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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 18 Aug 2010 (Wednesday) 16:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sports shooting 7D

 
DetlevCM
Goldmember
Avatar
3,431 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Europe
     
Aug 19, 2010 10:44 |  #16

JEmerson wrote in post #10749974 (external link)
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.


5D MK II AF Satisfaction Poll | Reduced Kit List
A Basic Guide to Photographyexternal link | Websiteexternal link
Flickrexternal link | Artflakesexternal link | Blurbexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
silvex
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,307 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Southern California, USA
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:16 |  #17

RAW + Manual + CWB + Netbook= Great Workflow! :)


.
-Ed
CPS Platinum Member.
Canon Gear
SilvexPhoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SeanH
Goldmember
2,055 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA.
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:19 as a reply to  @ post 10750119 |  #18

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 :-(


7D ......waiting on the 5D3
10-22, 17-40 4.0 L, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 2 X 580EX's

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JEmerson
Member
205 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:37 |  #19

silvex wrote in post #10750476 (external link)
RAW + Manual + CWB + Netbook= Great Workflow! :)

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


Site (external link)
[Work in progress- feedback appreciated!]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jacobsen1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,629 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Mt View, RI
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:40 |  #20

SeanH wrote in post #10750493 (external link)
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 :-(

:shock:


My Gear List

my sites:
benjacobsenphoto.com (external link) | newschoolofphotography​.com (external link)
GND buyers FAQ

FOR SALE: 5Dii RRS L-bracket, 430II, 12mm macro tube PM ME!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vmaidens
Senior Member
Avatar
848 posts
Gallery: 37 photos
Likes: 308
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Creemore Ontario Canada
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:40 |  #21

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


http://www.vincemaiden​sphotography.com (external link)
http://twitter.com/VMa​idensPhoto (external link)
http://500px.com/Vince​Maidens (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JEmerson
Member
205 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:43 |  #22

DetlevCM wrote in post #10750279 (external link)
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)


Site (external link)
[Work in progress- feedback appreciated!]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
themadman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
18,871 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern California
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:46 |  #23

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.


Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.​com (external link) | Gear List and Feedback | CPS Member | Have you Pre-Ordered Your 3Dx Yet? | HorusBennu Discussion | In honor of Uncle Steve, thanks for everything! 10-5-2011

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DetlevCM
Goldmember
Avatar
3,431 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Europe
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:50 |  #24

JEmerson wrote in post #10750625 (external link)
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.


5D MK II AF Satisfaction Poll | Reduced Kit List
A Basic Guide to Photographyexternal link | Websiteexternal link
Flickrexternal link | Artflakesexternal link | Blurbexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:51 as a reply to  @ themadman's post |  #25

I use raw and never filled a card yet.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JEmerson
Member
205 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:56 |  #26

DetlevCM wrote in post #10750670 (external link)
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?


Site (external link)
[Work in progress- feedback appreciated!]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DetlevCM
Goldmember
Avatar
3,431 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Europe
     
Aug 19, 2010 11:57 |  #27

JEmerson wrote in post #10750698 (external link)
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.


5D MK II AF Satisfaction Poll | Reduced Kit List
A Basic Guide to Photographyexternal link | Websiteexternal link
Flickrexternal link | Artflakesexternal link | Blurbexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnJ80
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,442 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
     
Aug 19, 2010 13:50 |  #28

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.


Obsessive Gear List
"It isn't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that isn't so." - Mark Twain

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sixsixfour
Goldmember
Avatar
1,781 posts
Likes: 25
Joined May 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Aug 19, 2010 15:00 |  #29

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.


Canon 7D / 50D / 30D / SL1 / XT

My photography-related addiction makes a crack habit look like a fiscally responsible pasttime.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark ­ II
Goldmember
Avatar
2,153 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Texas
     
Aug 19, 2010 15:27 as a reply to  @ sixsixfour's post |  #30

You guys are cunfusing me! :confused:

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

Does that pretty much sum it up?


1DX7D - 40D IR converted Sony RX100,
Canon 85 L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 24-105L, 16-35mm f/2.8 II L, 100L & 60mm Macro , Fisheye EF 15mm f2.8, Tokina 10-17

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

5,848 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sports shooting 7D
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is tnt2112
1223 guests, 331 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.