Sports shooting 7D

JEmerson wrote in post #10749974
Not really, say your shooting football. You nail your exposure and wb. You stick the card into the laptop and wait for photomechanic to ingest your photos whilst you carry on shooting. The jpegs are only a couple of MB each so you can breeze through them all at great speed just cropping and checking they are sharp. You can just caption and fire. All the processing is done in camera; so essentially you can have your best 20 shots FTP'd before the fans have even left the stadium. You could always do a quick levels in Ps before you FTP them if your worried.

Take RAW files and you can't just stick them into photomechanic (you'd have to use lightroom which has a rubbish clunky interface compared to PM and you'd have to apply that preset and even if you've got a new laptop beside you it's going to take you much longer to import the raws with the preset and caption in lightroom (filling your HDD and RAM with 10mb images) than just captioning in PM with a pre processed file thats 2-3mb in size. Essentially my point is that with sports photos you don't have time to mess with them.

There is digital photo professional from Canon if you need somethign lighter...

And if you have a new laptop it doesn't take that long.

My 2 years old Vaio (2,5GHz Core2Duo and Intel SSD) doesn't take too long to chew through the 5D MK II's files - it will take a while if its 300 files.

Take a new laptop with an i5 or i7 and a higher clock speed and you can flick through the RAW's in no time - besides, even the 1D MK IV only shoots 16MP -> another gain.
I can't see RAW's being that much of a problem.

RAW + Manual + CWB + Netbook= Great Workflow!

Yea LR has changed alot of us. Granted we always had the option of opening JPG's in "camera raw" with PS / bridge.......just not to many knew about that.

Personally the only time I really "needed" raw was a wedding that had a projection screen as a background to the alter. The thing keep changing colors......freaking WB nightmare

silvex wrote in post #10750476
RAW + Manual + CWB + Netbook= Great Workflow!

Jpeg + Manual + CWB + Netbook w/photomechanic = even better.

SeanH wrote in post #10750493
Yea LR has changed alot of us. Granted we always had the option of opening JPG's in "camera raw" with PS / bridge.......just not to many knew about that.

even with that trick though the old way was soooo clunky:
import: (bridge or whatever that crap program is we all get on the disk)
convert/initial processing: ACR/LR/DPP
final editing: PS

and the final editing isn't as crucial anymore now that LR is as good as it is.

Personally the only time I really "needed" raw was a wedding that had a projection screen as a background to the alter. The thing keep changing colors......freaking WB nightmare

I shoot raw unless told other wise, Mark IV and 7D do produce pretty amazing jpg's though.

DetlevCM wrote in post #10750279
There is digital photo professional from Canon if you need somethign lighter...

And if you have a new laptop it doesn't take that long.

My 2 years old Vaio (2,5GHz Core2Duo and Intel SSD) doesn't take too long to chew through the 5D MK II's files - it will take a while if its 300 files.

Take a new laptop with an i5 or i7 and a higher clock speed and you can flick through the RAW's in no time - besides, even the 1D MK IV only shoots 16MP -> another gain.
I can't see RAW's being that much of a problem.

I don't know, I use a Core i5 2.26 GHz w/4gb RAM. If I shoot 300 RAWs and import them whilst applying a preset and metadata template and then viewing, cropping rotating and having a seperate app for the FTP open etc. then I find it pretty slow... Plus you don't get the shortcuts you do with photomechanic "mc1" = Jenson Button, "sil" = at silverstone racing circuit, northamptonshire, and so on and so on.

In addition what benefit do you get by applying a preset to your RAW file and exporting that rather than just shooting it properly in camera and sending that?


(I agree about shooting landscapes/weddings etc. etc. with RAW, but not sports)

I am going to go against the grain here and say jpeg. I find I use jpeg because it gives me way more shots before I fill the buffer and I get a boat load of shots without having to change the card.

Do I wish I shot RAW some times? Yes, but in general, jpeg works fine. But I guess this partially depends on the sport.

JEmerson wrote in post #10750625
I don't know, I use a Core i5 2.26 GHz w/4gb RAM. If I shoot 300 RAWs and import them whilst applying a preset and metadata template and then viewing, cropping rotating and having a seperate app for the FTP open etc. then I find it pretty slow... Plus you don't get the shortcuts you do with photomechanic "mc1" = Jenson Button, "sil" = at silverstone racing circuit, northamptonshire, and so on and so on.

In addition what benefit do you get by applying a preset to your RAW file and exporting that rather than just shooting it properly in camera and sending that?


(I agree about shooting landscapes/weddings etc. etc. with RAW, but not sports)

In case you ever need to edit an image later on - say for a magazine etc. you loose a lot shooting just JPEG instead of RAW.
Also, the JPEG compression in the camera is stronger than "12" in Photoshop - i.e. the image is more compressed which means more can be lost.

I use raw and never filled a card yet.

DetlevCM wrote in post #10750670
In case you ever need to edit an image later on - say for a magazine etc. you loose a lot shooting just JPEG instead of RAW.
Also, the JPEG compression in the camera is stronger than "12" in Photoshop - i.e. the image is more compressed which means more can be lost.

I've never found a magazine reject a sports shot because it was jpeg. If you do everything right theres very little for a magazine to do.

Can you give an example of what I loose when I shoot these jpegs and send them to a magazine?

JEmerson wrote in post #10750698
I've never found a magazine reject a sports shot because it was jpeg. If you do everything right theres very little for a magazine to do.

Can you give an example of what I loose when I shoot these jpegs and send them to a magazine?

Highlight details, shadow detail spring to mind.

Potentially details in a shot that got lost in compression.

With what disk space costs and getting cheaper and with the cost of big CF cards also being cheap, the argument of wasting disk and card space is gone. Period.

Lightroom or Aperture or whatever makes it easy to edit RAW - it is just totally not an issue anymore.

I get a lot of images published in newspapers so timeliness is an issue. I've never found that the time to download and edit RAW over jpg matter at all. I have, however, been able to save an image that I really needed but was marginal due to color balance or exposure that I would not have been able to save with jpg.

jpg is, for me, the realm of camera phones and P&S's. I use jpg to export and for final sending to someone but shooting in jpg? No way.

J.

storage is cheap. plus you ultimately have the final option whether or not to process the RAW file you took after you have a look at it during post.

I shoot exclusively in RAW unless Im using a p/s camera. Its nice to be able to pull that much extra detail when I want it, than not have that detail when I need it. sure my 7D gobbles up storage on a CF card quite fast, but its a non-issue.

You guys are cunfusing me!

RAW if you want the best pic - JPEG if you want CF card space and buffer speed.

Does that pretty much sum it up?