Shooting RAW for sports

BraCas

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
43
Reaction score
8
Location
wisconsin
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I have a question for seasoned shooters. I been shooting high school sports as jpegs and have not had any issues. BUT I have been wondering if I shot them in RAW and feed them through lightroom to do batch editing, will that work?? I know the files are bigger but I was wondering if it as fast or easy to do them as jpegs. I usually have about 300 images per game, I quickly scan them to narrow down to around 50 because of camera shake, ref in the way or lack of action. those last 50 go through lightroom and get adjustments. Does Raw take that much more time to use. I have shot single frame photos in raw then edit, never tried to batch edit.

in lightroom, my original files in the catalog will be raw but my exports will be jpegs, correct??
 
I think the main problems using raw for sports is the camera can slow down due buffer and write speeds. A batch edit in Lightroom is easy to do
 
Try a game that way and see if you like it.

I shoot all my soccer stuff in RAW but I've learned to fly through the editing in LightRoom.
 
I shoot in raw because I learned very early on that high school field lights suck and I need the most data avaiable to get quality images.

I also learned to be more picky in my shots. I don't just hold down the button every time the ball is snapped and hope for the best. I use the framerate to catch the right moments of a play, nothing more.

Really tho at the end of the day I normally end up with a couple dozen keepers.
 
I shot newspaper sports for two years in the mid-2000's and shot raw. That was before I had Lightroom. I did batch processing back then, but it was slower and computers were slower than they are today. With Lightroom, the automatic preset that is applied on import ought to make the images look plenty good for evaluation/editing. 300 frames is NOT that many with today's higher MP cameras. If the exposures are more or less the same, you could easily refine one image, and then click on the other similars, and click Paste Settings, and BOOM! Equalized, optimized images of all the similars.

You don't mention the end use for the images, but if it's publication, you could just pick out your selects and work on only those and the time spent would be pretty minimal.
 
I have a question for seasoned shooters. I been shooting high school sports as jpegs and have not had any issues. BUT I have been wondering if I shot them in RAW and feed them through lightroom to do batch editing, will that work?? I know the files are bigger but I was wondering if it as fast or easy to do them as jpegs. I usually have about 300 images per game, I quickly scan them to narrow down to around 50 because of camera shake, ref in the way or lack of action. those last 50 go through lightroom and get adjustments. Does Raw take that much more time to use. I have shot single frame photos in raw then edit, never tried to batch edit.

in lightroom, my original files in the catalog will be raw but my exports will be jpegs, correct??

yes, I also shoot RAW for sports but it does take more time to process but worth it unless you're under some kind of time restriction to produce images
 
I shot only raw when shooting my grandson's football games a couple of years ago. But, I learned raw from the beginning. All of 3 years ago. Actually, I've "never" shot anything in jpeg. It would be just too weird now.
 
News photogs shoot JPEG because of deadline(s). I shoot RAW and I shoot a lot of sports. If you have the time, RAW could be useful for color balance and exposure manipulation. If you have a handle on WB and exposure ... the significance of RAW versus JPEG diminishes.
 
I used to shoot painball in RAW with D7100 but as the buffer is small and lighting conditions was quite good I switched to JPEG. Maybe my skill in sport shooting are far from perfect and I don't use the fastest cards but anyway if RAW was the best option in every situation they would exclude JPEG from camera settings. No doubts RAW allows you get more of your images but there are situations where JPEG delivers decent quality allowing take more frames. So my point is one should decide shoot RAW or JPEG depending on situation one shoots in. Good light, more action - JPEG, poor or rapidly changing light- RAW.
 
Are you getting results you're happy with shooting jpegs? If you are then why switch, but do give it a try. I'd work on getting the average of keeps up, shooting 300 and keeping 50 isn't a great average.
 
And that's a lot of pictures of one high school game. Helps to learn the timing, to anticipate the action, and takes practice. I usually shoot Raw but could do either since I'm doing my own thing (no deadline or requirements etc.). I've mostly done hockey, and shot on film too, it just takes learning what to do.
 
This doesn't have to do with raw/jpeg, but to a general observation I have when working around other photographers shooting football. They are pointing the camera but not looking at what they are shooting and as a result they end up with a lot of garbage. I had to hire a buddy of mine to shoot a pro game for me this summer, he gave me a disk with over 1800 images. I shoot on average somewhere in the 500-600 range and keep about 90%, ones I delete are usually similar images, keep the best one. I went through his disk and was able to keep 140 images. This is an experienced photographer that has shot lots of football, I just didn't realize that he shot like this. I was shocked.
If you are having the refs in the way a lot, then move to an area where they won't be blocking, if you have camera shake, up the shutter speed, and as vintagesnaps mentioned, work on timing and try to anticipate the action. Good luck with it all. Do you have any images you can post?
 
You don't mention the end use for the images, but if it's publication, you could just pick out your selects and work on only those and the time spent would be pretty minimal.

This is what I tend to do shooting sports for our son. I don't shoot for publication but I keep a small site where I upload photos for other parents to download photos of their kids. So hand selecting and batch editing makes things quick and easy. I also shoot in raw because the lights sucks, even indoors and I'm not up against any clock on getting the work done. My D800 isn't a sports shooter but it does okay, every now any then I'll fill up the buffer and have to wait a second for it to clear out.
 
BraCas- I would say try it. Buffer is about the only thing you lose out on as well as memory card space; you should be able to see how it affects your own shooting. That's the best way; then you make the choice for yourself and you might well change it based on the situation (eg as mentioned above challenging lighting conditions might make you use RAW more; whilst in good even lighting you might be perfectly fine with JPEG).

Newspapers and suchlike covering sports often use JPEG because the file has to be in the editors hands almost as soon as the event happens. There just isn't time for fine-editing and newspaper use also curtails a lot of editing options; RAW is superior, but just not offering any bonuses in this context.
For what you say is your intended use RAW could be an ideal option; and with Lightroom batch processing and pre-sets and the like the processing of RAW shots will not add much to you editing time at all.


Imagemaker - my personal view is that a lot of people "gun" at things like sport events because it can be over in a flash when you're shooting. For most I would argue that one can lower the chances of gunning it by better understanding the sport itself. The more one understands the easier it becomes to predict and nail the shot; or at least get your burst of shots around the right moment.
I've found this a lot myself as I dipped into showjumping and dressage. Showjumping is simple as it gets for a "sport" in that most of the event is at the jumps so its more picking your angle on the jump and getting the timing of that moment right. Dressage though is closer to a regular sport to me; its more flowing with more potential times for shots; but at the same time its only got a few moments that ARE shots. But you have to know the gait of the horse; know the timing for when the legs will bei n the right position.
For something like football it would be knowing where the ball is going to go; not just being able to follow it around. Being able to read the pitch - players and ball and know (or at least take the educated guess) at how things will move around.

Experiences teaches this to most; but sometimes you have to learn as well; sometimes learning to play the sport helps because you get a feel for what is going through the mind of those competing. Like driving a car, once you're behind the wheel for a while you get a feeling for how other cars might react to a situation based upon your own experiences and what you know of driving.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top