motocross shooters look here

[kris142]

I've been shooting MX for a while, I just stated using RAW again acouple months ago, but I'm starting to second guess it. I need to choose between one or the other because I dont wanna use up soo much space over a Raw+Jpeg of the same pic. What are you guys using?

[kit lens]

I never shoot anything action in RAW, just IMO. The only time I shoot RAW is when doing long exposure stuff.

[pixelbasher]

I never shoot anything action in RAW, just IMO.


??? Why wouldn't you?

[Red Pulsar Guy]

??? Why wouldn't you?

I agree, set the general settings you want and adjust the photo's later on the computer in photoshop etc...
I shoot in RAW as much as i can, unless i have a laptop with me and can look at test shots in full screen size... otherwise it's just too hard to tell from looking at a tiny screen on the back of the camera... i mean... you can zoom in on it, but its still too hard to tell.

Especially in rally, where you trek into the bush a couple of km's to a great corner/jump... to see the the car once and for only a few seconds at best...

So many times i'd get home and the shots would be blown out etc... just not worth the risk in my opinion, although... each to their own hey ;)

[zacm7]

i have never shot anything other then RAW :| jpgs are for point and shoots :)

[AZAlphaDog]

In general the reason sports shooters shoot in JPEG format is for burst rates, RAW files fill the buffer fast and don't allow as many files to be captured.

Sure RAW files are much better for post processing and white balance but check the manual for your camera and you will see that the burst rate (number of continuous shots) that can be taken is much higher for Jpeg than it is for RAW.

At least that is the way I understand the concept.

[Rey.dos]

and when working with jpeg its much faster to open up...

[Dean Rachwitz]

I shoot motorcycle racing and track events in JPEG. I've developed my settings to consistently provide the output that I want 95% of the time. After tens of thousands of shots, I find there's no need to shoot in RAW, because the benefits are small compared to the increased overhead in storage and processing RAW files require, and my customers are extremely happy with the end result. If you're only trying to end up with a handful of publishable images, sure, shoot RAW as it will yield the best possible result. However if you're producing hundreds or thousands of images per event for potential customers, RAW just doesn't make sense.

In my mind, the primary benefits of shooting RAW (increased dynamic range, color gradation and detail) are somewhat lost on the bright, contrasty, fast moving objects we shoot. We are not trying to pull every bit of minute detail out of a portrait subject's hair and eyes, nor are we trying to capture every blade of grass or leaf in a landscape or the fine textures and color gradations present in still life.

I tend to switch back to RAW for more challenging or demanding photography because more benefit can be obtained and the volume of shots is much lower.

[frizzle]

i have never shot anything other then RAW :| jpgs are for point and shoots :)

Totally agree. Raw just gives you so many more options with PP.

[snails]

In general the reason sports shooters shoot in JPEG format is for burst rates, RAW files fill the buffer fast and don't allow as many files to be captured.

Sure RAW files are much better for post processing and white balance but check the manual for your camera and you will see that the burst rate (number of continuous shots) that can be taken is much higher for Jpeg than it is for RAW.

At least that is the way I understand the concept.

The rate does not change, it's the duration. A 40D maxes out a 6.5fps no matter the format of the photo, the buffer will fill faster however. When the buffer is full the camera will slow to the buffer write speed.

[AZAlphaDog]

That is what I meant . . .

Here is what my Canon manual says:

The maximum burst during continuous shooting depends on the image-recording quality...

With RAW you might get 11 frames at 6.5 frames-per-second before the buffer is full

With highest quality JPEG you might get 30 frames at 6.5 frames-per-second before the buffer is full

[pixelbasher]

I can see the point in the higher sustained burst by using Jpg, but how often do you need to spray massive amounts of shots in a sequence? I guess the middle of a crash sequence you don't want it running out of "puff"

My 50D buffer can hold 16 Raws or 60 Jpgs acording to the blurb, not counting simultanious writing to the card whilst shooting, and I have never been in a situation to need anywhere near 16 in a burst, let alone 60! Maybe when I miss "money shot" because I needed that 17th shot, I'll rethink.

But until then, and as I'm not a "pro" (which means not all my shots come out perfectly exposed ;) ) I'll shoot Raw no matter what I'm pointing at, if only to save my butt, so to speak.

On the other hand it is really only an initial 2.5 seconds of RAW full rate burst if it fires off at its rated 6.3 (which it never does on AI servo btw)

Dean Rachwitz:
I certainly can see why if you are shooting for track events or the like and you need to get the shots up and sell large amounts, then Raw would be a pain for sure.

I guess the funny thing is once it was pros who only used Raw, now it seems it's the learned noob that is the mainstay of RAW......so they can fix their "issues" :lol:

[kit lens]

I agree, set the general settings you want and adjust the photo's later on the computer in photoshop etc...
I shoot in RAW as much as i can, unless i have a laptop with me and can look at test shots in full screen size... otherwise it's just too hard to tell from looking at a tiny screen on the back of the camera... i mean... you can zoom in on it, but its still too hard to tell.

Especially in rally, where you trek into the bush a couple of km's to a great corner/jump... to see the the car once and for only a few seconds at best...

So many times i'd get home and the shots would be blown out etc... just not worth the risk in my opinion, although... each to their own hey ;)

I'm not picking or pointing fingers at anyone, but I go by the philosophy of learning how to use the camera......take the picture correct the first time. Having to do PP for action shots is insane........there is no way in heck I am ever going to shoot action in RAW. Granted we all know how conditions can change with the blink of an eye, but knowing how/what to adjust to compensate is a must.

RAW action shots are a waste of your own time (for having to fix your own errors, let alone to load EACH RAW image for editing).

[factoryphoto]

I only shoot RAW if im at a national AMA motocross or supercross but local stuff I shoot jpeg. I set my camera up with lots of sat/cont and a little sharpness and do very very minimal post procession usually a crop/size and save. I print at the track have no time for RAW. If you dont need to adjust your shots alot I so no need to shoot RAW. Ya you can work with the photo alot more but I have my camera set up the way I want everything to come out.. I shoot manual 99% of the time and adjust the exposure a little for certain thing I may want to do so in PS I can do a quick "curves" adjustment click print and move on. I shoot 4-6 days a week its all i do is moto photography ive no problem selling and printing jpegs its quick and easy. Ive got cover shots with plain ol jpegs straight from the camera.

[SeanH]

JPG.

Raw is a complete waste of time.......unless you really suck and need to REALLY fix all your shots......lol

But JPG & LR for processing is the ticket for me.

A-! shots-
http://www.pbase.com/blue622/a1_2010

[goatydude]

I have been shooting RAW for ages.

But recently shooting events I have been asked to shoot JPEG as it is easier to process hours worth of shots and have them available for purchase right there and then. Having to shoot JPEG has changed the way I need to shoot. When shooting RAW I would expose to avoid blown out highlights (usually by 1/2 stop or so dependimg on subject) but with JPEG and no post processing I need to bring the exposure up a bit (depending on subject, light etc) which causes me to blow some highlights/whites from time to time.

The "boss" has no problem with this, in fact the more I shoot with other photogs the more I see this is common place depending on the subject (expose the subject properly dont worry too much about the sky or some whites blowing out)

Personally I like to shoot RAW as it produces a better end result with some post processing (you can get a bit more dynamic range no need to blow anything out). But I think the more I shoot JPEG the better my photography will become, there is just not that much room for error, it will force me to become more accurate/consistant with my exposures.

Anyway I think shooting Jpeg or RAW depends on your final output. If your shooting for yourself or a couple of shots for a magazine or competition or whatever RAW is the way to go. If you have a thousand shots of an event that need to be up and ready for sale asap well JPEG definately saves alot of time.

Cheers
Daniel

www.gippslandimages.com.au

[Bosscat]

i have never shot anything other then RAW :| jpgs are for point and shoots :)

I musta got lucky with this JPEG then? Or have a really good point and shoot?

The whole JPEG vs RAW debate is like the Canon vs Nikon debate...getting really really old.

All that matters is the final product. Not how you arrive there.

[kit lens]

Fwiw search for all of my picture posts, they are all shot jpeg....as far as action shots. A side note to add to what I wrote previously.....if I do shoot RAW, it is RAW + jpeg. And 9 of 10 of those RAW+ shots, I end up just using the jpeg.