Jpeg or RAW

[KIPAX]

Yes.

haha OK ...

I would have hoped they looked better.. different doesn't hack it... I mean if everyone went to raw then someone could just as easy say try jpg the colours will be different and given your explanation they would..

 

[Toggerman]

haha OK ...

I would have hoped they looked better.. different doesn't hack it... I mean if everyone went to raw then someone could just as easy say try jpg the colours will be different and given your explanation they would..

Better is subjective. Being different can be better, especially if it stands out from everyone else.

 

[Gary Coyle]

So why shoot Raw then ?

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

I dont post process if shooting and wiring pitchside other than crop/resize, thats another reason for shooting JPeg let the camera process the image for you with regards to colour, contrast, sharpening etc, etc and with Nikon later bodies you can also apply shadow recovery in camera

 

[Gary Coyle]

Yes.

Then of course you have to take into consideration what the image editor does at the other to you final output image, the quality of the newsprint they use, and they usually butcher it along the way so any extra time you have been so kind to spend on your beautifully captured RAW images has been a truly time wasting exersize, not that it matters because the guy who shot JPeg in the first place to save time already has his image sat in place and ready for the print run

 

[Toggerman]

Then of course you have to take into consideration what the image editor does at the other to you final output image, the quality of the newsprint they use, and they usually butcher it along the way so any extra time you have been so kind to spend on your beautifully captured RAW images has been a truly time wasting exersize,

That is very true for newspapers, not so much for online though where the differences in output quality is quite apparent.

not that it matters because the guy who shot JPeg in the first place to save time already has his image sat in place and ready for the print run

How so? Ignore the math I showed earlier and you tell me how much longer it takes to transfer and process a single RAW image.

The longest part about transmitting pitchside is the captioning and uploading. If you're not very proficient in typing, it takes longer, if you're using a shared connection it can take longer. There are so many other variables that the extra second spent on a RAW file makes little to no difference.

 

[Gary Coyle]

That is very true for newspapers, not so much for online though where the differences in output quality is quite apparent.



How so? Ignore the math I showed earlier and you tell me how much longer it takes to transfer and process a single RAW image.

The longest part about transmitting pitchside is the captioning and uploading. If you're not very proficient in typing, it takes longer, if you're using a shared connection it can take longer. There are so many other variables that the extra second spent on a RAW file makes little to no difference.

Unfortunatly every single second counts and times that by 12 images
In my years wiring pitchside i never ever came across a single person who didnt shoot Jpej

 

[big soft moose]

Better is subjective. Being different can be better, especially if it stands out from everyone else.

you do realise you can set a custom style for jpeg shooting too, right ? ...

 

[Toggerman]

you do realise you can set a custom style for jpeg shooting too, right ? ...

Yes, that's what I do, doesn't mean everyone does that.

 

[odd jim]

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

...or landscape photographer... But for sports I agree to a certain extent.

When I shoot motorsport I always shoot raw though, as sometimes I like to bring back shadow and highlights, especially on wide shots (where I mix it with a bit of landscape!). But then that's for my personal pleasure, not for anyone else

 

[davidy233]

I shoot RAW and I can easily fire out a dozen or so pics to the desk at half time, Photo Mechanic code replacements are what really save time - nearly every pro photographer I see shooting football in Scotland shoots RAW too.

I'm not claiming that it's a better workflow but it takes just seconds longer so I'd rather have the original in case I get asked for it for another purpose, magazine, poster etc.

I also upload a goal pic after every goal the team I primarily shoot score - it's usually up within two minutes of me taking it - shot RAW, downloaded onto mac, cropped, watermarked and branded and uploaded to social media - automation is a wonderful feature of Apple computers

 

[Sejanus Aelianus]

Oranges are better fruit than apples.

Oh no they're not.

 

[Stephen Devine]

shot RAW, downloaded onto mac, cropped, watermarked and branded and uploaded to social media - automation is a wonderful feature of Apple computers

Whatever about this debate having two sides, anyone who thinks their Windows machine can match Apple for pitch side processing is truly mad

 

[shapeshifter]

What features make apple faster than windows 7 ?

 

[bluesnappa]

The beauty of a high end camera is the quality of the Jpegs straight off the datacard as long as your in camera settings are right. Top Nikon/Canon bodies are great for this. From camera to photomechanic on the laptop for a quick caption to ftp/e-mail in seconds without having to touch the jpeg up in any way is so darn efficient. PS never gets used when shooting to deadline unless I need to alter shaddow/brightness and if its not the money shot, I wont even select that file to send. Yes raw for wedding or shots you really are going to print on top quality paper or maybe work on before sending when there is no time constraint. But most sport shots get printed on crappy newsprint. Been doing that for many years without a problem from a fussy agency to a pic ed who wants the shot NOW!

 

[Kenny Girvan]

Sports is a very broad subject matter. I'd shoot raw if shooting a portfolio photo or client shot. I'd also shoot raw if tricky situations and time wasn't much of an issue. If its an event, tight timescales or I need max shooting speed then jpg. And its of course evident that you can make either work well for you with a bit of experience and skill. For example jpg's can look great if you get it close to right in camera and raw can be processed quickly with the right tools and techniques.

Its a bit like shooting P, TV, AV etc. All can get the shot and look great. A lot of it is personal choice and preference.

 

[bigrob]

Everyone here seems to be talking about shooting pitch action and I agree JPG all the way.

However a long range shot of Roman Abramovich with his head in his hands in the stands where it is dark - then a slow shutter speed on RAW gives you chance of getting a shot that the papers will print.