JPEG vs RAW ( for motorsport )?

KIPAX said:
A raw file isnt better visualy (in my experience can be worse)
Click to expand...
  • It is always possible to process a Canon raw file to produce an image that is identical to the jpeg the camera would have produced.
  • Unless all of the in-camera settings (exposure, white balance, sharpening, NR, contrast, etc.) were set perfectly at the time of shooting then it is always possible to process a raw file to produce an image better then the jpeg the camera would have produced.
 
I'm glad I'm shooting raw at Silverstone right now with all the mist and spray in the air. With raw I'll be able to pull out detail and midtones that the raw file will have simply washed out!

So I take back what I said earlier, raw can be beneficial for motorsport!
 
hollis_f said:
  • It is always possible to process a Canon raw file to produce an image that is identical to the jpeg the camera would have produced.
  • Unless all of the in-camera settings (exposure, white balance, sharpening, NR, contrast, etc.) were set perfectly at the time of shooting then it is always possible to process a raw file to produce an image better then the jpeg the camera would have produced.
Click to expand...

your quoting me out of context.. we where talking about a raw v jpg straight out of the camera wiht no processing...
 
KIPAX said:
your quoting me out of context.. we where talking about a raw v jpg straight out of the camera wiht no processing...
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a raw file with no processing. Well, there is - but it won't be a recognisable image. So, in context, you were saying that a poorly processed raw file can look worse than a jpeg? That's the fault of the user, not the format.
 
hollis_f said:
There's no such thing as a raw file with no processing. Well, there is - but it won't be a recognisable image. So, in context, you were saying that a poorly processed raw file can look worse than a jpeg? That's the fault of the user, not the format.
Click to expand...

the OP can shoot a JPG or a RAW and he can view both without him doing any processing...the two files he views are what I was comparing... Lets not split hairs eh? :)
 
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...

Agree and further as someone else mentioned when you look at a RAW file before it is converted to a JPEG/TIFF..... It may not even look as good because the sharpening has not been applied as well as the other processing features. The thing to know about RAW, IMHO, is that if you always nail the WB and Exposure there is no advantage.

Except for some selective editing that CS5 users can do. In CS5 you can select a area of the image for editing in RAW where all other RAW edit S/W I've seen you can only adjust the whole image in RAW edit. In saying that I just remembered, however, you can do some spot healing in later S/W from Canon and in Lr3 but otherwise no local edits.

I spoke to a pro who said the fact that I decided to shoot in RAW was a good choice and he also only shots RAW. Personally I shoot only RAW just in case I want to make an adjustment later..... I admit I do not always nail the WB and Exp comp. Plus you never know... for example water spots on the lens/filter/front element, or more likely birds in the sky that just look like dots or dirt on the lens. You can get higher quality edit adjustments in RAW. The base image like for like has little if any difference. Personally I can not tell the difference between and Canon in camera JPEG and a Canon PP (with no changes) JPEG of the same image.:thinking::shrug:
 
I think when learning photography as I amd many many others on this forum are, then shooting raw has to be better, we are never going to get everything right in the camera so it gives us an edge that we can at least bring back some detail or replace a washed out sky, like Odd Jims example earlier.

As Daryl said why use raw, get it right in the camera and everything will be fine, yes i agree with this aswell IF you have all the gear AND have all the knowledge to do that, but like 90% (ok just made it up) of the people on here we take photos for fun and are either just got the camera or just an amature looking to get a good photo, with the gear that we have and so PP is more often than not going to to be our best friend.

I shoot RAW all the time for this reason, If time was not a problem and it was landscape or doing a few portrates of the wife then I could probably get good results with no PP so could shoot Jpeg. But more often than not I am out shooting wild life or sports or macro bugs

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
As Daryl said why use raw, get it right in the camera and everything will be fine, yes i agree with this aswell IF you have all the gear AND have all the knowledge to do that
Click to expand...

And if you shoot things that will stay in one place, with unchanging light, for long enough to make sure you've got everything exactly right. Not little birds that pop up, go 'OHai...KThnxBai' in less than a second.

I'll switch from raw to jpeg the day I get every single in-camera parameter exactly right every single time. Yup, I promise I'll use jpeg to shoot those squadrons of piggies flying past.
 
When I got my first DSLR I shot jpeg only and didn't venture from the camera presets and thought the shots were great.

I then took the plunge and started using PASM still in jpeg only and thought wow what a difference. . . .

I then took the hardest step ever and shot for a whole day in nothing but RAW spent a day finding my way around the adobe raw converter and fine tuning the settings.

Can look back on those first photo's and actually laugh at the blown out highlights and miss matched colours.

I shoot nothing but RAW now, had to upgrade my PC to work with them (36mb each file as a rule) but I wouldn't go back, even when were out just taking candid 'snapshots'

Hey - at the end of the day it's YOUR camera and YOUR time, if your happy with the results shooting jpeg then who are we to to say otherwise ;)

.DAVID.
 
Now, for editing. Is lightroom what you all recommend, and how much is it going to set me back. I'm a student so i could get that version, but , does a student count as me being at high school is the issue...
 
You can edit one RAW file in Canon DPP, whether it be White Balance or an exposure bump and apply the 'recipe' to all RAW files.

Its hardly a ballache to edit 'all files' this way and you have retained all the RAW information

Buy the extra cards anyway....always worth having whatever you choose.



Andy
 
If you can afford it lightroom is definitely the way to go and yes I would think you qualify for the student edition. not sure of the cost but a quick search on google looks like the student edition is around £70. I think you can download a trail version from the adobe website.
 
inlineadam said:
Now, for editing. Is lightroom what you all recommend, and how much is it going to set me back. I'm a student so i could get that version, but , does a student count as me being at high school is the issue...
Click to expand...

Personally, I prefer DxO Optics Pro. Costs about £90 for the standard edition.
 
DxO has great lens correction algorithms, but the rest of it is horribly slow. Get the student version of Lightroom (yes you will qualify). It's worth it just for the noise reduction, which is the best available.
 
hollis_f said:
DxO has great lens correction algorithms, but the rest of it is horribly slow. Get the student version of Lightroom (yes you will qualify). It's worth it just for the noise reduction, which is the best available.
Click to expand...


Okay, thanks.
 
inlineadam said:
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
Click to expand...

Pro event shooters, pj's, portrait studios and many other areas of pro photography shoot jpeg exclusively. Either because they have total control at the capture stage, or they don't have time to pp images to a great degree.
Most other types of Pro shoot Raw because they want to be able to extract the best image possible from their work. That's why I asked about your needs If you're shooting motorsport for fun, definitely shoot Raw and learn how to get the best image from your files, but if you're looking at onsite fulfilment then you need to learn how to get the best file possible from your camera.
 
Phil V said:
Pro event shooters, pj's, portrait studios and many other areas of pro photography shoot jpeg exclusively. Either because they have total control at the capture stage, or they don't have time to pp images to a great degree.
Most other types of Pro shoot Raw because they want to be able to extract the best image possible from their work. That's why I asked about your needs If you're shooting motorsport for fun, definitely shoot Raw and learn how to get the best image from your files, but if you're looking at onsite fulfilment then you need to learn how to get the best file possible from your camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice phil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top