Hey Sports Shooters!!

lespaulowner wrote in post #9087625
hmm, I may need to try that out

Here's a test I just took for you guys. In the following shot, I shot one image in High quality jpeg, the other in Normal quality.

Both shots were taken with my 40D and Sigma 30 f/1.4 lens at iso 1600, f/2.2 at 1/500. Crops are at 100%, no post-processing (only in-camera NR):

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

^ if posting on a forum at 200 x 400 is the end product you have a point. What do you do on medium quality when the client wants a 20x30 and the image needs to be cropped some?

I shoot 100% RAW because I have the storage and I would rather have all the choices available to me. Even my events with 20,000 plus images I shoot RAW. This is a requirement for my other shooters too. Once the images have been edited the RAW is usually deleted and the jpeg saved. I would guess that in those events I need RAW for only abut 5-10% of the images... but I have it for those images. That is my way and it works for me.

As a media person I shoot RAW because of all the issues with altering images. You have a true original that way.

Editing RAW images should not be the reson though. Programs like Lightrom make RAW images edit the same as .jpeg

I do understand why some prefer jpeg .. it works for them.

(Not a pro) I only shoot RAW

namasste wrote in post #8495023
With RAW, you may have a slightly better file to work from but ACR gives you the same controls with RAW or jpegs basically so unless you need RAW, why bother?

ACR may give you the same controls but youre not manipulating the same DATA.

Adjusting levels of anything on an 8bit file is nothing like adjusting levels on a 14bit file.

With Canon, I feel like I always have to shoot raw to get results that I find acceptable. With Nikon, Ill shoot straight jpg with d-lighting and NR on.

AdamLewis wrote in post #9093251
ACR may give you the same controls but youre not manipulating the same DATA.

Adjusting levels of anything on an 8bit file is nothing like adjusting levels on a 14bit file.

With Canon, I feel like I always have to shoot raw to get results that I find acceptable. With Nikon, Ill shoot straight jpg with d-lighting and NR on.

Nikon does seem to have an advantage for shooting straight to JPEG.

eigga wrote in post #9090858
^ if posting on a forum at 200 x 400 is the end product you have a point. What do you do on medium quality when the client wants a 20x30 and the image needs to be cropped some?

It's simple- I don't deal with prints. I know my industry, and who my customers are. Rarely do they insist on prints. If that's all they want, yes, I've made acceptable 20x30 posters from a shot taken in 5mp mode, but largely I sell photo cd's for a set price.

Almost all jpeg for me. I do a lot of paper work on deadline and have to transmit onsite. I also do a lot of youth sports with the majority of the shots only being 5x7's, so I don't need the larger files. At times I can be covering up to 12+ teams in a day and end up with 3000+ shots that I have to turnaround in 4-5 days and get them to the lab, so I have to shoot it right the first time and spend as little time in post as possible, as time is money.

T&I I shoot in RAW+jpeg, but again I try and spend as little time in post as possible.

nicmo wrote in post #9094194
Almost all jpeg for me. I do a lot of paper work on deadline and have to transmit onsite. I also do a lot of youth sports with the majority of the shots only being 5x7's, so I don't need the larger files. At times I can be covering up to 12+ teams in a day and end up with 3000+ shots that I have to turnaround in 4-5 days and get them to the lab, so I have to shoot it right the first time and spend as little time in post as possible, as time is money.

T&I I shoot in RAW+jpeg, but again I try and spend as little time in post as possible.

If you shoot it right the first time, what difference does it make which file format you are shooting? How would shooting in RAW add any additional time to your workflow other than uploading the images?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with shooting JPEGs under your situations, just asking the question.

Big K wrote in post #9094372
If you shoot it right the first time, what difference does it make which file format you are shooting? How would shooting in RAW add any additional time to your workflow other than uploading the images?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with shooting JPEGs under your situations, just asking the question.

Converting 1000's of RAW files to JPG can take several hours... if you shoot it right the first time why bother with the extra step?

cwood wrote in post #9094391
Converting 1000's of RAW files to JPG can take several hours... if you shoot it right the first time why bother with the extra step?

That depends on your machine I guess. I converted about 2,000 5D Mk II RAW files earlier today down to 1800 pixels on the long dimension in a batch process from Aperture and it took about 30 minutes in the background while I worked on something else.

Just did a test with nothing else running. It took 102 seconds to convert 50 full size RAW 5D Mk II files to 1800 pixel JPEGS. Basically, 2 seconds per file.

Again, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with shooting JPG only if that is what you want. I just don't agree with the justifications of doing so because time is such a commodity you can't afford to.

cwood wrote in post #9094391
C... if you shoot it right the first time why bother with the extra step?

What steps are you going to take if you don't?

You know I almost didn't comment in this thread as this almost borders on a religious discussion...:p

5 years ago I would say using RAW would slow my workflow way down for the conversion alone, but if I were to use RAW today I would say the only impact would be the initial load time per card (possibly could be more cards), but I doubt it would slow my workflow enough to seriously impact me or my deadlines.

For me there is no right or wrong to either method, there are so many variables that can come into play to cause a person to choose one over the other. I choose to shoot in jpeg as that is what works for me, so that is what I use. If shooting in RAW is your thing I am 100% behind you. In either case both are still faster than shooting in film and developing in the darkroom.... Ah... Those were the days, now where did I leave my sodium thiosulfate...

nicmo wrote in post #9094529
For me there is no right or wrong to either method, there are so many variables that can come into play to cause a person to choose one over the other. I choose to shoot in jpeg as that is what works for me, so that is what I use. If shooting in RAW is your thing I am 100% behind you. In either case both are still faster than shooting in film and developing in the darkroom.... Ah... Those were the days, now where did I leave my sodium thiosulfate...

+1 and I fully agree with you.

My dad and I actually shot and developed some B&W film yesterday after Thanksgiving feasting. It was a fun trip down memory lane that is for sure. I hadn't used an enlarger in probably 15 years.

Currently, I shoot Raw+JPEG when shooting an event (2000+ shots a day). I only store the Raw photos on external hard drives as backups and if I need the extra data for PP for a customer order after the event, then I have it. Otherwise I use the jpegs for onsite viewing and printing and only load them to the computer ( LR2 ). I have noticed that I am starting to use the Raw files for editing less and less... soon I hope to be confident enough to only shoot jpeg. I don't spray and pray, so I don't need the buffer space in the camera (MKIII), but it would save me space on the cards...