JPEG vs RAW ( for motorsport )?

inlineadam

inlineadam

Suspended / Banned
Messages
626
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
FEW EDITS:

My question has pretty much been answered, but feel free to contiune to put your opinions up :) Also, the only thing i need help with now, is getting good editing software... (.. wait's on everyone shouting lightroom ) but which version, and how much? Thanks everyone.

- I'm happy to go with RAW now.
- Capacity isn't a problem.
- Editing time isn't a problem.





( ANSWERED QUESTION )


Ok everyone, i know this question has been asked by thousands of people, thousands of times but i just can't make my mind up.

I'm new to DSLR's so RAW is a new term also.

My main interest is in motorsport, and following advice from others and just general practice, i understand that i need to take LOADS of shots (and i do ). I easily get 2000 JPEG's at a rally.

I currently have 2 x Sandisk Ultra II CF Cards ( 4GB )

I'm only young and so investing £60 in cards isn't exactly an easy decison for me ( ie, 8gb cards, 16gb cards )

( I know that if i shoot raw, i'm going to have to atleast double my card numbers )

So , for motorsport, ( and perhaps in general ) is it really worth me investing in more cards to hold more files just so that i can shoot RAW?

Thanks everyone.
 
Last edited:
Why would you want to shoot in raw is the question that needs answering?
 
KIPAX said:
Why would you want to shoot in raw is the question that needs answering?
Click to expand...

Lots of people tell me that with RAW you get better pictures because the camera doesn't do some processing... and more options for editing?
 
inlineadam said:
Lots of people tell me that with RAW you get better pictures because the camera doesn't do some processing... and more options for editing?
Click to expand...


You dont get better pictures in raw... but the rest of the statement is true...

So currently you do a lot of editing then and still dont get good pictures? in that case yes you need raw...
 
KIPAX said:
You dont get better pictures in raw... but the rest of the statement is true...

So currently you do a lot of editing then and still dont get good pictures? in that case yes you need raw...
Click to expand...

Only thing i really do is crop at the moment.

My Grandpa was a true believer in pure photography and would do his best to beat people who used editing software... i share his belief..
 
inlineadam said:
Only thing i really do is crop at the moment.

My Grandpa was a true believer in pure photography and would do his best to beat people who used editing software... i share his belief..
Click to expand...

Ok lets clear this up :)

Poeple use raw so they can get to the RAW data and make changes to the picture.... A raw file isnt better visualy (in my experience can be worse) but does allow you to change the white balance (if you not able to change it in camera for some reason) it also allows more control over noise and exposure problems... lots of other stuff..

But if your happy with the pictures your getting now.. shooting raw wont auto improve your pictures just because they are in raw.. and wont improve them at all unless they req editing.


PS I am not knocking RAW .. I have and will use it when required..
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
Ok lets clear this up :)

Poeple use raw so they can get to the RAW data and make changes to the picture.... A raw file isnt better visualy (in my experience can be worse) but does allow you to change the white balance (if you not able to change it in camera for some reason) it also allows more control over noise and exposure problems... lots of other stuff..

But if your happy with the pictures your getting now.. shooting raw wont auto improve your pictures just because they are in raw.. and wont improve them at all unless they req editing.


PS I am not knocking RAW .. I have and will use it when required..
Click to expand...

Hi Kipax think you know that I use JPEGs because of various reasons - well I've being doing some experimentation with JPEGs and knowing the arguments about JPEGs in the past what I've been trying out should really blow some people's minds :lol::lol::lol:

I won't try to hijack this thread but as soon as my experiments are finished and satisfy me I'll post a new thread.

JPEGs for ever :lol::lol::lol:

.
 
Its a couple of years since i shot a raw file..but as things would ahve it.. I may use it tommorow night as shooting a prom dress thingy for a mates daughter (well out of my comfrt zone)... one go one night.. dunno what the weather will be like.. may need to make 100% sure its right and shoot in raw just in case...

But for the OP .. I certainly wouldnt switch from jpg to raw for the original reason posted that the pics will be better
 
Think of it in these terms... Jpg: The digital equivalent to a film print from your local 1H photo lab. RAW The digital equivalent to a developed film negative that you still need to work on in the dark room to produce the best possible quality print from.

Now go ask your granddad if he would be happy throwing away his film negatives and see what he say... Essentially, by shooting Jpg , you are keeping a print and throwing away the negative. So you may want to wear some head protection gear before you ask him.
 
Raw is essential for landscape pictures. Utterly, utterly essential. Purely because you can pull out far more detail from an image which 99% of the time will contain far more unprocessed, unseen detail, across a far greater dynamic range.

For sport, where a lot of the time you'll be focused on a single subject, not so much.
 
Last edited:
I regularly shoot motorsport and just use JPG. I have shot raw before but my crummy old PC struggled to handle the larger files. I don't do much tweaking anyway so JPG suits me just fine :) Maybe if I had a faster PC that could handle as quick then I'm sure I'd use RAW. Storage is pretty cheap nowadays.

BTW you don't "have" to take loads of shots. Still try to be selective, no need to nail half a dozen shots of the same car on the same corner, 2 or 3 at the most will usually do IMO - reduce you're time in front of computer then too :)
 
You're shooting for fun (I'm assuming) ie not to wire or anything. So, firstly, shoot what you want.

Secondly, try shooting some raw and learning some basic post production skills. You may find you enjoy it, then you can switch to shooting more raw at the races.

Personally I always shoot raw because I like my pictures to look like my pictures rather than Canon's.
 
If you enjoy taking lots of pics use jpg, if you prefer sitting at a computer use raw !
 
tim_uk said:
If you enjoy taking lots of pics use jpg, if you prefer sitting at a computer use raw !
Click to expand...

With the right software (eg Lightroom) raw doesn't take any longer to process than jpeg.
 
Last edited:
inlineadam said:
Only thing i really do is crop at the moment.

My Grandpa was a true believer in pure photography and would do his best to beat people who used editing software... i share his belief..
Click to expand...

`pure photography` is a myth, every photograph is processed, whether when shooting Raw (when it is yourself who is the processor) or JPEG when it is the camera who decides what the photo should look like.
 
I use raw (ok im ready for smart ass comments) because i like it. Use jpeg if you like it. At the end of the day, use a biggerer card or take less shots with raw.

When you get back home and look at your photos, will you like them? if you do, job done.

One day I may use zipzamzoom files for my pics because thats what i want & like

Marmite :)

T
 
tim_uk said:
If you enjoy taking lots of pics use jpg, if you prefer sitting at a computer use raw !
Click to expand...

Bit of a narrow minded statement if you dont mind me saying! Raw is essential for landscape togging, jpeg loses detail especially in blown sky's which cant be recovered. In raw, slide the exposure down, reveal the sky detail and merge the layer. 30 seconds, job done and a much better image. Not to mention what else you can pull from it.

Eg (and this is the shot I used the other day as a very quick example and I couldnt use my ND Grad which I would have preferred);

The unprocessed raw, converted to jpeg. Pretty much how it would look with jpeg with standard settings.

vally 0 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

A very quick tweak of the raw file

vally by Odd Jim, on Flickr

...and that is just for starters. Note how you are able to completely recover the blown sky. You simply cant do that if you shot the original file in jpeg. Bit off topic as with sports its not so useful but each to their own and I still shoot motorsport in raw as ultimate control is my preference.
 
Last edited:
I mainly shoot motorsport and have shot RAW for as long as I can remember. These days, I have no deadlines to meet so I just don't need the immediacy (sp?) of an in camera JPEG file. The RAW format suits my workflow, and I think that is the crux of it - shoot whatever format suits your needs, your available time / deadlines and delivers the results you want.

I have many good friends that shoot motorsport professionally and they only use JPEG having set their camera up to deliver an image that suits their needs straight out the box. Horses for courses as they say.

Simon.
 
Before this gets out of hand... would all the RAW shooters agree that the original statement is false

Lots of people tell me that with RAW you get better pictures because the camera doesn't do some processing
Click to expand...

If the op goes home and looks at the raw file he isnt going to see better pics than jpg ... he "may" see better pics after he has edited :)
 
KIPAX said:
Before this gets out of hand... would all the RAW shooters agree that the original statement is false



If the op goes home and looks at the raw file he isnt going to see better pics than jpg ... he "may" see better pics after he has edited :)
Click to expand...

Yes agreed.

You need to actually USE the raw data captured. As above with my example, an unprocessed raw will be the same as a jpeg captured in camera with default settings (no scene modes) applied.
 
KIPAX said:
Before this gets out of hand... would all the RAW shooters agree that the original statement is false



If the op goes home and looks at the raw file he isnt going to see better pics than jpg ... he "may" see better pics after he has edited :)
Click to expand...



'Get' better pictures not 'See'.


True if one knows how to process a raw, false if one doesn't. :thumbs:
 
If i shoot military aircraft here i use RAW to help bring detail to the sky AND recover shadows in the airframe and wings.
So with motorsport the contrast will be less as it's mainly groundwork i.e. motobikes/cars on a track so i think the thing to do is do a test exposure, get that as near as and then you are able to use JPEG for quicker buffering to the card in camera as they're smaller files.
 
Haha, pile horse dung.... Raw is for herberts who are not confident in what they do.

Get the job right in the camera and you save shed loads of hours tossing about on the pc.

I'd rather shoot check and load then feet up have a beer....

Shoot Raw and faff like a Ham for hours of extra work.

Post work is for ENHANCING an image not CORRECTING to what it should be if you did the work in your head and set the camera correctly in the first place.

But hey!!!!! Who cares? all you are doing is making more work for yourselves..


Want to things properly learn to use a camera and shoot on Tranny film... slightest error and you screw it up.
 
Daryl said:
Haha, pile horse dung.... Raw is for herberts who are not confident in what they do.

Get the job right in the camera and you save shed loads of hours tossing about on the pc.

I'd rather shoot check and load then feet up have a beer....

Shoot Raw and faff like a Ham for hours of extra work.

Post work is for ENHANCING an image not CORRECTING to what it should be if you did the work in your head and set the camera correctly in the first place.

But hey!!!!! Who cares? all you are doing is making more work for yourselves..


Want to things properly learn to use a camera and shoot on Tranny film... slightest error and you screw it up.
Click to expand...

I like this point.

To be honest, with motorsport i don't really see why much post editing would need to be done. Hence i think i'll stick with JPEG.

But, for landscapes/skys - i'm a little baffled as to what the difference is between using RAW and JPEG for that?
 
Daryl said:
Haha, pile horse dung.... Raw is for herberts who are not confident in what they do.

Get the job right in the camera and you save shed loads of hours tossing about on the pc.

I'd rather shoot check and load then feet up have a beer....

Shoot Raw and faff like a Ham for hours of extra work.

Post work is for ENHANCING an image not CORRECTING to what it should be if you did the work in your head and set the camera correctly in the first place.

But hey!!!!! Who cares? all you are doing is making more work for yourselves..

Want to things properly learn to use a camera and shoot on Tranny film... slightest error and you screw it up.
Click to expand...

In the same way a darkroom is a waste on time for film? My own darkroom prints were miles better the crud I used to get from Boots. In much the same ways, my images from raw originals are miles better than my camera can produce from jpegs.
 
Last edited:
inlineadam said:
I like this point.

To be honest, with motorsport i don't really see why much post editing would need to be done. Hence i think i'll stick with JPEG.

But, for landscapes/skys - i'm a little baffled as to what the difference is between using RAW and JPEG for that?
Click to expand...

See my earlier post with the two images, can't you see the benefits from that? I couldnt have explained it better! And that was just bringing out the detail that doesn't even make it to a jpeg file if shot in jpeg format. Jpegs for complicated detailed scenes with high dynamic ranges such as landscapes are always a compromise, which is why the files sizes are 4 times smaller than jpeg as 75% of the detail is discarded as the camera decides it doesn't want it.

There are MASSIVE benefits shooting landscapes in raw. You only have to pick a photography mag of the shelves to see that.
 
Last edited:
Another consideration is the fact that, unless your camera is pretty much brand new, there's undoubtedly a better RAW converter than the one in the camera. NR software gets better and better, so why stick with what's in the camera?

Just this week, a new release of DxO has given me an extra 2/3 of a stop, in terms of the maximum ISO I can get away with. In 2 years since I bought it, the effective real-world max ISO has increased by about 2 stops.

It's not just about "getting it right in camera", it about finding ways to work round the limitations of the kit (as in the landscape example). Personally, I don't want to wait for the next generation of sensor to get that wider dynamic range or better high-ISO performance. I want it now and I'm prepared to spend a little time at the computer to get it.

As for the guy whose grandad got it right in camera, I hope he didn't use a darkroom. Real men shoot Polaroid.
 
I see why most people are shouting out for RAW - it seems that there are so many benefits.

I could get myself a couple more 4gb cards. And with the ones i got i could maximise at about 1700 Raw's between them each event. However,... that's alot of editing..

I can now forget about capacity worries - that's no longer an issue. I think the question now is ( what i need to be convinced about ) is handling such a large number of images ( 1700+ ) for post processing. I'm 17, i do have a social life but i don't mind spending a bit of time in front of the computer editing, but is a large number of Raw's just too much for editing?
 
Last edited:
inlineadam said:
I see why most people are shouting out for RAW - it seems that there are so many benefits.

I could get myself a couple more 4gb cards. And with the ones i got i could maximise at about 1700 Raw's between them each event. However,... that's alot of editing..

I can now forget about capacity worries - that's no longer an issue. I think the question now is ( what i need to be convinced about ) is handling such a large number of images ( 1700+ ) for post processing. I'm 17, i do have a social life but i don't mind spending a bit of time in front of the computer editing, but is a large number of Raw's just too much for editing?
Click to expand...

Well I'm 16 and I have a social life too but I've edited hundreds of raw pictures at a time. I really cannot recommend Lightroom enough. Processing most of my pictures involves me clicking on one of my presets and maybe taking a few seconds to fine tune or crop a picture. About 40% of a batch will just need a preset applied and you're done. I can usually get through about 600 pictures in about 30mins!
 
You may take 1700 pictures but how many are keepers ? you dont have to sit there editing all the photo`s you just edit what you think are the best and as storage is not an issue now why not shoot Raw +JPEG.
If your going to shoot just Jpeg and let the camera decide what the final image should look like why not put the camera into AUTO mode and let it make all the decisions, you can then put it away and go have a social life.
 
explicit4u said:
Processing most of my pictures involves me clicking on one of my presets
Click to expand...

explicit4u said:
About 40% of a batch will just need a preset applied and you're done.
Click to expand...

If you're batch processing then why not use one of the cameras presets and miss that step out all together? RAW gives you flexibility, what's the point in capturing all that extra data and then not optimising it?

odd jim said:
See my earlier post with the two images, can't you see the benefits from that?
Click to expand...

You didn't realise that the sky was blown when you took the picture? Take another one with the sky correctly exposed, bingo!

odd jim said:
There are MASSIVE benefits shooting landscapes in raw. You only have to pick a photography mag of the shelves to see that.
Click to expand...

I would argue that landscape is one of the areas in photography where the advantages of RAW are not "MASSIVE". You have the time to meter a scene correctly, usually have time for another shot and if you think the dynamic range needs extending then just bracket the exposures (of course you could bracket RAW).
 
inlineadam said:
I see why most people are shouting out for RAW - it seems that there are so many benefits.

I could get myself a couple more 4gb cards. And with the ones i got i could maximise at about 1700 Raw's between them each event. However,... that's alot of editing..

I can now forget about capacity worries - that's no longer an issue. I think the question now is ( what i need to be convinced about ) is handling such a large number of images ( 1700+ ) for post processing. I'm 17, i do have a social life but i don't mind spending a bit of time in front of the computer editing, but is a large number of Raw's just too much for editing?
Click to expand...

I shoot in RAW + JPEG, with the subjects I like to shoot its not possible to always set your camera up for the conditions in the time that allows. So hence shooting RAW + JPEG, means that I can make amendments to my photos if they are not quite right. It makes a huge difference.

Also are you keeping all them images? If so you must be made of money to be able to buy enough memory to store them all. Be harsh set yourself a little, so you only keep the best. (I admit I was like you at first, with the whole RAW and JPEG, but also with keeping images) I now just keep the best or the shots I like the most (may not be the best technicially, but photography to me is about showing off the images you like. Just be prepared for some people not liking them!).
 
And so as we move ever closer to the raw v jpeg abyss .... as usual ... sides are formed ... weapons drawn :)

While we’re at it, how about the Pope being an ex Nazi and should our PM fess up about the News of the World :)

Oh and don’t forget togs being perverts.

Can we just go take some photos now?

Peace out bro's
 
As I quite new to digital and have been only shooting in hi-res j-peg for all my shots, I recently shot a few in RAW and started to play about with the image in Lightroom editing etc, my partner said "that's cheating"! "You took a photo, now your going to change it to make it different".

"That's not right" she said.....
 
When it comes to Raw vs Jpeg, photographers are blinkered to what a broad subject photography is. The same old arguments are tripped out every time.

We ought to have the intelligence to at least consider the OP. What is the purpose of these pictures? are they just for fun? Are you hoping to sell them professionally? If so to whom?

All of these points would help us to give genuinely useful advice rather than the shallow tired stuff here.
 
Phil V said:
When it comes to Raw vs Jpeg, photographers are blinkered to what a broad subject photography is. The same old arguments are tripped out every time.

We ought to have the intelligence to at least consider the OP. What is the purpose of these pictures? are they just for fun? Are you hoping to sell them professionally? If so to whom?

All of these points would help us to give genuinely useful advice rather than the shallow tired stuff here.
Click to expand...

At the moment i just take pictures for fun. However, i do want to move commercially into photohraphy later on and so i'm also working out wether to start on RAW now, get used to editing etc so i'm not baffled by it all later on when i start shooting to sell prints..

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top