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 Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 18 Feb 2010 (Thursday) 11:08
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Pro Sports Shooters: RAW or JPEG?"
RAW
96
53.6%
JPEG
83
46.4%

179 voters, 179 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 a registered member)

Pro Sports Shooters: RAW or JPEG?

 
mmahoney
Goldmember
Avatar
2,789 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Mar 05, 2010 11:18 |  #121

Dan-o wrote in post #9733311 (external link)
Oh so you could just as easily done it in RAW.

If he had the required computing power .. the idea that JPEG is faster than RAW is mostly only true for slower computers. We recently upgraded our computers and softwares to deal with the massive 25MB 5DMK2 RAW files so for me viewing, sorting, and basic editing of smaller 1D series RAW files is as fast with RAW as JPEG.

The initial ingesting of files takes more time with RAW than JPEG but once the files are imported and have their previews rendered I see no difference timewise between the two file types.

I hear guys saying they find RAW slow and then they reveal their computer is a 4 year old laptop .. regularly upgrading computers and softwares often pays for itself in time saved.


Newfoundland Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
primoz
POTN Sports Photographer of the year 2005
Avatar
2,532 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Anywhere where ski World cup makes its stop
     
Mar 05, 2010 15:32 as a reply to  @ mmahoney's post |  #122

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.... Raw is as fast as jpeg, and in next second you write something like "The initial ingesting of files takes more time with RAW than JPEG but once the files are imported and have their previews rendered I see no difference timewise between the two file types."
Sure let's skip few more time consuming steps and concentrate only on uploading jpegs created from raw files, and then let's tell it's much faster to just upload these jpegs, then ingesting jpegs, captioning, changing levels/curves, and sending them forward, is.


PhotoSI (external link) | Latest sport photos (external link)http://www.photo.si (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eigga
Goldmember
Avatar
2,208 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Mar 05, 2010 17:29 |  #123

I have already made the point that AFTER "ingesting" the files the time difference it NADA.

However as Primoz points out the time to ingest files is MUCH different between RAW and .jpeg Especially if time is crucial. The bigger the file size on your camera and the more files you have the more this is an issue.

Time is not an issue for me so I use RAW


-Matt
Website (external link)
Facebook (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BenJohnson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,811 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
     
Mar 06, 2010 08:07 |  #124

I'm pretty sure that in 9 pages of debate, no one has been convinced to switch from JPEG to RAW or vice versa. This argument appears to be going no where. Informative - maybe, but not productive.

The poll results are interesting. 50/50 split. The rest of the debate I can do without. We all know the pluses and minuses and we've made our decisions based on what we feel is best in our situations.

Unsubscribed.

But feel free to keep the debate going! :)


|Ben Johnson Photography (external link)|
|Gear List|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 06, 2010 08:16 |  #125

mmahoney wrote in post #9734629 (external link)
I hear guys saying they find RAW slow and then they reveal their computer is a 4 year old laptop .. regularly upgrading computers and softwares often pays for itself in time saved.

So let's see. Which is better for my business?

New TOP END laptop every year for $2,000

or

Push button & spin dial for $0.

As a person running a real business with real costs and the goal of real profit, I kinda like the latter a bit more. Then again, that's why I don't buy new cameras just because Canon dangles them in front of me either.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AdamLewis
Goldmember
Avatar
4,120 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Mar 06, 2010 19:24 |  #126

Why is this even still going on? It should end at the solid facts.

  • A JPG picture processed from raw will always have marginally more potential than a JPG straight from camera
  • A raw file will always be larger than the jpg file
  • raw files will always take longer to process than their jpg counterparts given the same computer


If a slight increase in quality is your top priority, shoot raw.
If youre on a time deadline and need to have pictures sent 5 minutes ago, shoot JPG.

All these arguments about "Its just as easy to process raw as JPG" are completely ignoring that fact that no matter how easy it is, it is still easier for a computer (ANY and EVERY computer) to process X number of 5MB files than X number of 20MB files. There is simply no logical way of escaping the fact that the more work you require a computer to do, the longer it will take the computer to do it. I dont care how fast your computer is, the task as a whole (ingest,cull,tag,crop,​convert,upload) will take longer when using raw than it will when using JPG.

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flaviosilvacosta
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Apr 2017
     
Apr 20, 2017 04:54 |  #127

Hi everyone, first let me say is my first posting here. I was checking on the internet for sports photography in JPEG and find the forum.
I want to say my opinion as an amateur photographer.
This Sunday I'm going to take pictures on London marathon where I need to upload all pictures on the next day.
For the first time of my short "career" as a photographer, i decide to shot in JPEG because is the setting who works better in this situation( not talking about quality).
Im going to shot one charity runners, they are near 800. so i think in the end of the day i will be with 3000 pictures. Processing in raw and convert them will take edges and in this case, i don't have, but of course the best option for a good work!

so, shot in RAW is best, but each situation is different and for me, JPEG is the best one( on this case ), even if i think the pictures they going to be upload for social media( facebook ) and is no money on this job.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bildeb0rg
Goldmember
Avatar
2,944 posts
Gallery: 256 photos
Likes: 1216
Joined Oct 2006
Location: north yorks
     
Apr 21, 2017 02:42 |  #128

To me, the wire guys spend more time chimping every few shots than they would "waste" converting raw to jpeg. For eventers needing to upload the next day, I would hope you were resizing anyway so that negates the processing argument. The people looking for a few printables, surely those imaged are instantly recognisable on first viewing, so they are the only ones you need to edit? Not a pro, but shoot sports in raw and tbh I don't really care what format anyone else shoots. If it works for you, great :-)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,170 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5925
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed. (15 edits in all)
     
Apr 24, 2017 07:53 |  #129

How I shoot

I shoot both raw and JPG for those rare exposure mistakes, but as of the last 1.5 seasons, I have been only using the JPG files. I run them through in bulk with a photoshop action that resizes, levels, reduces a bit of noise, and sharpens them according, and then submit them onwards to the office and online. The results are used for posters, marketing material, etc.

I have every single factor dialed into the camera for this venue, though, it is not a different venue night after night. That helps. The latest bodies like the 5D4 and 7D2 provide very little advantage with the raw. I have taken countless raws and processed them, even at high ISO, then taken the out of camera JPG to compare. The only way to see any real difference is to zoom in at 80% or more. When doing poster prints, that kind of zoom isn't realized, so the gain for shooting raw simply isn't there. Again, though, I have the raw should there be an exposure issue of any kind.

Some of the pics are sent to the media center right off the floor using wifi over to the phone and then sent off. I don't even get a chance to post process those JPGs, but I get to select which ones which again helps. Only the best make it over during the game, they have to wait for the rest.

Why JPG?

As to getting right in the camera, absolutely it's possible. If you shoot the same sport a number of times, you get a feel for what the framing should be for that keeper. I also set up a custom WB right on the floor before the game, so no worries there. I shoot at 1/2000th, and I have no color casting in my shots. I set up a custom picture style, and have even considered editing a completely new picture style and uploading it to the camera using the Canon tools. At this point after almost 2 seasons of shooting JPG, I have rarely ever needed the raw to fix something. The cost savings now has been outstanding, I am taking more shots per game (almost twice as many) and getting them through in about the same time.

I also know for a fact that during pro games, a number of the shooters are shooting JPG, and if they aren't transmitting via Wifi, they have card runners. Raw simply takes too much time. I have seen this personally. However I cannot tell you if they are shooting both or not, I have never made it to the processors' booth to see if both are on the cards.

If you want examples of these OOC JPGs that were processed in bulk with CS5, just ask, I have thousands! :)

Time and Resource Concerns

As to why raw takes longer, at least for me:

  • DPP produces superior JPG from Raw right out of the gate, as it uses camera settings. To do the same in LR, I have to create a default set of filters that try to mimic what I want from the camera settings, and then if I change settings mid-game, those files are going to need special attention.
  • My custom NR and post processing steps are stored in an ATN file for photoshop.
  • I would have to run raw files to DPP, do any mass bulk changes if needed, then convert to JPG.
  • I run a bulk "Basketball" action on the JPG in Photoshop, this creates the files ready to be submitted.
  • I run through the final JPGs and see if any need cropped for composition.

The line in bold is where time was wasted in the past for me personally. I have used LR, and I can show you time and time again that DPP honoring in-camera settings (provided you took time to set up everything from a custom WB to a picture style) will produce results better than relying on a default set of tweaks that LR will apply on raw files imported. LR's strength is in its cataloging more than its imaging processing. I don't need that cataloging. The subset of imaging tools in LR is already in Photoshop along with others. I use those there.

Today, I only run the last 2 bullets.

But Wait, You Don't Shoot Raw Ever?

The caveat to all of this though is:

- Shooting a consistent venue affords this luxury, shooting different venues all over the place and if the conditions are very poor, raw would be my choice.
- The newer bodies, starting with the 7D2, 5D4, 80D, 1DX, 1DX2, etc produce very nice JPG files. Older models did not, the JPG engine was terrible and Canon finally updated that sometime around the introduction of the SL1, I believe. Any other models, like the 1DX, 1D3, etc I had to shoot raw, the JPG was atrocious.

So my answer depends on the conditions of the scene of the sporting activity, my familiarity and experience with the sport, how the files will be utilized, and what equipment I am using.

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xchangx
Senior Member
507 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Mobile, AL
     
May 11, 2017 19:30 |  #130

Man, it's been a while since I've been on here. Seems to be a lot of chest thumping.

I shoot raw all the time, btw.


Nikon D4s / 2x D3s / D3 / 17-35 2.8 / 70-200 2.8 / 600 f4
Freelance sports photographer for Getty Images Sports, Entertainment and News
Freelance sports photographer for Sports Illustrated
My Images with Getty (external link)
My Sportsshooter Page (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,170 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5925
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
May 11, 2017 19:47 |  #131

xchangx wrote in post #18352322 (external link)
Man, it's been a while since I've been on here. Seems to be a lot of chest thumping.

I shoot raw all the time, btw.

What chest thumping? The topic is JPG file from camera vs Raw and all its processing to get a JPG. This simply isn't material anybody can puff out their chests on. ;)

Sounds like you are trying to ridicule others, when there really isn't any need?


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HammerCope
Senior Member
795 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Nebraska
     
May 12, 2017 12:01 |  #132

I shoot in JPG because I have to be ready to show anyone of 300 pictures within 5 min after the event.


Pete
Canon 40D & 7D 24-70 F2.8 L 70-200 F4 L Norman 400B, AB800,AB1600 White Lighting 3200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,170 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5925
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
May 12, 2017 12:49 as a reply to  @ HammerCope's post |  #133

I appreciate your predicament, I have to periodically turn on the 5D4 wifi to send images over to the social media table so they can facebook events as near live as they can get during games. :)

One thing I haven't tried is getting their laptops set up to talk to my camera directly. I would have to get a grip to run 2 batteries if I were to leave wifi on though, and I doubt the range would be all that good. If I shoot the 7D2, I will either use the WE1 card to get images to them, or hand them a card and pop a new one in.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John
Goldmember
Avatar
1,401 posts
Likes: 33
Joined Oct 2006
     
May 15, 2017 16:43 |  #134

I'm fairly OCD when it comes to exposure and honestly don't trust my shooting enough to let my camera process the raw for me. :-D

My hats off to those that can nail the exposure straight out of the camera the majority of the time.


john | gear | web hosting deal for POTN members!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,170 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5925
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
May 15, 2017 17:53 |  #135

John wrote in post #18355502 (external link)
I'm fairly OCD when it comes to exposure and honestly don't trust my shooting enough to let my camera process the raw for me. :-D

My hats off to those that can nail the exposure straight out of the camera the majority of the time.

It is easier to get it right in camera, the more consistent a venue you shoot. I have 2 settings on my camera dedicated to two types of venues. It took a few instances to nail down everything, but the effort was worth it for the time savings game after game.

Again though, I also shoot raw just in case, it is my security blanket.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

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

42,429 views & 19 likes for this thread
Pro Sports Shooters: RAW or JPEG?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
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 Yekeen Jamiu
981 guests, 234 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.