Jpeg or RAW

B

blue marlin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
356
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys, i post this under sport as thats all i shoot
I am thinking about upgrading to 1Dx but i have to consider the cost and weather i can recoup the money in todays ever decreasing market but thats an other rant !!!
As i covered a game a week or so ago i shot a few frames on some bodies Dx and when i came to caption them in PM and crop in PS when i exported into PS the camera raw box opened up i have since found out that he shoots in RAW as i only shoot Jpeg is there any advantage in shooting RAW?
I have since conducted an exercise by changed the settings on my present bodies to see the difference between RAW and Jpeg and on my mac i can't any comments etc welcome
cheers in advance
 
There are many threads here on JPEG versus RAW - you need to understand what the differences are in order to appreciate which is best for you. The JPEG your camera produces is an image it has processed for you. While doing so has also compressed it for you so now you have a half glass of water. The RAW is the full glass of water - but hasn't yet been processed. So depends on how you use your images will help you make a choice as to which is best for you.
 
The best thing about RAW is you can recover more detail. If your happy with your jpg results then stick with it. You do get smaller files with jpg as raw are very large then you have to process the file.
As I said there no right or wrong here
 
If your not going to spend time bringing out extra details within the images shooting Raw pitch side is time wasted IMHO,
You can set up actions within PS for corrections but these will alter with every different lighting set up at the stadiums & applying these actions requires more time!.
Better sticking with jpegs the file sizes are smaller so quicker to ingest also picture desks prefer jpegs as there is no conversions needed for print/ image sales etc.

I do shoot Raw & find it very rewarding to work on them in PS, (think of it as starting with a blank page),but not for speed dependant press work. Regards Graham.
 
For sports shooting pitchside RAW is a total waste of time, space and computer/laptop resourses, never shot a single RAW image in my life and would only ever consider doing so if i were a pro wedding photograper
 
Please don't buy a 1DX and only shoot JPEGs. If you are going to spend that much on a camera body make the most of it, and I know there a good arguments for shooting in JPEG, but not with a 1DX please!! It just seems so wrong...

Or do you mean a Nikon D1x?

Edit: Ok, sorry didn't realise this was the sports forum. I'll back out quietly whistling, and hope nobody heard me..

I'm crying inside at the thought of you lot shooting jpgs though...
 
Last edited:
TimmyG said:
Please don't buy a 1DX and only shoot JPEGs. If you are going to spend that much on a camera body make the most of it, and I know there a good arguments for shooting in JPEG, but not with a 1DX please!! It just seems so wrong...

Or do you mean a Nikon D1x?

Edit: Ok, sorry didn't realise this was the sports forum. I'll back out quietly whistling, and hope nobody heard me..

I'm crying inside at the thought of you lot shooting jpgs though...
Click to expand...

If you can download, process a raw image for, exposure curve, sharpness /light balance, crop & attach capture data info (XMP). Then reduce the file size for quicker FTP, (about 1meg as a rule of thumb), within 30+ seconds each then please do share your workflow Tim!!:p. Regards Graham.
 
Last edited:
If you shoot decent sports pictures.. why would you want RAW.. if your thinking of making a complete mess and need to fix them then yeah shoot RAW

The above only applied to the sports forum so dont get them in a twist guys..
 
I'm sort of 50/50. I'll shoot sports like Racing and Snooker in RAW but Rugby and Football in Jpeg.
It just depends on the situation, what the end use is, what mood I'm in and which way the wind is blowing.

IMO there is no one correct answer. Only what works best for you.
 
Cheers chaps, it was just a question as I alway have shot in JPEG just that when I exported the images out of the borrowed 1dx from PS to photoshop the camera raw box appeared and could not see the point myself as all my stuff go to papers
 
Bluesman graham said:
If you can download, process a raw image for, exposure curve, sharpness /light balance, crop & attach capture data info (XMP). Then reduce the file size for quicker FTP, (about 1meg as a rule of thumb), within 30+ seconds each then please do share your workflow Tim!!:p. Regards Graham.
Click to expand...
Yeah. like I said, hadn't realise I'd strayed into the sports forum. Whole different ball game (if you'll pardon the pun)..
 
Bluesman graham said:
If you can download, process a raw image for, exposure curve, sharpness /light balance, crop & attach capture data info (XMP). Then reduce the file size for quicker FTP, (about 1meg as a rule of thumb), within 30+ seconds each then please do share your workflow Tim!!:p. Regards Graham.
Click to expand...

It's not really much different than using JPEGs, sharpening and curves amongst other things get applied during import. Crop, data and resizing has to be done on JPEGs anyway. The initial file size is the issue, but if you've got a fast enough system the difference is minimal.

I use a mixture of both, depending on what I'm shooting, the conditions on the day and even which camera I'm using. When I use JPEGs I also mostly a neutral profile with no sharpening and then apply my own 'recipe' on import of the photos to Lightroom as I prefer the tools from that over the in-camera settings.

There are other reasons to use JPEG though, and on a 1DX it allows you to shoot an extra 2fps which can come in handy.
 
Toggerman said:
It's not really much different than using JPEGs, sharpening and curves amongst other things get applied during import. Crop, data and resizing has to be done on JPEGs anyway. The initial file size is the issue, but if you've got a fast enough system the difference is minimal.

I use a mixture of both, depending on what I'm shooting, the conditions on the day and even which camera I'm using. When I use JPEGs I also mostly a neutral profile with no sharpening and then apply my own 'recipe' on import of the photos to Lightroom as I prefer the tools from that over the in-camera settings.

There are other reasons to use JPEG though, and on a 1DX it allows you to shoot an extra 2fps which can come in handy.
Click to expand...


Are you filing from pitchside, because if you aren't you won't understand the speed difference?
 
DemiLion said:
Are you filing from pitchside, because if you aren't you won't understand the speed difference?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Edit: Sorry, that was a rather short answer. I do upload from pitchside/trackside.

With regard to the speed difference I can break out some quick math. Yesterday I shot some motorsport and with the 1DX the average RAW file size was 20.5MB and the average JPEG was 6MB, quite a substantial difference. Using those averages lets say I want to upload 45 photos all at once during a football match, that's 922.5MB of RAW or 270MB of JPEG. Using my USB3.0 card reader which can transfer at around 120MB/s that's ~7.7s to transfer the RAW and 2.25s for the JPEGs, 5.5s difference. The photos are imported into Lightroom which applies different presets depending on file type. Then basic adjustments and crops are made and then the photos are exported to match the resolution/size required, the difference in processing is a couple of seconds. The files (now just identical JPEGs) are uploaded.

Obviously the time processing the different file sizes depends on the system you're using, a slower system will naturally take longer. However at the sizes we're talking most modern systems should be ok, especially if using an SSD.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think that we're talking chalk and cheese here.

Most pitchside photographers will tag an/some images, import, make minor adjustments in PM/LR and then send. No time for faffing about with levels, crop and straighten only. Everything is done in the camera as a Jpeg.
 
blue marlin said:
i post this under sport as thats all i shoot
Click to expand...
•


Shooting sports is no reason to shoot jpg.
Shooting sports and the imperative to rush
out for publishing is!
 
DemiLion said:
Yeah, I think that we're talking chalk and cheese here.
Click to expand...

We're really not. I just think that some people haven't used RAW and Lightroom enough to know how RAW files get handled in LR.

DemiLion said:
Most pitchside photographers will tag an/some images, import, make minor adjustments in PM/LR and then send. No time for faffing about with levels, crop and straighten only. Everything is done in the camera as a Jpeg.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about adjusting curves or levels, all of that is done automatically upon import. The manual adjustments made to the RAW file will be the same as if it were a JPEG (eg, touch of exposure/contrast, crop etc).
 
Last edited:
Just like every other time this question has been asked before .... RAW is the better option.

Everybody here has paid a lot of money for their camera kit so why would anyone want to then scrimp on photo quality?

Give yourself the best chance of getting the shot as you saw it .... Shoot in raw.
 
hypnotic said:
Just like every other time this question has been asked before .... RAW is the better option.

Everybody here has paid a lot of money for their camera kit so why would anyone want to then scrimp on photo quality?

Give yourself the best chance of getting the shot as you saw it .... Shoot in raw.
Click to expand...


It's not like every other time it's been asked at all.... You might want to read the thread your jumping in :)
 
Last edited:
I have a Canon 1 Dmk4 and when i an shooting football,I use CF card with Raw and the SD card to Jpeg
 
andrewc said:
When I shoot sports, its always JPG. If I'm shooting for myself I'll use full size JPG, but often when I'm working for others, I'm asked to shoot at smaller sizes.
Click to expand...


yeagh when working for event people i have to lower my sizes then remeber to put them back up again.. grrr :)

I use my two slots to record to both at once.. then from the shutter button being pressed i always have 2 copies of every pic i take.. more importnt than having raw files i will never touch... for sports which usualy means lots of pics theres not much more i am going to do in raw that i cant do in jpg.. all my pics are save 90% and never edited again..
 
Interesting that some people think that processing a raw file is such a hassle. It's really not. It really doesn't take much longer than importing a jpeg, tweaking and exporting. If your wiring from pitch side is so competitive that a couple of seconds matter, then fair enough. If not, I'd say look into it. :)
 
gibtheo said:
Interesting that some people think that processing a raw file is such a hassle. It's really not. It really doesn't take much longer than importing a jpeg, tweaking and exporting. If your wiring from pitch side is so competitive that a couple of seconds matter, then fair enough. If not, I'd say look into it. :)
Click to expand...

Tonight at burnley v Middlesbrough I managed to download. crop and straighten, resize .. save then caption then email 12 pics at half time just as the players came out..

1) raw would have slowed me down

2) WHY WHY WHY on earth would I need raw? even if it didn't slow me down.. WHY do you think I need RAW ?
 
All things are relative. Yep, it would have slowed you down by as long as the difference in your software and hardware could handle the file transfers.

I didn't say the YOU need raw. YOU obviously don't need to shoot raw. I didn't actually say that anyone needs raw, I am just saying that it really isn't as big a hassle as some people might think it is, and to disregard it completely without understanding the process seems a bit short sighted. It's a different way of working.

One of the reasons I shoot raw a lot of the time is that with a quick tweak or even a preset tweak I can bring details out in shadows from poorly lit games that there would be no detail in, in some jpeg shot files. Thus giving me, IMO better images. Maybe the papers etc don't care, but I do!

This is not directed at any person in particular!
 
Last edited:
When you are at an event with 8 other photographers and 9000 runners, with each trying to get everyone, to get all the images online, watermarked with sponsors logos, tagged with runners bib number, you need to have a streamlined and efficient system to get photos online within 24-48 hrs at the latest. Shooting RAW just adds time at each stage of the process - downloading, culling, tagging, exporting. The difference between a 20-24mb RAW and a 2mb JPG is massive, especially when you've been issued with 2 x 16gb cards to last the day.
 
gibtheo said:
All things are relative. Yep, it would have slowed you down by as long as the difference in your software and hardware could handle the file transfers.

I didn't say the YOU need raw. YOU obviously don't need to shoot raw. I didn't actually say that anyone needs raw, I am just saying that it really isn't as big a hassle as some people might think it is, and to disregard it completely without understanding the process seems a bit short sighted. It's a different way of working

One of the reasons I shoot raw a lot of the time is that with a quick tweak or even a preset tweak I can bring details out in shadows from poorly lit games that there would be no detail in, in some jpeg shot files. Thus giving me, IMO better images. Maybe the papers etc don't care, but I do!

This is not directed at any person in particular!
Click to expand...



That's the point of the debate Steven! knowing the OP!, why should a user have to have the all singing,dancing upgrades/equipment to continue their uses?. The very debate ends in a upshot of speed for sports publications & it means unless your willing to spend £1,000's every few years to keep up processing speeds then jpeg is better suited for the job!?
 
Toggerman said:
We're really not. I just think that some people haven't used RAW and Lightroom enough to know how RAW files get handled in LR.



I never said anything about adjusting curves or levels, all of that is done automatically upon import. The manual adjustments made to the RAW file will be the same as if it were a JPEG (eg, touch of exposure/contrast, crop etc).
Click to expand...

So why shoot Raw then ? :D

As a wedding photographer I use raw (or jpeg and raw) but I don't see the point for sports where speed of workflow is much more important
 
big soft moose said:
So why shoot Raw then ? :D
Click to expand...

Thats the point i was going for.. I dont get it at all..what can you do in raw that i cant do in JPG given the circumstances of requiring the end product to be a small jpg in as quick a time as possible?
 
I do understand the issues around increasing work flow, especially in the scenario outlined above with 1000's of runners etc. Totally agree. However, I still stick to the view that if you are simply covering a footy game for example, it doesn't actually increase your work flow very much if at all.

Whether you need/want to use it is another issue I suppose. I guess it's the point of this thread, so my answer would be, no you probably don't need to use it but there is no harm in working through the details of the process and then in some cases it may benefit you. :)

If you don't have the appropriate hardware to deal with the speeds etc then no, of course, stick to the fastest work flow you can.
 
big soft moose said:
So why shoot Raw then ? :D
Click to expand...

The simplest answer in that case is to get a different conversion process. Some people prefer the way LR or PS render the image over the camera, especially if you've already played with the settings. Simply just a case of different tastes.
 
Nobody seems able to answer the question.. if all your doing is minor changes and the output is going to be a small jpg file.. then what is the point of shooting raw... has anyone got an answer?
 
KIPAX said:
Nobody seems able to answer the question.. if all your doing is minor changes and the output is going to be a small jpg file.. then what is the point of shooting raw... has anyone got an answer?
Click to expand...

The simplest answer in that case is to get a different conversion process. Some people prefer the way LR or PS render the image over the camera, especially if you've already played with the settings. Simply just a case of different tastes.
 
Toggerman said:
The simplest answer in that case is to get a different conversion process. Some people prefer the way LR or PS render the image over the camera, especially if you've already played with the settings. Simply just a case of different tastes.
Click to expand...


Your answering how to shoot raw..the question is why when your only making minor changes and the output is small jpg.. why change your process to shoot raw ? not how ? :)
 
KIPAX said:
Your answering how to shoot raw..the question is why when your only making minor changes and the output is small jpg.. why change your process to shoot raw ? not how ? :)
Click to expand...

Read it again. If you think that all RAW converters process the image the same way then you are massively mistaken. If you shoot RAW you can use PS or LR or any other converter and the outputting file will have different colours depending on the software's interpretation. ie, shoot RAW and JPEG of the same image, convert the RAW through Lightroom and the resultant 2 JPEGS will look different.
 
Toggerman said:
Read it again. If you think that all RAW converters process the image the same way then you are massively mistaken. If you shoot RAW you can use PS or LR or any other converter and the outputting file will have different colours depending on the software's interpretation. ie, shoot RAW and JPEG of the same image, convert the RAW through Lightroom and the resultant 2 JPEGS will look different.
Click to expand...


I never said they process them the same way so how can i be massivly mistaken ??

You just telling me things we all already know.. your not telling me why a sports shooter would shoot raw given the conditions described in this thread... If I am sat with half a dozen other photogrpahers and we are all rushing to get the pics in to a newsdesk as quick as possible.. they all shoot small jpg and send.. why would i/anyone want to shoot raw and convert to the same small jpg then send.... because the colours look different? is that the answer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top