Hey Sports Shooters!!

SnapLocally.com wrote in post #9107670
You do that. I'll stick to taking them right the first time.

+1

So basically what your saying is by shooting RAW your less of a photog. Really?? Thats just a absurd statement to make in this debate. There are quite a few good reasons to use both.. whatever works for you is best. But those trying to decide could get good information from this topic without that crap for sure

eigga wrote in post #9110642
So basically what your saying is by shooting RAW your less of a photog. Really??

Sometimes maybe YES. When jpg is the appropriate format for the workflow but you're still shooting RAW because you're making too many exposure mistakes then its time to improve your skills. Some people are fixated on RAW - and maybe for the wrong reasons. There's nothing wrong with shooting jpg when you know you can get the exposure you want.

Yes disk space is cheap and computers are fast... but I have 4TB of hard drive space thats full up and keeping it backed up is a pain so why deal with all those big files. And I've got over 100,000 actuations on my cameras this year of which about 10% are RAW files (mostly weddings) and the rest are jpg.

cwood wrote in post #9112423
There's nothing wrong with shooting jpg when you know you can get the exposure you want.

I was skeptical about shooting RAW for many reason, one of the biggest was the false reasons people gave for shooting RAW.

First false statement (for me, not for all): WB

In my life, I never recall missing a good photo because WB. I'm sure that happens to many people when they shoot in difficult conditions, but it has never happened to me.

Second false statement: When editing JPEG, you always lost information and can't go back to the original.

This was even more BS, as everyone in their right mind takes back-up of the originals, and then edits the copies. No matter what you do, just copy the original again and you're back to start.

Because of these RAW "ads", which I thought stupid, I was very skeptical about whole RAW idea. Then finally I found my reasons for shooting RAW, which is increased dynamic range, which mostly means saving over- or underexposured spots. This didn't use to be that big thing, as I rarely noticed I had exposure wrong or something, mostly when there were too high contrasts in the image so that the dynamic range of the JPEG just couldn't cover both ends.

And in the end, edit time is marginally longer so it doesn't really matter.

So that's my reason, and I'm sure most people have their reasons for selecting one or other format, I don't select for them. If you never shoot in such condition that you need the extended dynamic range, great. I'd say people should give accurate information on both formats, and let the newcomers decide which reasons they need to select which format.

You need to improve your skills Matt.

Thanks Danny, I always new something was missing just didnt realize it was my file choice. Will make sure to shoot medium .jpeg from now on (except weddings because thats pushing it from what I gather) Sports Illustrated here I come!

SnapLocally.com wrote in post #9095576
There's a free download that converts RAW files to jpeg in seconds; even hundreds of them...

Ummm...
Just one question -

If you're going to convert RAW files to jpeg anyway, why not just shoot jpeg in the first place therefore saving the hassle of converting?
It also reduces the risk, albeit slim, for anything to go amiss in the extra step.

As for RAW being a loss-less file and jpeg not, why not just work on a copy of the jpeg file rather than reworking it each time?
Simply opening and closing a jpeg does not affect the quality of the image as nothing has been done to it.

I presented the raw converter option for those who already shoot raw to save them the space of shooting raw+jpeg.

I must have a really good copy of the 40D, because when I look at a "normal" quality jpeg vs an unprocessed raw file at 3200 iso, I'm not seeing any quality disparity, only more noise in the raw file. Then again, my exposure is properly balanced, negating my need for that latitude raw provides.

I dont use RAW for exposure.. I use it for WB and for media and because it is my workflow. Especially for recitals and performances. Each scene is different and I dont have the luxury to worry about WB. Exposure I take care of but I am forced to rely on Auto WB.

For those who claim RAW is for us inferior photogs..how do you handle WB issues?

Secondly it is NOT an extra step for me in Lightroom. I import the file the same as I would if it was a .jpeg and export the changes the same. If you are arguing this point because you think RAW requires extra work its time to check out Lightroom.

I KNOW jpeg has its place for certian things and I understand it works for some. Why cant you see the same about RAW?

eigga wrote in post #9117077
I KNOW jpeg has its place for certian things and I understand it works for some. Why cant you see the same about RAW?

If you'd read and absorbed, not just looked at my previous post (#72) in this thread where I said

philwillmedia wrote in post #9106105
When I can look at a photo in a magazine and say unequivocally that it was originally shot as a RAW image (or jpeg for that matter) then I'll care.
Until then, I'll continue to shoot hi res jpeg.

As for anyone else - whatever floats your boat.

you will see that I really don't care what others do as it doesn't affect what I do.
If you want to shoot RAW, shoot RAW. If you want to shoot jpeg, shoot jpeg.
Simple.

eigga wrote in post #9117077
For those who claim RAW is for us inferior photogs..how do you handle WB issues?

I don't remember anyone saying that, but since I'm here, I'll answer anyhow- Try doing a custom white balance for a change. If the lights are just ridiculous, I'll just resort to auto, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

Lightroom- no thank you. I much like and am rather comfortable with the PS interface. I must confess though, I do rather enjoy watching some noob rely on spray and pray in RAW, knowing they're gonna have to process those 5000 shots while I've only got a gig and a half of quite manageable jpegs to sort through.

You do realize that processing 5000 shots in Lightroom is as easy as: Adjust first photo > Ctrl+A > Sync > done.

That's ok. I don't "mass produce" my shots; I only work on the shots I like, and enjoy the process of fine tuning. Even then, most of my shots are which are composed and well timed would be more than acceptable right out of the camera anyhow; they've already been subjected to my in-camera settings. I don't use PS to fix anything except maybe to straighten the occasional horizion and a little cropping; I use it to make a good photo great.

I don't understand the whole debate about RAW v JPEG. There is more information in RAW and particularly in low light it is hard to argue that images are as good when shooting JPEGs. Assuming that you have a large card then the only downside of shooting RAW is your buffer, a particular issue with the 7D. I shoot soccer, football, NASCAR all in RAW. Usually use a 16 GB card having filled one once with my 7D. Last weekend I did have buffer issues once during a football game while shooting a 1D Mark III. Would not have been an issue if I had been shooting JPEG. See recent RAW images with JPEG conversion (ACR 5.6 to CS4).

http://www.sportsactio​ndigital.com …017_LFZrN#72641​9529_JYUm4

Dan-o wrote in post #9114846
You need to improve your skills Matt.

Quoting half a sentence to mis-represent someone could be considered slander you know.

BTW Matt. I really do think you're a funny guy ... But if you can't take a sports illustrated worthy picture in Medium JPG then I don't think your chances are improving by shooting RAW... since you brought it up.

Good luck to the both of you...