Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk
Thread started 18 Feb 2010 (Thursday) 11:08
Prev/next
Poll"Pro Sports Shooters: RAW or JPEG?"
RAW
87
52.7%
JPEG
78
47.3%

165 voters, 165 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Pro Sports Shooters: RAW or JPEG?

 
darynv
Hatchling
darynv's Avatar
Joined Mar 2015
Boksburg
Aug 18, 2017 05:01 |  #136

Allow me to offer my input. I think that if you have the space and the correct flow, then shooting in RAW is definitely advantageous. That being said, as I have a 40D, my RAW files are smaller than JPEG on my 6D. I often shoot 300-600+ images of BMX racing on a weekend, but I have created my own preset that works for me and my style. So I can get home, select a hundred or so images in LR and apply my own preset, then I MAY have to tweak one or two images individually thereafter, then they are ready. Often my 2 biggest bottlenecks are my download to "Computer" and the export and upload to Social Media, sometimes these two processes take longer than the editing and selecting process. IF you decide that you might want to work on an image in detail later, then having it in RAW is beneficial, otherwise JPEG is more than adequate.


Dad to a BMX rockstar and lover of most sports, in particular 2 and 4 wheels

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,788 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 6 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Aug 18, 2017 05:19 |  #137

darynv wrote in post #18430681 (external link)
Allow me to offer my input. I think that if you have the space and the correct flow, then shooting in RAW is definitely advantageous. That being said, as I have a 40D, my RAW files are smaller than JPEG on my 6D. I often shoot 300-600+ images of BMX racing on a weekend, but I have created my own preset that works for me and my style. So I can get home, select a hundred or so images in LR and apply my own preset, then I MAY have to tweak one or two images individually thereafter, then they are ready. Often my 2 biggest bottlenecks are my download to "Computer" and the export and upload to Social Media, sometimes these two processes take longer than the editing and selecting process. IF you decide that you might want to work on an image in detail later, then having it in RAW is beneficial, otherwise JPEG is more than adequate.

A big part of this is what model of Canon you have. The JPG engine in the 40D is the old-school more inferior engine over the newer bodies. As of the SL1/70D/5D3, I believe, the new JPG engine was introduced, creating much crisper higher quality JPG results. These are almost to the point that there is limited improvements you can make in the raw and convert afterwards to get a better result.

I would never take the JPG from older bodies like the 7D and 5D2, etc, the raw through a processor to a TIFF/JPG was always better. This is no longer the case with the newer models.

In summary, an out of camera JPG is not always equal across models, so the answer depends a bit on model #.

A poll with 2 answers per model would be interesting, where people could vote across many items with their history with those bodies. :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
namasste
Cream of the Crop
namasste's Avatar
6,847 posts
Joined Jul 2007
NE Ohio
Oct 24, 2017 23:44 |  #138

Sometimes the "choice" is actually beyond simple...I shoot whatever format the senior editor asks me to shoot. More often than not, its jpeg since they won't even consider a marginal image in terms of focus or exposure so you have to get the jpegs right in camera and little to no editing is often done (depending on usage) once it hits the desk. They may crop or do a small levels adjustment but if the image needs more, it never had a chance in the first place. I believe that's why they typically want jpegs. The only time I was asked for RAW was doing headshots of on air talent where the images might be used down the road for something.


Scott Evans Photographyexternal link
SportsShooterProfileexternal link l MaxPreps Profileexternal link
Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
KIPAX
Goldmember
KIPAX's Avatar
1,253 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Accrington, England
Nov 23, 2017 09:40 |  #139

I shoot many different sports, inside and outside. A recent boxing match I was maxing my equipment out at iso 51200 f2.8 and managing a 640 shutter.....

always JPG

cant see any advantage to raw unless A) your going to take time making it all arty or B) you think your pictures arn't going to be good enough and use it as a crutch...

IMHO :)




LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,788 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Nov 23, 2017 11:35 |  #140

KIPAX wrote in post #18502615 (external link)
I shoot many different sports, inside and outside. A recent boxing match I was maxing my equipment out at iso 51200 f2.8 and managing a 640 shutter.....

always JPG

cant see any advantage to raw unless A) your going to take time making it all arty or B) you think your pictures arn't going to be good enough and use it as a crutch...

IMHO :)

You do realize the raw has much more capability than the in camera jPeg engine. There is more DR range, better shadow and highlight recovery, etc. Also there are better jPeg generators out there than what canon packed in many of its bodies. Has nothing to do with making images arty, or because you need a crutch.

Those are things people usually say when they don't know what the raw can do for them.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
pat.kane
Senior Member
pat.kane's Avatar
594 posts
Joined May 2005
Arlington, VA
Nov 23, 2017 13:02 |  #141

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18502707 (external link)
...there are better jPeg generators out there than what canon packed in many of its bodies.

The JPGs out of a 1D X Mk II are phenomenal. Thankfully, they definitely got it right with that camera.


1Dx, 5D3 and some L glass (gear list / feedback)
http://MaxPreps.DMVpix​.com (external link)
http://www.DMVpix.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,788 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Nov 23, 2017 15:29 as a reply to pat.kane's post |  #142

Yes canon updated the generator some time back, and also improved their NR algorithm. However, you still can get a better result by modifying the raw sometimes, but the gap is less these days, fortunately. It is a big time savings!


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
KIPAX
Goldmember
KIPAX's Avatar
1,253 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Accrington, England
Nov 23, 2017 16:37 |  #143

pat.kane wrote in post #18502770 (external link)
The JPGs out of a 1D X Mk II are phenomenal. Thankfully, they definitely got it right with that camera.

Yes I ahve a 1dxII the JPGs are great and for sports when your shooting thousands of pictures a week.. theres not much i can do with a raw thats going to be better than jpg for the hundreds of pictures I put online every week.. YES I AGREE RAW is more powerful .. But the diference its going to make isnt enough to be working on so many pics..and the question was for people who shoot a lot of sports a week :)

this is out the box iso 51200 . the pic for sale and a 100% crop JPG no resize no nothing.. how much work to make it better as raw.. and I would never batch fix.. whats the point of raw you can batch fix in jpg


1477
x
1055
TOO LARGE!
EMBED PREVENTED, IMAGE TOO LARGE:
http://www.kipax.com/m​bgfx/box_crop.jpg
Click here to see our image rules.

IMAGE: http://www.kipax.com/mbgfx/box_sale.jpg

PS I am in UK .. ignore the shorst :)



LOG IN TO REPLY
figo
Senior Member
figo's Avatar
695 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Nov 28, 2017 21:59 |  #144

Shoot both! RAW for the client and JPEG for the wire.


Canon 1D MKIV, 1D MKIII, Canon 70-200 f2.8, Canon 400 f2.8, Canon 16-35mm f2.8.

LOG IN TO REPLY
SnapLocally.com
Goldmember
SnapLocally.com's Avatar
1,731 posts
Joined May 2007
Post has been edited 2 months ago by SnapLocally.com.
Dec 04, 2017 12:47 |  #145

Wow, I remember this thread. In fact I'm having a pretty good chuckle re-reading it.

7 years later, and I'm of the same mind set as I was when this debate started.

Yesterday in fact I spent the better part of 8 hours shooting a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu tournament. I took a little over 1000 shots, which was about half of what I'd take shooting something like boxing. Anyhow, same as before, jpeg for me. Everything fits on one card, and taken correctly, no RAW format needed. RAW would've only slowed me down, and frankly, would be worthless to the promoter who hired me. He gets every shot taken, and if he has specific requests for shots to be manipulated, cool- but highly unlikely.

I will even go so far as to say that if, *IF* RAW made my work better by any discernible measure, I'd actually be pissed off because the money in the industry of Combat Sports doesn't get better because the pictures do, and there's only a few ways to make money at it- get hired, sell shots directly to the athletes, or have something REALLY special that makes a magazine take notice and want to pay for your work. I only work for hire now, and that's to take marketable shots. That means whatever is on my card has to be good enough when I take it sans pixel manipulation.


www.SnapLocally.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,788 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 2 edits done in total.
Dec 04, 2017 14:13 |  #146

I would think that those that are more casual about their photos or shoot less will probably shoot raw. The higher the volume and greater the speed by which the media outlet needs the files, or you want to maximize revenue by getting photos out quickly, the higher possibility you will shoot JPG (or both). The latter is what I align with these days.

Straight JPG with just a quick bulk clean up action thrown against everything in the folder. No need for raw, even at these high ISOs.

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-Current-Season/Nov-10-2017/i-z2BTMVX/0/febc4c4d/X2/aFX8A3740-X2.jpg

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

22,988 views & 17 likes for this thread
Pro Sports Shooters: RAW or JPEG?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00223 for 7 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is Samson747
795 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017