating my need for that latitude raw provides.

[eigga]

Then again, my exposure is properly balanced, negating my need for that latitude raw provides.

I dont use RAW for exposure.. I use it for WB and for media and because it is my workflow. Especially for recitals and performances. Each scene is different and I dont have the luxury to worry about WB. Exposure I take care of but I am forced to rely on Auto WB.

For those who claim RAW is for us inferior photogs..how do you handle WB issues?

Secondly it is NOT an extra step for me in Lightroom. I import the file the same as I would if it was a .jpeg and export the changes the same. If you are arguing this point because you think RAW requires extra work its time to check out Lightroom.

I KNOW jpeg has its place for certian things and I understand it works for some. Why cant you see the same about RAW?

[philwillmedia]

I KNOW jpeg has its place for certian things and I understand it works for some. Why cant you see the same about RAW?

If you'd read and absorbed, not just looked at my previous post (#72) in this thread where I said


When I can look at a photo in a magazine and say unequivocally that it was originally shot as a RAW image (or jpeg for that matter) then I'll care.
Until then, I'll continue to shoot hi res jpeg.

As for anyone else - whatever floats your boat.

you will see that I really don't care what others do as it doesn't affect what I do.
If you want to shoot RAW, shoot RAW. If you want to shoot jpeg, shoot jpeg.
Simple.

[SnapLocally.com]

For those who claim RAW is for us inferior photogs..how do you handle WB issues?

I don't remember anyone saying that, but since I'm here, I'll answer anyhow- Try doing a custom white balance for a change. If the lights are just ridiculous, I'll just resort to auto, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

Lightroom- no thank you. I much like and am rather comfortable with the PS interface. I must confess though, I do rather enjoy watching some noob rely on spray and pray in RAW, knowing they're gonna have to process those 5000 shots while I've only got a gig and a half of quite manageable jpegs to sort through.

[Dan-o]

You do realize that processing 5000 shots in Lightroom is as easy as: Adjust first photo > Ctrl+A > Sync > done.

[SnapLocally.com]

That's ok. I don't "mass produce" my shots; I only work on the shots I like, and enjoy the process of fine tuning. Even then, most of my shots are which are composed and well timed would be more than acceptable right out of the camera anyhow; they've already been subjected to my in-camera settings. I don't use PS to fix anything except maybe to straighten the occasional horizion and a little cropping; I use it to make a good photo great.

[slimenta]

I don't understand the whole debate about RAW v JPEG. There is more information in RAW and particularly in low light it is hard to argue that images are as good when shooting JPEGs. Assuming that you have a large card then the only downside of shooting RAW is your buffer, a particular issue with the 7D. I shoot soccer, football, NASCAR all in RAW. Usually use a 16 GB card having filled one once with my 7D. Last weekend I did have buffer issues once during a football game while shooting a 1D Mark III. Would not have been an issue if I had been shooting JPEG. See recent RAW images with JPEG conversion (ACR 5.6 to CS4).

http://www.sportsactiondigital.com/College-Football/SCSU-v-App-State-11-28-09/10471017_LFZrN#726419529_JYUm4

[cwood]

You need to improve your skills Matt.:rolleyes:

Quoting half a sentence to mis-represent someone could be considered slander you know.

BTW Matt. I really do think you're a funny guy :rolleyes: ... But if you can't take a sports illustrated worthy picture in Medium JPG then I don't think your chances are improving by shooting RAW... since you brought it up.

Good luck to the both of you...

[philwillmedia]

RAW is better
No, Dummkopf...jpeg is better
No it's not...
Yes it is...it's jpeg, I tell you...
No it's not...RAW is..
Seriously, it's jpeg...

Round and round we go...

...blah blah blah...

Who's right, who's wrong...

Everybody and nobody
How many pages will this thread go to, thrashing out the same old cr4p?

How much time on forums has been wasted on this debate...and it will never be resolved.

Still, for entertainment value, this is a great thread.

[Big K]

But if you can't take a sports illustrated worthy picture in Medium JPG then I don't think your chances are improving by shooting RAW... since you brought it up.

Actually, they improve dramatically because SI requires you to shoot RAW + M1.

They require this because their shooters are just a bunch of hacks who need it because they make too many exposure setting errors.

[slimenta]

Actually, they improve dramatically because SI requires you to shoot RAW + M1.

They require this because their shooters are just a bunch of hacks who need it because they make too many exposure setting errors.

In spite of Phil's rant above the logic around saying that jpeg is as good as RAW escapes me. In many settings the differences are small, in low light they are large. Does that mean that one cannot get excellent shots with jpeg, of course not.

[Dan-o]

When jpg is the appropriate format for the workflow but you're still shooting RAW because you're making too many exposure mistakes then its time to improve your skills.

There is the whole sentence cwood. I hardly see how it changes things.

[cwood]

In spite of Phil's rant above the logic around saying that jpeg is as good as RAW escapes me. In many settings the differences are small, in low light they are large. Does that mean that one cannot get excellent shots with jpeg, of course not.

I never said RAW was as good as jpg... I said JPG was appropriate to certain situations. Each photographer must determine what is appropriate. Just because YOU don't shoot in situations where JPG is appropriate doesn't mean those situations do not exist.

[Dan-o]

Why this always turn into an argument is the insinuation that RAW shooters are just a bunch of hacks who only shoot RAW because they lack skills.

[cwood]

There is the whole sentence cwood. I hardly see how it changed things.

When jpg is the appropriate format for the workflow... .... but you're still shooting RAW because you're making too many exposure mistakes..... then its time to improve your skills

This is NOT an insult to people shooting RAW.

the opposite argument is that

When RAW is the appropriate format for the workflow you should shoot RAW

As I said before... just because YOU don't shoot in a workflow where jpg is the appropriate format doesn't mean that situation does not exist. I am REQUIRED to shoot jpg for many sports events.

This is hardly the same as your quote

you're still shooting RAW because you're making too many exposure mistakes then its time to improve your skills

[cwood]

Why this always turn into an argument is the insinuation that RAW shooters are just a bunch of hacks who only shoot RAW because they lack skills.

nobody said that.

[Big K]

Does that mean that one cannot get excellent shots with jpeg, of course not.

I agree. I was just being a smart ass. Too many Jack and Cokes while sorting through basketball shots from tonight.

I am ready to debate if Gaussean blur or Jack Daniels is a better skin smoothing technique. Some of my girls bball players are starting to look like Vogue models.

[Dan-o]

It is midnight K. Go to bed. I have 3 hours on you, the evening is still young.:lol:

[Big K]

It is midnight K. Go to bed. I have 3 hours on you, the evening is still young.:lol:

Just one more round bartender. :-)

[texaskev]

This has been a fun thread to follow. My .02 is that I shoot everything in raw. I love the extra latitude of adjustment. But yes it really does burn HD space.

[Dan-o]

nobody said that.

Not directly but all the little pokes are there.

Photo volume at a sports event is a perfectly good reason to shoot jpg as long as you know how to expose your image properly.

if you shoot it right the first time why bother with the extra step?


You do that. I'll stick to taking them right the first time.
+1

I do agree with you cwood that you should use the work flow that works best for the situation. For me that is RAW. I have a bunch of presets that work well with RAWs but will not work on JPGs. Saying we RAW shooters use it for an exposure crutch is like saying you shoot JPG because you need the FPS and buffer because you have no timing. A pretty idiotic statement, don't you agree. We can agree to disagree I guess. K can you e-mail me a Jack and Coke.

[Big K]

Here you go partner. :-)

http://thestealthmac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/jack-daniels-coke.jpg

[Dan-o]

http://dmunson.smugmug.com/photos/389249112_XFA3F-X3.gif

[cwood]

Not directly but all the little pokes are there.

I do agree with you cwood that you should use the work flow that works best for the situation. For me that is RAW. I have a bunch of presets that work well with RAWs but will not work on JPGs. Saying we RAW shooters use it for an exposure crutch is like saying you shoot JPG because you need the FPS and buffer because you have no timing. A pretty idiotic statement, don't you agree. We can agree to disagree I guess. K can you e-mail me a Jack and Coke.

I don't think we even disagree... like I said you just don't shoot in a jpg type environment so you probably just can't appreciate it.

The worst thing about photography forums is that nobody posts photos... so here's my pictures to make my point in JUST ONE of my jpg environments in which everything you have quoted me on is true.

MTB event photography is a finicky way to make some $$'s. There are a few of us who shoot the races independently so it becomes a race to get our pictures online first. I will usually make at least 2 sales within 10 min of posting a link to the album on a cycling forum. Since it is event photography it is just fire and repeat for hundreds of shots where the exposure basically doesn't change. Every one of these shots would be improved by spending some time in PS but my customers don't seem to care and time seems to be critically important.

I took this same photo 300 times in about 30 minutes of racing. I'll post just 2 to make my point. These images went straight from the camera to smugmug (no cropping, sharpening, saturation/contrast adjustment). They were shot with custom development functions in the mkIII and they were shot with 70-200F2.8 using a remote flash fired by pocket wizard. Everything needed to be dialed in properly before I pulled the trigger and they were uploaded within 10 minutes of walking in the door. I would love to be able to spend some time making the pictures better but frankly it is not worth the effort and it would probably cost me sales in the end because of the delay.
http://christopherwood.smugmug.com/Mountain-Bike/2009-Fontana-Races/Fontana-National-March-28-XC/1A6H3710/500838026_rWz4z-S.jpg
http://christopherwood.smugmug.com/Mountain-Bike/2009-Fontana-Races/Fontana-National-March-28-XC/1A6H3642/500845151_XEXeC-S.jpg

[Dan-o]

Just curious C, what program do you import into? Looks like Southridge :)

[cwood]

In this case I just use windows explorer and dump straight to my NAS drives - and from there to the internet... :D

[eigga]

Thanks man, I have never been accused of slander before...

Yes, I am a smartass, most of the people here are. Its what makes reading these post so fun.

But Im also right, RAW is the best format for me :) Even if that means I need to step up my game, no issues with that I have a lots to improve

[eigga]

This is why I shoot RAW most of the time..

This venue has hot spots all over the stage. The green lights on the backdrop killed the WB. EVERY scene was different WB. Total sales for this event were abut $9000. Worth my time to do it correct on EVERY image

ISO 1600 f/2.8 1/125 (Snow white and her dress have had exposure reduced almost a stop and they are still hot. Lightroom brush tool)
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/SnowWhite-7251.jpg

[Sibil]

Here you go partner. :-)

http://thestealthmac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/jack-daniels-coke.jpg

What? No rounds for everyone in the house? :confused:

Ironically, I am the one who brought this thread back with a question and nobody answered it. See post #41 ???

[slimenta]

I don't think we even disagree... like I said you just don't shoot in a jpg type environment so you probably just can't appreciate it.

The worst thing about photography forums is that nobody posts photos... so here's my pictures to make my point in JUST ONE of my jpg environments in which everything you have quoted me on is true.

MTB event photography is a finicky way to make some $$'s. There are a few of us who shoot the races independently so it becomes a race to get our pictures online first. I will usually make at least 2 sales within 10 min of posting a link to the album on a cycling forum. Since it is event photography it is just fire and repeat for hundreds of shots where the exposure basically doesn't change. Every one of these shots would be improved by spending some time in PS but my customers don't seem to care and time seems to be critically important.

I took this same photo 300 times in about 30 minutes of racing. I'll post just 2 to make my point. These images went straight from the camera to smugmug (no cropping, sharpening, saturation/contrast adjustment). They were shot with custom development functions in the mkIII and they were shot with 70-200F2.8 using a remote flash fired by pocket wizard. Everything needed to be dialed in properly before I pulled the trigger and they were uploaded within 10 minutes of walking in the door. I would love to be able to spend some time making the pictures better but frankly it is not worth the effort and it would probably cost me sales in the end because of the delay.
http://christopherwood.smugmug.com/Mountain-Bike/2009-Fontana-Races/Fontana-National-March-28-XC/1A6H3710/500838026_rWz4z-S.jpg
http://christopherwood.smugmug.com/Mountain-Bike/2009-Fontana-Races/Fontana-National-March-28-XC/1A6H3642/500845151_XEXeC-S.jpg

I understand and it is certainly true that the need for RAW is situation based. In my case, I am simply used to shooting in RAW so it is what I do. Since most conditions are not ideal and since flash is never an option I like the flexibility it gives me.

I can usually review under 1000 photos in about 30 mins in photo mechanic. With presets in ACR and batch processing my processing time in ACR and CS4 is short. The link to the gallery below was the product of 1348 pics shot in RAW. My editing took about two hours after review.

http://www.sportsactiondigital.com/College-Football/SCSU-v-App-State-11-28-09/10471017_LFZrN#726419529_JYUm4

The good news, is that for the ones with "optimal" lighting and no significant shadows, that I simply convert to JPEG after bringing up in CS4, cropping already done in ACR. Of course, at the end of the day it is the processing method that works best for you. A huge benefit for me in review is an Apple 30" digital monitor. When I process on the road on a Macbook I am always slower.

[SnapLocally.com]

Total sales for this event were abut $9000.

To hell with this topic. How are you making that kind of money- do you have some kind of exclusivity contract with the school?

[Dan-o]

To hell with this topic. How are you making that kind of money- do you have some kind of exclusivity contract with the school?

Yeah really.

[eigga]

Its a Performing Arts Studio... yes I have a contract and its higher end clients.

[Big K]

This was a very interesting thread to read. Thanks to all for info on pro/con of shooting RAW vs JPEG, and various post processing options. I learned a lot.

However, I didn't see one point mentioned and that is the varying ability between bodies to produce sharp JPEGs. Both my 40D and 1DII bodies are rumored (according to what I have read) to be unable to produce sharp JPEGs out of the camera, regardless of parameter / picture style settings, in comparison to the sharpness one can get out of sharpening the RAW versions.

If this is true, does this make a difference in your decision to shoot RAW vs JPEG, strictly from the sharpness point of view?

Sorry to not answer this originally but I can't answer because I don't have that much experience shooting JPEGs in camera.

What? No rounds for everyone in the house? :confused:

Ironically, I am the one who brought this thread back with a question and nobody answered it. See post #41 ???

Sorry, Dan and I drank the place dry. :-)

To hell with this topic. How are you making that kind of money- do you have some kind of exclusivity contract with the school?

No kidding!! That is a monster sales total. I have exclusive deals with schools for plays and such but get nowhere near that sort of sales total. I am sure part of it is my market, but WOW that is a haul. Nice photo BTW.

[Big K]

This is why I shoot RAW most of the time..

This venue has hot spots all over the stage. The green lights on the backdrop killed the WB. EVERY scene was different WB. Total sales for this event were abut $9000. Worth my time to do it correct on EVERY image

While I sure there were hot spots being stage work, that is still some pretty good lighting work by that crew. My local venues tend to nuke the backgrounds and make shooting there like shooting into the sun at a daytime football game.

[eigga]

I am sure part of it is my market

ALL of it is market, my pictures are no different than any decent photog could produce. I have built a strong relationship with the studio and clients. My work is all over their studio. The best thing I ever did was start making a book of each performance for the studio to put in the waiting room. The parents love them and look through them all the time... of course my logo is placed in several places. They are top notch people and produce amazing shows with these young kids. I go to the rehearsal to scout the show but also becuase they are so good!

3 shows a year plus 3 dance recitals.

[tpatana]

No kidding!! That is a monster sales total. I have exclusive deals with schools for plays and such but get nowhere near that sort of sales total. I am sure part of it is my market, but WOW that is a haul. Nice photo BTW.

Yea, I really love the photo. And I really would love to get such deals for my shoots. So far, I don't have that many pics taken, my camera has some 12k actuations or so, and the total money I've made with all my photos so far is $0.

[Sibil]

3 shows a year plus 3 dance recitals.
(3+3)*($9000) :cool:

[eigga]

^ not quite... they all sell pretty well but some are much better than others.

[vreeke]

1D3 has RAW + Jpg so is there a good one i alway can find the RAR to try to make money