Sport Photography Question

[cammiedh13]

Hey im wondering if anyone here shoot sports photography - outdoor to be specific and im wondering whats best
1 . shooting raw or jpeg / both
2. manual or auto exposure ?

 

[ppp]

Yes there are tons of people who shoot all sort of Sports on here, I would shoot RAW only or RAW+JPG, this gives you the ability to PP your images better.

I wouldn't use Auto but I am not comfortable using Full Manual, for Motorsport you would generally use Shutter Priority so you can slow the shutter speed down to get some nice panning, for athletics and footie/rugby I guess you want higher shutter speed to freeze the action although slower does give some sense of action/movement.

Aperture Priority is good if you have fast lenses f2.8 or f4 and are in low light then you can force the aperture bigger to let in more light more for indoors though or a very gloomy day

 

[Marc]

I shoot in RAW and have used Manual and Shutter Priority. They both have their benefits, but I prefer to shoot in manual wherever possible. If the light is constantly changing, I will switch to Shutter Priority.

 

[kelack]

I shoot rugby in jpeg and now in TV mode rather than AV. Usually have it at 1/500 - I did shoot most of last season on AV at f2.8 but have found that it is actually easier for it to be on TV

 

[CaptainPenguin]

Unless there s a specific need I shoot everything in Raw even the family snaps as you have so much PP control over it

 

[cammiedh13]

thanks for the help guys

 

[seriousrikk]

The infrequent motorsport I shoot is done in Shutter Priority and RAW only.

 

[KIPAX]

JPG only here.. Especially in winter when the lighting is poor. The fact that even the highest set jpg is compressed means less noise than in RAW .. I take pics at iso 2500 that need no processing while it would need work in RAW..

Manual where possible but AV changing light.. you still control the shutter speed by changing variables aperture and ISO ...

Your question is a bit open ended though

 

[happysnappy]

I personally use jpegs quite often. As much as I'd love to shoot RAW for everything, sometimes it's just not practical. I often shoot over 1000 images on a day, if it's a three day event that's a hell of a lot of RAW files to process.
Depends on what you need the images for-mine are usually for prints for the competitors or for magazine publication, either way, jpeg for speed. If I wanted them for personal use, or more more in depth manipulation, then yes I'd use RAW no question.
I tend to use Apature Priority most of the time too

 

[KIPAX]

JPG only here..

I shouldnt have said "only" ..
I use RAW for such as a team picture or a presentation where I only get one go at the picture..

But for a whole event.. JPG

 

[travelphotos]

I shot in JPG but probably I would use RAW now.

Not exactly remember but I think I was using shutter priority that time. The result is here: http://www.travel-photography.eu/html/Leeds_Volleyball,26.htm

 

[CarlOgden]

JPG for an event. RAW for portraits

Av for boats, usually wide open as I don't really care about shutterspeed

Manual for bikes as I do tests to ensure I get more or less the correct exposure.

If I use Av for bikes, then I adjust the ISO accordingly for the shutterspeed.

Never use Tv!

Always set my White balance for the environment rather than AWB. sometimes use a whibal card if I feel the need!

Carl.

 

[gnirtS]

RAW for me (dont bother with jpg). Especially useful if you have to underexpose shots due to low light etc.

Exposure Av mode if its really bright, once Av drops shutter below 1/500th though i switch to Tv and force 1/500th (and bring up resulting under exposure in ACR). I[ve found through trial and error that for rugby with anyone running or passing, anything slower than this blurs.

Not got an f/2.8 lens which doesnt help me (f/4-5.6) so its usually ISO1600 as well unless sunny.

Not that it matters this weekend - rugby yet again frozen off for 3rd week running.

Cant imagine trying to use manual exposure given vastly different lighting conditions depending where on the pitch, where relative to floodlights if any and so on.

WB either sun,cloudy or shade, never auto.

Metering centre weighted average.

 

[eftpotrm]

JPG only here.. Especially in winter when the lighting is poor. The fact that even the highest set jpg is compressed means less noise than in RAW .. I take pics at iso 2500 that need no processing while it would need work in RAW..

Manual where possible but AV changing light.. you still control the shutter speed by changing variables aperture and ISO ...

Your question is a bit open ended though

I'm curious what your raw workflow is if you find you're getting less noise from a JPEG than a raw - the raw (by definition) won't have any in-camera NR applied to it when you first open it, but you'll have full control to get it just right if you want it or can just batch process the lot at a good enough average. No intrinsic reason why JPEG should have less noise than a processed raw, quite the opposite in fact.

FWIW I mostly shoot motor sports but some rowing and misc youth sports - football, cricket, 10 pin bowling...! Will use raw 99% of the time unless I'm running very low on memory or battery power, as raw seems to take more out of the battery than JPEG over a big shoot.

I don't think I've ever shot aperture priority for sports. Program if I'm feeling seriously lazy (duck) because it's very unlikely to completely trash an image. Shutter priority sometimes as with telephoto lenses and a fast-moving subject it's far more critical for me. Quite often now though full manual with auto ISO - lets me hold the lens in its sweet spot and shutter speed just where I want it while still getting an accurate exposure.

Shooting motor sports, I do have to watch for quickly changing cars. Sorry to point out the obvious but a red car followed by a white car followed by a matte black car all give wildly differing exposures if you're following them properly. Have one of them running with headlights on and it gets worse still. If too many cars are running headlights I'll take an exposure reading periodically off the track, chimp & comp it to get the level right and just shoot in full manual. Far more reliable.

 

[KIPAX]

I'm curious what your raw workflow is if you find you're getting less noise from a JPEG than a raw

If? JPGS are compressed and therefore there will be less noise than a none compressed wouldnt you agree?

the raw (by definition) won't have any in-camera NR applied to it when you first open it, but you'll have full control to get it just right if you want it

Exactly.. and I dont want or need it.. as mentioned I do use raw for team or presentation shots but just as a ...well a just in case

No intrinsic reason why JPEG should have less noise than a processed raw, quite the opposite in fact.

not quite the opposite.. but i agree no reason.. so why RAW and batch convert when what I need is in JPG?

I don't think I've ever shot aperture priority for sports. Program if I'm feeling seriously lazy (duck) because it's very unlikely to completely trash an image. Shutter priority sometimes as with telephoto lenses and a fast-moving subject it's far more critical for me. Quite often now though full manual with auto ISO - lets me hold the lens in its sweet spot and shutter speed just where I want it while still getting an accurate exposure.

As said.. i shoot manual.. but if the light is quickly changing then AV as the background is important for me.. I can control the shutter by making sure the aperture and iso are set so the shutter is high enough

If too many cars are running headlights I'll take an exposure reading periodically off the track, chimp & comp it to get the level right and just shoot in full manual. Far more reliable.

yeagh.. the same reason why i shoot manual ? sorry did I miss somehting there?

 

[KIPAX]

eftpotrm heres a pic taken in JPG using Manual and at iso 2500. Processing consists photoshop auto contrast and dust/scratches then crop/resize

and heres a 100% crop of the same picture straight out of the camera.. no processing

So how much better could you get that shooting in raw ?



.

 

[eftpotrm]

If? JPGS are compressed and therefore there will be less noise than a none compressed wouldnt you agree?

No. JPEG compression will smother some digital noise due to the way it slightly reduces fine detail present in the file (we're talking very, very marginal unless you're shooting low quality JPEGs) and will induce some degree of compression artifacts - the blocky pattern, again marginal unless you're at low qualities. The _only_ reason that a JPEG file SOOC will show less noise than an equivalent raw is that the camera is set to do some pre-processing on the JPEG, such as noise reduction. Same reason that JPEGs tend to show as more saturated than raws.

If you don't want it or there's no practical advantage / time to process for the application you're using, by all means shoot JPEG. I prefer raw and am shooting for pleasure not deadlines, so that's what I shoot. (Well, actually Raw+JPEG so I've got a quick proof for editing.)

In theory an end JPEG that's been properly processed through a good raw converter will show better noise performance than the in-camera file because a) the NR software isn't having to run in real-time so can do jobs that aren't practical at 10fps and b) you retain the flexibility to precisely tweak the NR parameters to the image as shot to best retain the detail that's important to you. Note though theory, properly processed and good converter - raw gives you plenty of rope with which to hang yourself. And with modern cameras, the difference won't be enormous.

On exposure modes, sorry, I wasn't trying to disagree with you, just being lazy in my quoting. I'm sure we can both agree that the important point is to control as many of the variables as are important to you getting the end result and let the camera work out the rest so you can focus on the action. When I shoot shutter priority it's because 1/640 or 1/60 @ f/8 are IMHO going to do more damage to the end result than 1/320 @ f/5.6 or f/18. If I was shooting, say, golf, I'm sure the DOF difference from the aperture change would become the significant factor.

 

[eftpotrm]

So how much better could you get that shooting in raw ?

Never having shot a 1DIII, I'm not in a position to comment on what the difference in results from it would have been from a different workflow. There is clear colour noise in that image when viewed at that magnification in a way it almost never would be by an end user, so while it's not a practical problem there is definitely room for improvement.

Equally, from the EXIF data of 300mm @ f/2.8
a) that's glass above my pay grade, I find raw gives me a useful compensation for glass two stops slower quite aside from the noise performance differences between your 1DIII and my D80
b) I don't know the gear or other shooting parameters to be certain, but it's not impossible there's some NR-related detail smoothing from the crop you've shown.

Ultimately I'm really not bothered enough to get into a fight as to whether raw or JPEG is better. Each to their own. But to answer your question directly -
Is it absolutely ultimately perfectly processed? No, you can still see colour noise.
Could a theoretical ultimate perfect processing produce a better result? Yes.
Is it likely to be a problem at the level you've shown for most applications? No.

 

[KIPAX]

Ultimately I'm really not bothered enough to get into a fight

I saw a healthy debate between two photographers.. if you see a fight then your right.. lets not bother.