RAW versus JPEG for motorsport

mrgas

mrgas

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,420
Edit My Images
Yes
hi

this might be a daft question , but I'm going to a local Mx meeting at the weekend and hopefully will be taking loads of pics.
i usually shoot in RAW for my general photography and then spend hours processing the ones I like , thing is this takes time , I was thinking of shooting in JPEG to save time later , I've got a few mates in this race and want to email pics or put them on a CD if they're any good.

What do most of you guys do ?

thanks
 
one of my biggest problems is viewing the RAW files before I've processed them , If I use windows photo gallery my computer freezes , I'm assuming its due to the large file sizes

whereas i get no probs with JPEGs , which in turn makes it easier to view loads of files quickly
 
personally i use .jpg as i cant justify £50 on another fast CF card so i can get 1100 photos.. which is pritty much a battery as well..

Some times i shoot RAW if its a car / shot i really want or if im struggeling to get decent exposure (like today in bright sunshine)

but im a noivce.. im sure this isnt the right way!

bob :)
 
Depends on how many you expect to be shooting but if it's in the hundreds I'd definitely stick to jpeg.

Apart from anything else the actions pretty full on, it's not impossible to fill the buffer on the 1D MKIII using largest jpeg, using RAW it's easy ;)
 
RAW files will generally look poorer than JPG to start with, as JPG have an amount of contrast, saturation etc processing applied to them in camera that you have to do yourself with RAW. I use JPG for sports as it means the camera buffer isn't filled as quickly, and it makes the PC respond better when I go through and edit them down afterwards!
 
dod said:
Depends on how many you expect to be shooting but if it's in the hundreds I'd definitely stick to jpeg.

Apart from anything else the actions pretty full on, it's not impossible to fill the buffer on the 1D MKIII using largest jpeg, using RAW it's easy ;)
Click to expand...

yes , i think my minds made up , JPEG it is

thanks to all who replied , much appreciated as ever


:):):):)
 
AlfaFoxtrot said:
RAW files will generally look poorer than JPG to start with, as JPG have an amount of contrast, saturation etc processing applied to them in camera that you have to do yourself with RAW. I use JPG for sports as it means the camera buffer isn't filled as quickly, and it makes the PC respond better when I go through and edit them down afterwards!
Click to expand...

Thanks for that

:):):)
 
I've shot jpeg up until now (mostly motorsport) and have been starting to think about RAW and the associated software I'll need - still using Paintshop Pro 8!! so an upgrade is probably well overdue.

However, now that I've read this thread I'm starting to think twice and might just stick with jpeg. Any reason this would be a mistake?
 
locostbob said:
personally i use .jpg as i cant justify £50 on another fast CF card so i can get 1100 photos.. which is pritty much a battery as well..

Some times i shoot RAW if its a car / shot i really want or if im struggeling to get decent exposure (like today in bright sunshine)

but im a noivce.. im sure this isnt the right way!

bob :)
Click to expand...

Whats classed as a fast CF card?
 
I shoot RAW even when rattling off a few 100 (or even a few 1000 over the weekend). You do need to have your workflow sorted and obviously decent storage as well.

The big plus to RAW is to be able to draw things back from shadows and highlights that you'd otherwise lose in a jpeg. White balance can also be changed in post, which can also be a bonus depending on how good you are at setting it up, or relying on the camera to do it.

If you're in good light, happy with your metering, then it's hard to fault jpeg. If the light is changeable or very poor, then RAW can help a lot to sort things out afterwards, be prepared to spend some time in front of the computer though.
 
I use RAW for motorsports when there is strong contrast light. Any blown highlights or lost shadows may be recovered in post processing. Jpeg is useful where the light is flat or the quantity of pictures exceeds the time to inspect and process. There are a number of preset effects which can be applied to Jpegs to ease processing time or allow them to be sent on directly.

I have not had any issues with my Nikon D700 over the Nikon RAW NEF 14bit files running out of buffer space with a SanDisk III card.

My RAW workflow starts with Nikon's ViewNX RAW viewer for selection and grading. The workflow then moves to NX2, which is slow for a graphics processing application, but it can use data on the image from the camera to correct high/lowlights, lens distortion, vignetting, and other issues.

Ed
 
I'm a JPEG person for Motorsports as I've yet to be shown the difference between a properly exposed photo taken in RAW and in JPEG and then be pointed out the vast improvement in RAW quality.

Carl.
 
Why not shoot both Raw and JPEG? JPEGs take up very little extra space compared to Raw. When you get home, wizz off the JPEG emails before you set about the Raws.

If you find yourself running out of memory, do a quick edit when there's a break in the action and delete the rubbish. Be ruthless!

On the other hand, if you are confident of exposure and white balance, and don't intend to anything major in post-processing that the camera cannot do for you with careful selection of the pre-sets (you can do quite a lot with them) then shooting Raw is probably a waste of time and space anyway.

Shoot Raw if:
a) You are unsure of the exposure or white balance
b) You definitely want to do some post processing, beyond basic curves and sharpening etc
c) You have plenty of memory

Shoot JPEG if:
a) You are confident of exposure and white balance
b) You are not going to do anything much in post processing that the camera cannot do via the JPEG pre-set options
c) You are tight on spare memory

But basically, if you have any doubts just shoot both. A couple of big memory cards costs very little and will last pretty much for ever.
 
I shoot sport in raw just because I sometimes need to correct metering mistakes etc, which is easily done in low bright sun like this time of day unless I set to full manual.

Most sport has 'moments' at which you shoot off a few (or a string) of shots so filling the buffer on a decent camera shouldn't be an issue (although I used to struggle with a 300D).

The only real issue I can see is file size. My new 50D now shoots 20mb raw images, which means at some point I'll be buying some new CF cards as I've gone from 280 to 180 shots on a 4Gb card. Disk space and render time on a pc is the other issue, but then I see my pc as an extension of my photography kit so it's accordingly spec'd.

It's also down to the software you use as well. I've noticed lightroom 2 is a lot slower than version one varients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top