and help to keep the site free for all
Post processing for motorsport
- Thread starter Morbius
- Start date
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I tend to keep it real as mine are taken with a view of being used for news reporting.
That's not to say they are straight from camera mind you
Crop, Black levels, Saturation boost and a USM after resizing for web - although I leave the USM alone if its going to the press as the settings for this will vary depending on your output medium - better they get it right their end!
That's not to say they are straight from camera mind you
Crop, Black levels, Saturation boost and a USM after resizing for web - although I leave the USM alone if its going to the press as the settings for this will vary depending on your output medium - better they get it right their end!
- Messages
- 431
- Name
- Michael
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Whats USM?
I normally tinker with black levels & saturation too
I normally tinker with black levels & saturation too
- Messages
- 431
- Name
- Michael
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Never seen it before, is it in Lightroom or PS?
OP
- Messages
- 213
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its in everything
Its the standard way of sharpening an image after a resize...
Did I read somewhere that you shoot JPG?
OP
- Messages
- 213
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would you mind explaining your reasons? I'm not being critical, far from it. One of the first things you hear when you're getting started is that you should be shooting raw, so it's good to hear dissenting voices every now and again. The last couple of days I've been wondering whether I'm gaining anything by shooting raw. I'm not sure that I do enough post processing to warrant it, and I wonder if I'm just hindering myself.
- Messages
- 782
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure about desantnik (though I suspect this may be part of his reasoning) but it's a lot quicker, easier and cheaper to get a jpg off a camera onto another device and onto the internet than it is with a raw file due to the lower file size and better jpg support in various software.
If the images are just coming home with you on a card it doesn't matter so much though you'll still get more images in your camera's buffer and on the memory card before they're full if you're using jpg.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Simple...I shoot in daylight, I need little processing, the files are smaller for me to store and my output gets printed on 25dpi toilet paper by and large.
The storage issue cannot be overlooked, each year I shoot a lot...in raw I'd need to use five times the disc space, which is an expense I don't need.
Shooting in raw in most situations gains you very little, unless you need to process the heck out of it...I only shoot motorsport
The storage issue cannot be overlooked, each year I shoot a lot...in raw I'd need to use five times the disc space, which is an expense I don't need.
Shooting in raw in most situations gains you very little, unless you need to process the heck out of it...I only shoot motorsport
- Messages
- 1,389
- Edit My Images
- No
As a hobbyst who has an ocassional "client".
#1 Crop
#2 White balance (if needed)
#3 Levels (if needed)
#4 Give it a bit of "punch" (Light Room preset)
#5 Sharpen.
#6 Sometimes I do a B&W conversion.
I always shoot RAW. The only downsides, for me, is that the camera buffer may fill up ocassionally and I cannot give the photographs to interested 3rd parties without some PPing.
#1 Crop
#2 White balance (if needed)
#3 Levels (if needed)
#4 Give it a bit of "punch" (Light Room preset)
#5 Sharpen.
#6 Sometimes I do a B&W conversion.
I always shoot RAW. The only downsides, for me, is that the camera buffer may fill up ocassionally and I cannot give the photographs to interested 3rd parties without some PPing.
alot of press shoot jpg, or jpg and raw, as jpg allows for quick turn around.
dxo is quite nice when you select all > default preset or whatever, and set to process all, obivously more useful if you shoot raw. but youll be looking at a few hours for it todo a days worth of pictures.
dxo is quite nice when you select all > default preset or whatever, and set to process all, obivously more useful if you shoot raw. but youll be looking at a few hours for it todo a days worth of pictures.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you are going to use a preset to process your raw into jpeg outputs you might as well not shoot raw in the first place.
The other part of my workflow is to use a custom "picture control" (its a Nikon thing, no idea if Canon has the same). This gives you settings for how the jpeg is put together by the camera - batch process if you like.
As I say, the "I shoot in raw" thing is a bit like "I only use manual focus" - people hear very forthright photographers (usually with beards) spout this stuff so even amateurs suck it up.
Oh and "processing all your pictures" is also a pretty rubbish idea too - process the ones you are going to use, don't process the rest unless you need them. To be honest, nobody wants to wade through your latest 500 shots from Silverstone on Flickr or your web site - keep it to the best, keep the numbers down - saves you, and your viewers, a fair chunk of your life
The other part of my workflow is to use a custom "picture control" (its a Nikon thing, no idea if Canon has the same). This gives you settings for how the jpeg is put together by the camera - batch process if you like.
As I say, the "I shoot in raw" thing is a bit like "I only use manual focus" - people hear very forthright photographers (usually with beards) spout this stuff so even amateurs suck it up.
Oh and "processing all your pictures" is also a pretty rubbish idea too - process the ones you are going to use, don't process the rest unless you need them. To be honest, nobody wants to wade through your latest 500 shots from Silverstone on Flickr or your web site - keep it to the best, keep the numbers down - saves you, and your viewers, a fair chunk of your life
- Messages
- 9,819
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pretty much all modern Canons have Picture Style presets, where you can choose from a number of pre-selected ones, or several custom ones where you can use a base preset, but tweak sharpness, contrast, saturation and 'color' tone in camera.
I tend to apply a global preset to all my photos as its the matter of seconds, and then do further adjustments on selected ones when required.
I tend to apply a global preset to all my photos as its the matter of seconds, and then do further adjustments on selected ones when required.
OP
- Messages
- 213
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh and "processing all your pictures" is also a pretty rubbish idea too - process the ones you are going to use, don't process the rest unless you need them. To be honest, nobody wants to wade through your latest 500 shots from Silverstone on Flickr or your web site - keep it to the best, keep the numbers down - saves you, and your viewers, a fair chunk of your life
Yep, I've got a day job and I just don't have time to process the hundreds of awful shots I took. I've been uploading about 20-30 good ones as it seems a reasonable number.
Not to be a contrarian but I shoot motorposrts in RAW (I used to use jpeg with a Nikon D300 when I was putting them up the same day for potential customers). I then run them through my standard automotive process in lightroom and tweak occasional ones on their own at times.
I realise mine won't go into sports reporting publications - but that's not what I'm doing it for
www.flickr.com/jamestux if you want to see how mine turn out.
I realise mine won't go into sports reporting publications - but that's not what I'm doing it for
www.flickr.com/jamestux if you want to see how mine turn out.
If you are going to use a preset to process your raw into jpeg outputs you might as well not shoot raw in the first place.
The other part of my workflow is to use a custom "picture control" (its a Nikon thing, no idea if Canon has the same). This gives you settings for how the jpeg is put together by the camera - batch process if you like.
As I say, the "I shoot in raw" thing is a bit like "I only use manual focus" - people hear very forthright photographers (usually with beards) spout this stuff so even amateurs suck it up.
Oh and "processing all your pictures" is also a pretty rubbish idea too - process the ones you are going to use, don't process the rest unless you need them. To be honest, nobody wants to wade through your latest 500 shots from Silverstone on Flickr or your web site - keep it to the best, keep the numbers down - saves you, and your viewers, a fair chunk of your life
Sony's jpg engine is pretty bleh, so raw > dxo or whatever is better, and I prefer to flick through the processed jogs, its not much effort to do them all. Ctrl a...
I don't upload them all 
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 20,982
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I only know of two reasons to shoot RAW
1) If your going to be doing a lot of editing to each picture.. artistic and drasticly changing the picture..
2) if you regularly take such bad pictures they all need the RAW file so you can save them
Regular PP such as crop, strighten, contrast, colours and even highlights can all be done on a jpg
I can understand wedding and portraits shooting in RAW.. But not motorsports...if your going to batch edit then you probably didn't need RAW
OP
- Messages
- 213
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,300
- Name
- Jonny
- Edit My Images
- No
While I'm learning, I'll take any safety net I can get
I posted a slightly more in depth opinion on the Motorsport feedback section, probably in the wrong place looking at it :-/
- Messages
- 817
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll put my hand up and say that I shoot RAW for everything, including motorsports. Last year when I started shooting for a local motor club I had also just changed to Nikon and I was finding that sometimes (not very often but often enough) my WB would be off, but also the green channel was far too, uh, green. So I shot RAW and fixed this is PP.
Then I noticed that it was only in certain situations that I was having problems and for the rest of the time I was only doing some very basic tweaks and then converting to JPEG, yet I still shot RAW.
I've now switched back to Canon and so far I've done 2 motorsport events, and both times I've come home and thought "Why didn't I just shoot these in JPEG?" as the pictures haven't really needed much editing apart from some cropping and the occasional exposure adjustments.
From now on I'll be shooting my sports in JPEG.
Then I noticed that it was only in certain situations that I was having problems and for the rest of the time I was only doing some very basic tweaks and then converting to JPEG, yet I still shot RAW.
I've now switched back to Canon and so far I've done 2 motorsport events, and both times I've come home and thought "Why didn't I just shoot these in JPEG?" as the pictures haven't really needed much editing apart from some cropping and the occasional exposure adjustments.
From now on I'll be shooting my sports in JPEG.
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Scott,
It does seem to be something like that that everyone says is the reason they shoot raw - "I used to have a camera that used to mess stuff up" - either auto white balance or bad auto exposure.
I'm not convinced that "modern" DSLR's suffer from those problems.... or at least I'm fairly confident that in particular situations I can predict the outcome or at least spot it on the back of the camera!!
Its not that I've never used raw, I have used it a fair bit, but not for day time motorsport.
It does seem to be something like that that everyone says is the reason they shoot raw - "I used to have a camera that used to mess stuff up" - either auto white balance or bad auto exposure.
I'm not convinced that "modern" DSLR's suffer from those problems.... or at least I'm fairly confident that in particular situations I can predict the outcome or at least spot it on the back of the camera!!
Its not that I've never used raw, I have used it a fair bit, but not for day time motorsport.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 20,982
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I have nothing against RAW and I will use it if needed..
however there is a really bad theme on these forums where people are advised to shoot raw for the wrong reasons.. especialy when it comes to something like white balance.. nobody seems to understand you can do it in camera.. or at least try.. the general advice is.. shoot in raw and fix in software.. that is the same as saying take a bad picture on purpose and then fix.. this is poor advice but rife on these forums.
I am not trying to say dont shoot in raw.. I am trying to say..stop relying on it for every picture you ever take..
however there is a really bad theme on these forums where people are advised to shoot raw for the wrong reasons.. especialy when it comes to something like white balance.. nobody seems to understand you can do it in camera.. or at least try.. the general advice is.. shoot in raw and fix in software.. that is the same as saying take a bad picture on purpose and then fix.. this is poor advice but rife on these forums.
I am not trying to say dont shoot in raw.. I am trying to say..stop relying on it for every picture you ever take..
Gary Coyle
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 12,654
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As a freelance sports photographer shooting and wiring live pitchside i have never shot a single RAW image in my life, dont need to, dont want to, so dont.
- Messages
- 1,300
- Name
- Jonny
- Edit My Images
- No
I think all the advice given is based on personal experience. IMO I shoot raw exclusively because of the improved image quality, it is of course dependant on the final use of the image wether that benefit is enough to warrant the extra time and space required to work with raw format.
By shooting Jpeg you are relying on the cameras internal conversion algorithms to best compress your image. Often a base level of noise reduction is also applied in this phase which cannot be turned off regardless of your settings... From my experience needing hi res output for digital imaging I can tell the difference with my own gear between a jpeg and a raw conversion. There's also the fact that jpeg is lossy so each time the image is edited and saved the quality lessens, while a pro will separate their workflow an amateur may not be quite so thorough.
I agree that colours and wb can be fixed both by setting correctly in camera and in software with jpeg. The reality is that for a lot of beginners this extra prep time for each shot can be cumbersome and problematic whilst in the field especially in rapidly changing conditions.
Even on modern bodies you often see resolution tests between jpeg and raw conversions that demonstrate better resolving power when using raw. This may well be a negligible benefit to many but 8/10 times if you want the best from your camera raw is required. Noise control is much more easily controlled with raw, granted like andy says if your shooting in the dark, but many beginners have lower end bodies that don't control noise as well at base iso compared to more expensive gear so in this instance it's better for them to shoot raw.
I think it's very easy to forget the range of ability and equipment, while its not the be all and end all it does make a difference.
By shooting Jpeg you are relying on the cameras internal conversion algorithms to best compress your image. Often a base level of noise reduction is also applied in this phase which cannot be turned off regardless of your settings... From my experience needing hi res output for digital imaging I can tell the difference with my own gear between a jpeg and a raw conversion. There's also the fact that jpeg is lossy so each time the image is edited and saved the quality lessens, while a pro will separate their workflow an amateur may not be quite so thorough.
I agree that colours and wb can be fixed both by setting correctly in camera and in software with jpeg. The reality is that for a lot of beginners this extra prep time for each shot can be cumbersome and problematic whilst in the field especially in rapidly changing conditions.
Even on modern bodies you often see resolution tests between jpeg and raw conversions that demonstrate better resolving power when using raw. This may well be a negligible benefit to many but 8/10 times if you want the best from your camera raw is required. Noise control is much more easily controlled with raw, granted like andy says if your shooting in the dark, but many beginners have lower end bodies that don't control noise as well at base iso compared to more expensive gear so in this instance it's better for them to shoot raw.
I think it's very easy to forget the range of ability and equipment, while its not the be all and end all it does make a difference.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just to add some extra dimensions to my anti-raw campaign D), Kipax and Gary Coyle shoot football - you know, proper football, the real overpaid primadonna stuff D).
That's under floodlights normally with some very variable lighting despite the uber-floods.
If you asked the question "how to shoot this?" on here, I can guarantee you that people would tell you to use raw and sort it out afterwards, when actually the answer is almost certainly not that and perfectly achievable in real time and with little difficulty.
Coming back to motorsport, there are several techniques for getting your exposure right - the first one being don't shoot into the sun. There you go, I've saved someone at least 50 quid on storage and umpteen hours of buggering around with that one.
D), Kipax and Gary Coyle shoot football - you know, proper football, the real overpaid primadonna stuff D).That's under floodlights normally with some very variable lighting despite the uber-floods.
If you asked the question "how to shoot this?" on here, I can guarantee you that people would tell you to use raw and sort it out afterwards, when actually the answer is almost certainly not that and perfectly achievable in real time and with little difficulty.
Coming back to motorsport, there are several techniques for getting your exposure right - the first one being don't shoot into the sun. There you go, I've saved someone at least 50 quid on storage and umpteen hours of buggering around with that one.
- Messages
- 1,300
- Name
- Jonny
- Edit My Images
- No
Just to add some extra dimensions to my anti-raw campaign
That's under floodlights normally with some very variable lighting despite the uber-floods.
If you asked the question "how to shoot this?" on here, I can guarantee you that people would tell you to use raw and sort it out afterwards, when actually the answer is almost certainly not that and perfectly achievable in real time and with little difficulty.
Coming back to motorsport, there are several techniques for getting your exposure right - the first one being don't shoot into the sun. There you go, I've saved someone at least 50 quid on storage and umpteen hours of buggering around with that one.
+1 lol
- Messages
- 1,389
- Edit My Images
- No
While I do not normally shoot into the sun, when shooting motor sport, I some times do especially if unplanned action happens and very ocassionally for atmospheric effects due to burning rubbber or dust.
For the historics I only process the photographs for "clients" and a sample of about 50-60 pics from a weekend. After that the processing is driven by driver enquires.
At meetings where I am shooting purely for myself I will probably only process about 20 pics (however I do shoot a lot less)
Approx 18 months latter almost all the unpublished pics are deleted.
For the historics I only process the photographs for "clients" and a sample of about 50-60 pics from a weekend. After that the processing is driven by driver enquires.
At meetings where I am shooting purely for myself I will probably only process about 20 pics (however I do shoot a lot less)
Approx 18 months latter almost all the unpublished pics are deleted.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,321
- Name
- Peter Rushworth
- Edit My Images
- No
Coming back to motorsport, there are several techniques for getting your exposure right - the first one being don't shoot into the sun. There you go, I've saved someone at least 50 quid on storage and umpteen hours of buggering around with that one.
Was at Silverstone for the WSBs and saw hundreds of togs shooting into the sun
as a walk passed with camera still in bag to get around to the other side of the track. Best advice is use the light, not fight with it and as for jpeg v raw, I shoot jpeg for wildlife, aviation and motorsport, mainly because I do a quick adjust of levels, highlight/shadow, noise ninja (if required) and unsharp mask. Keep original (unedited) and create a copy (edited). Why not raw, time editing, then converting back to jpeg and storage.
Last edited:
Sorry - I've been on the road a lot recently!
I have the same workflow for raw and jpeg now, my camera runs at the same speed, I have plenty of disk space and I'm not shooting an event for same day entry for newspapers or magazines or to sell to the competitors - so why wouldn't I keep as much information in the captured image as possible? I'm thinking of things like 12 or 14 bit raw vs 8 bit jpeg for a start, plus improvements in colour handling and noise handling that take place in the conversion programs (even firmware gets updated in cameras for these reasons) - if you have the raw you can take advantage of that if you want, if you shoot jpeg you can't.
Since the D300 and motorcross days I can't remember filling a memory card, 2Tb disks are £50 or £60 before VAT these days (I know that it will increase when you are duplicating or triplicating for back up) so having tried both ways I don't get why you wouldn't shoot raw unless it's for immediate publication or print.
EDIT - Another point - people are saying that jpegs are quicker to edit - is that really the case? Doesn't the compressed file have to be decompressed first to edit at a pixel level anyway? If so then the jpeg should actually take longer to edit than the raw... My main workstation is ridiculously overspecced as I built it last year hoping for it to last 3 to 4 years so that's not been a factor for me either way anyway.
Last edited:
