Which one do you shoot in and why?

JPEG Fine. because RAW isn't necessary.

i actually just had this discussion about 2 weeks ago with a professional photographer that shoots for the Tennessee Titans Cheerleaders and Dave Mathews Band amongst other things... He was hired to shoot the Paul Wall USO Tour concert in Afghanistan and was flying with us down there. I of course picked his brain the entire way. One of the things I asked him was if he finds any advantages shooting in RAW compared to JPEG for his important work (like the cheerleader's posters each year) and he told me he never shoots in RAW. He always shoots JPEG Fine with his D300. He said there is no need for shooting in RAW if you know what you're doing and can nail the shot when you take it just shoot in the highest quality JPEG. and he's been doing this for about 20 years now... currently making ~$250k-300k/year off shooting that way. Living my dream...

so yea. JPEG. should have seen his portfolio... AMAZING. i had no idea football chearleaders all strip down and have panty pillow fights and group showers for fun photos after the games in their hotel rooms. sorry for the sidetrack.

i shoot in both, raw mostly for the pp, jpeg to compare the pp with it in the end.

snow, thats the same thing my uncle told me, the photographer for the new orleans saints

thing is, such professionals really know how to nail a shot

thing is, such professionals really know how to nail a shot
and i think that's the main issue. how good you are... whether you need RAW or not. the less experienced maybe should shoot RAW so they can play it safe and fix the pictures easier later until they are more able to know what to set for at the moment. in that sense, RAW is a good tool to have.

but if you are pretty solid, and nail most of your shots (in terms of color, white balance, etc...) RAW isn't necessary. I know I'm not going to waste my time doing all the work separately later that the camera can lay the foundation for right there on the spot and cut PP time in half or more.

and i get annoyed with people i end up talking with about photography stuff who announce they "only shoot RAW" like it's some sort of achievement. the same bunch that announce they "only shoot manual" like THAT is some sort of achievement as well, and pretty much don't care if they miss shots. even if strategically using aperture/shutter priority would give them quicker control during specific instances where time is critical. as long as they are shooting in manual and RAW they feel satisfied. doesn't matter the results.

if i ever turn into the RAW/Manual/black border guy... somebody please http://www.sportbikez.net/forum/images/smilies/smack.gif me

man im bitter today.

agree.. RAW isn't necessary, but if you wanna have some leeway to mess around with photos for post-processing type stuff.. (for fun)

and for whatever reasons the photoshoot calls... and you have the time and space on the storage medium in the camera.. then why not?

it's still your decision in the end.. but seriously, most of the time, it's not necessary.

I shoot 100% RAW cause it gives u the most information in a file. U have WAY more control over the image and sometimes that is needed when firing off fast shots where u don't have time to plan the shot or change something like the white balance.

as a side note to the last thing snow said about only shooting in manual, my uncle told me that the priority settings are very important and uses them in alot of his shots on the field. Im glad he taught me about them.

yeah u will find a lot of Pros using priority modes more becasue it is a LOT quicker. Like if u know ur gonna be using a long lens that is gonna give u a more shallow DOF anyways, then u don't really have to worry bout setting the aperture as low as u would think.

That way u can work with just the shutter and not have to even bother with the aperture. Cause they are already using a long lens, plus the players are a good distance from the background (sidelines, coaches, stands) anyways so that is gonna give u the DOF u want to seperate ur subject from the background anyways.

Wow, I really am surprised that people don't always use RAW... Sure, you don't NEED it, but it's such a powerful tool, its stupid not to use it IMO. You don't always have time to setup "perfect" camera settings, nor can you get certain effects or results right in the camera. Photography is an art form, and PP is the best tool to make your vision a reality. By only shooting JPEG, you really limit yourself.

That's just me though... :eyebrow:

i would love to be a stupid professional photographer someday making that kind of salary off of a hobby. hopefully even stupider.

pros use JPEG for pure speed. They don't need all the extra data cause they have no use in editing for art. They just want the image as it is happening and don't need to add a lomo effect or something like that. And they are more experienced so they are more knowledgeable on how to get the shot right in camera, so having the extra data isnt something they need. They shoot at 10fps or more and fill up cards quick.

its all fine and dandy to shoot jpg, but when lighting is constantly changing, like with surfing and other outdoors sports or concerts where they have different lighting every half second and you care about white balance...i choose raw...why? cause i'm not in a stadium or in a studio where the lighting is consistent.

yeah...you can always edit the white balance of your jpegs, but i'd rather edit an uncompressed image...

also...those guy who you talked to are journalist, so editing is not an option.

pros use JPEG for pure speed. They don't need all the extra data cause they have no use in editing for art. They just want the image as it is happening and don't need to add a lomo effect or something like that. And they are more experienced so they are more knowledgeable on how to get the shot right in camera, so having the extra data isnt something they need. They shoot at 10fps or more and fill up cards quick.

OK.

First off, yes, sports photographers and those alike need the speed. However, that is why they have high end cameras to enable RAW FPS 10FPS+, such as the EOS 1D Mark III. They don't need JPEG to get those FPS, either.

Secondly, editing an image is not always to add "lomo" effect, or whatever you are talking about. Having RAW capabilities opens up very powerful image altercation, from white balance, tone, color hues, exposure, etc... Many of which are difficult, if not impossible with JPEG.

As far as I know, most of the "pro's" shoot RAW... Come to mention it, I don't remember when I had met or talked to one that shot in anything less than RAW+JPEG...

Also, you can get the most perfect exposure in-camera, but does that not mean you can not improve on it during post processing. Many photographers don't edit pictures for days adding vignetting and other mass-editing techniques, but little tweaks that will make the photograph pop or more fulfill their vision.

I mean, it's up to the individual to choose what they want settings to shoot, but to say that RAW is pointless is just, stupid :doh:

I shoot in RAW all the time. Workflow is slower but I like to have complete control over an image.

Invertalon, i wasn't saying RAW was stupid. I use RAW and always will. I was saying that most of these sports photographers use JPEG only and will tell u that. I've always heard of most "pros" using RAW myself so when i heard of JPEG only i was like "reallly?"

And I know editing consists of what u say, i'm just saying they don't need all the info for shooting sports cause they aren't doing the HEAVY PP that a more artistic style photographer would be doing.

I shoot RAW too, especially when I travel sometimes I want to make different style from the same frame.. so yeah when i need to be creative, i have the right format.. Sure JPEG is perfectly fine, depends on what you shot and your goal but for me I will leave it at raw, i dont want to be switching and messing w/ the settings from JPEG to RAW in sudden situations I decide to be creative

Invertalon, i wasn't saying RAW was stupid. I use RAW and always will. I was saying that most of these sports photographers use JPEG only and will tell u that. I've always heard of most "pros" using RAW myself so when i heard of JPEG only i was like "reallly?"

And I know editing consists of what u say, i'm just saying they don't need all the info for shooting sports cause they aren't doing the HEAVY PP that a more artistic style photographer would be doing.

I got ya... I misunderstood you a little bit. I do see your point now. :biggrin:

I shoot in RAW because the JPEG interpretation on camera sucks.

if i am in a stadium shooting sports I'll shoot in JPEG for the speed and it is a constant setting.

if I am taking photos of a car or a person outside I use RAW because everything is changing and I like to have full control of fixing it.

also, RAW enables more options for PPing which some do and some don't. I do minimal PPing on my photos, but I like the options I have while shooting in RAW over JPEG.

Again, it is all personal preference.

what cant u do in jpeg that u can in raw? perhaps im missing something here. i use PSP ultimatex2.

also, my raw images come out awfully noisy, even at iso200

if you know what shooting in RAW entails.. you would not need to ask that question.

a raw image is exactly what it sounds like...raw and uncompressed where as a jpeg is compressed and a lot of data is lost

it takes the entire data that was captured with the image sensor... it allows a much greater range of post-processing options..

what those options are? more than i care to list.

i understand that but what i dont comprehend is why people are saying the differences in adjusting white balance in post is that much different? so ur telling me theres things i can do it post w/ a raw file, that i cant with a jpeg?

or u can do more fine tuning? as in u have more range to play w/? i can adjust white balance w/ no issues w/ jpeg. perhaps bc they arent too far off to begin w/

and who can answer my noise issue? im not the first person whos had the noise problem either.

what problem with noise?

i've never had a problem with noise when shooting in RAW.
shooting in either RAW or jpeg should not have a difference in that.

there is data loss when playing with a jpeg.. and adjusting white balance or anything with jpeg.. is much different than doing it with RAW because of that.

Isn't some form of NR applied when shooting in JPEG? That would explain why your pics would seem noisier in RAW.

i suppose maybe in some cameras.. dunno.

if so.. then obviously you can post-process the RAW image into what it would be if you had shot in jpeg instead.

i see, thanks for explaining. i was lookin to indepth