Clear and Vivid Colors

[o hey tyler]

I never felt like I've missed action due to a full buffer. So I guess I will just continue to shoot exclusively in RAW.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Yeah, someone shooting a fashion show, or sports, or a breaking news event......... they're gonna shoot raw when they're holding the shutter button down more than not?

Besides shooting a fashion show, I've shot sports action, and photojournalism exclusively in RAW... and again, never had an issue with the buffer being filled.

Are you going to agree to disagree, or are you going to continue to force your opinion?

 

[SCraig]

Yeah, someone shooting a fashion show, or sports, or a breaking news event......... they're gonna shoot raw when they're holding the shutter button down more than not?

I do quite frequently, primarily motorcycle or auto races and birds in flight. Haven't felt like I've missed anything yet.

 

[480sparky]

Besides shooting a fashion show, I've shot sports action, and photojournalism exclusively in RAW... and again, never had an issue with the buffer being filled.

Are you going to agree to disagree, or are you going to continue to force your opinion?

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. You're the one that's claiming that.

The fact remains: there are some situations that shooting raw just does not work. Apparently you cannot accept that.

 

[o hey tyler]

Besides shooting a fashion show, I've shot sports action, and photojournalism exclusively in RAW... and again, never had an issue with the buffer being filled.

Are you going to agree to disagree, or are you going to continue to force your opinion?

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. You're the one that's claiming that.

Initially, I was making a very obvious joke in my first post. Maybe that one slipped by you. I then continued to state my opinion based on my experiences in the field.

The fact remains: there are some situations that shooting raw just does not work. Apparently you cannot accept that.

Who's forcing opinions? Or "facts" as you said? Learn how facts differ from opinions, and get back to me.

I've never once stated that you NEED to shoot in RAW all the time. I've simply stated that I MYSELF shoot in RAW all the time and have had NO ISSUES. Again, I DO NOT expect everyone to mimic MY shooting style, and I am not telling anyone that there are situations that RAW won't work, because I MYSELF haven't encountered any.

Get real, Sparky. Not everyone has the same shooting mentality as you, nor do they have the same mentality as me. Like I said "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."

Do you follow, or do you have more "facts..." er, I mean personal opinions you'd like to share? Agree to disagree, or continue to proclaim that you're the guiding force in an artform based on subjectivity. Your call.

 

[480sparky]

Besides shooting a fashion show, I've shot sports action, and photojournalism exclusively in RAW... and again, never had an issue with the buffer being filled.

Are you going to agree to disagree, or are you going to continue to force your opinion?

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. You're the one that's claiming that.

Initially, I was making a very obvious joke in my first post. Maybe that one slipped by you. I then continued to state my opinion based on my experiences in the field.

The fact remains: there are some situations that shooting raw just does not work. Apparently you cannot accept that.

Who's forcing opinions? Or "facts" as you said? Learn how facts differ from opinions, and get back to me.

I've never once stated that you NEED to shoot in RAW all the time. I've simply stated that I MYSELF shoot in RAW all the time and have had NO ISSUES. Again, I DO NOT expect everyone to mimic MY shooting style, and I am not telling anyone that there are situations that RAW won't work, because I MYSELF haven't encountered any.

Get real, Sparky. Not everyone has the same shooting mentality as you, nor do they have the same mentality as me. Like I said "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."

Do you follow, or do you have more "facts..." er, I mean personal opinions you'd like to share? Agree to disagree, or continue to proclaim that you're the guiding force in an artform based on subjectivity. Your call.

Yep. I follow. You yourself have never had an issue with a full buffer shooting raw, therefore no one else can or has. .

I guess it was my mistake not knowing that your experiences represents the total sum of all others. I've never had to take 40 shots in 10 seconds. Nope.... never happened.

My bad. I'll shut up now.

 

[Overread]

Oh? What situations would that be that can't be shot in Raw?

When you need to shoot lots and lots and lots of frames fast.

Sure, you could shoot in raw......... and miss 95% of the action just waiting for the buffer to clear.

Actually buffer limits isn't a common reason that I've heard of JPEG being used over RAW. Sure for some it will be, however the most common reasons I've heard for JPEG over RAW are:

1) Sports/news photographers who have to send shots off pretty much as soon as they are taken (for print and/or online publishing). Often this is where they are still shooting the event whilst the early shots are being selected by the editor and put onto the page. There just isn't time to include a RAW processing stage nor a demand for it in the process - it also speeds up transfer of data from site to editors office.

2) Holidays/snapshots - when the photographer wants to have shots and just view them not really process them all.


The above are both general examples, not hard fast rules of course.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. You're the one that's claiming that.

Initially, I was making a very obvious joke in my first post. Maybe that one slipped by you. I then continued to state my opinion based on my experiences in the field.

The fact remains: there are some situations that shooting raw just does not work. Apparently you cannot accept that.

Who's forcing opinions? Or "facts" as you said? Learn how facts differ from opinions, and get back to me.

I've never once stated that you NEED to shoot in RAW all the time. I've simply stated that I MYSELF shoot in RAW all the time and have had NO ISSUES. Again, I DO NOT expect everyone to mimic MY shooting style, and I am not telling anyone that there are situations that RAW won't work, because I MYSELF haven't encountered any.

Get real, Sparky. Not everyone has the same shooting mentality as you, nor do they have the same mentality as me. Like I said "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."

Do you follow, or do you have more "facts..." er, I mean personal opinions you'd like to share? Agree to disagree, or continue to proclaim that you're the guiding force in an artform based on subjectivity. Your call.

Yep. I follow. You yourself have never had an issue with a full buffer shooting raw, therefore no one else can or has. .

I guess it was my mistake not knowing that your experiences represents the total sum of all others. I've never had to take 40 shots in 10 seconds. Nope.... never happened.

My bad. I'll shut up now.

Might also want to work on reading comprehension as well if you can't understand what I am stating is personal opinion and not a blanket statement of advice for any particular shooter.

 

[o hey tyler]

Oh? What situations would that be that can't be shot in Raw?

When you need to shoot lots and lots and lots of frames fast.

Sure, you could shoot in raw......... and miss 95% of the action just waiting for the buffer to clear.

Actually buffer limits isn't a common reason that I've heard of JPEG being used over RAW. Sure for some it will be, however the most common reasons I've heard for JPEG over RAW are:

1) Sports/news photographers who have to send shots off pretty much as soon as they are taken (for print and/or online publishing). Often this is where they are still shooting the event whilst the early shots are being selected by the editor and put onto the page. There just isn't time to include a RAW processing stage nor a demand for it in the process - it also speeds up transfer of data from site to editors office.

2) Holidays/snapshots - when the photographer wants to have shots and just view them not really process them all.


The above are both general examples, not hard fast rules of course.

Reasons 1 and 2 that you posted are the primary reasons that I have heard for people using JPEG over raw. Mostly 1, of course. Because often times photogs need to expedite the photos straight to the media outlet without having time to process a RAW file.

I will admit that I shoot holiday photos, and 'snapshots' in RAW format as well though. I just enjoy processing my images, but not everyone in that situation would, that's for sure.

 

[rexbobcat]

Yay for passive- aggressive forum posts.

When you're shooting with a camera that has a 7 year old processor then RAW is uneconomical. The only time I shoot raw is if there is a lot of room for exposure/WB error, like when I'm shooting at night with the various different light sources.

When I shoot ONE long exposure, it takes the same amount of time that the exposure took for the image to record onto the card.

When shooting 8 fps a second it takes up to 45 seconds for the buffer to completely clear.

Buffer does matter.

 

[Buckster]

I never felt like I've missed action due to a full buffer. So I guess I will just continue to shoot exclusively in RAW.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Yeah, someone shooting a fashion show, or sports, or a breaking news event......... they're gonna shoot raw when they're holding the shutter button down more than not?

Generations of photographers who covered those venues with film stopped laughing at you long enough to call in and say you're pulling this stuff out of your butt - again - and they'd like you to please stop embarassing yourself. They added that if you don't have the timing to do such work that perhaps you should find some other line, like, say, still life.

 

[480sparky]

Well, again I am told I have never had to shoot 40 frames in 10 seconds. The fact that you weren't there either means more than the fact I was. Apparently my experience is meaningless here..... My facts are worthless.

 

[table1349]

proper JPEG preset.

NOOOOOOO DON'T ADVOCATE SHOOTING JPEG!!! :lmao:

Initially, I was making a very obvious joke in my first post. Maybe that one slipped by you. I then continued to state my opinion based on my experiences in the field.



Who's forcing opinions? Or "facts" as you said? Learn how facts differ from opinions, and get back to me.

I've never once stated that you NEED to shoot in RAW all the time. I've simply stated that I MYSELF shoot in RAW all the time and have had NO ISSUES. Again, I DO NOT expect everyone to mimic MY shooting style, and I am not telling anyone that there are situations that RAW won't work, because I MYSELF haven't encountered any.

Get real, Sparky. Not everyone has the same shooting mentality as you, nor do they have the same mentality as me. Like I said "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."

Do you follow, or do you have more "facts..." er, I mean personal opinions you'd like to share? Agree to disagree, or continue to proclaim that you're the guiding force in an artform based on subjectivity. Your call.

Yep. I follow. You yourself have never had an issue with a full buffer shooting raw, therefore no one else can or has. .

I guess it was my mistake not knowing that your experiences represents the total sum of all others. I've never had to take 40 shots in 10 seconds. Nope.... never happened.

My bad. I'll shut up now.

Might also want to work on reading comprehension as well if you can't understand what I am stating is personal opinion and not a blanket statement of advice for any particular shooter.

I-Statements

 

[o hey tyler]

Generations of photographers who covered those venues with film stopped laughing at you long enough to call in and say you're pulling this stuff out of your butt - again - and they'd like you to please stop embarassing yourself. They added that if you don't have the timing to do such work that perhaps you should find some other line, like, say, still life.

My opinions are worthless.

Sorry, had to fix it. As "facts" is the wrong word to use.

No one ever said that. I just said they weren't facts. Much like my opinions; they're just that, opinions based off of personal experience.

 

[table1349]

Actually buffer limits isn't a common reason that I've heard of JPEG being used over RAW. Sure for some it will be, however the most common reasons I've heard for JPEG over RAW are:

1) Sports/news photographers who have to send shots off pretty much as soon as they are taken (for print and/or online publishing). Often this is where they are still shooting the event whilst the early shots are being selected by the editor and put onto the page. There just isn't time to include a RAW processing stage nor a demand for it in the process - it also speeds up transfer of data from site to editors office.

:thumbup: All I shoot at a sporting event is .jpg. If you know your equipment, know the venue, understand proper exposure and set a custom profile that suits your needs then .jpg can cover the bill nicely.

 

[o hey tyler]

proper JPEG preset.

NOOOOOOO DON'T ADVOCATE SHOOTING JPEG!!! :lmao:

Yep. I follow. You yourself have never had an issue with a full buffer shooting raw, therefore no one else can or has. .

I guess it was my mistake not knowing that your experiences represents the total sum of all others. I've never had to take 40 shots in 10 seconds. Nope.... never happened.

My bad. I'll shut up now.

Might also want to work on reading comprehension as well if you can't understand what I am stating is personal opinion and not a blanket statement of advice for any particular shooter.

I-Statements

See: Inability to discern textual based sarcasm in a forum setting through use of emoticons.