Sports Photography

[nickzou]

Do you guys shoot RAW or JPEG? Maybe it's just because I have a modest SD card but it seems impractical to shoot RAW at a sport event. Also, I did read the Ken Rockwell article. He doesn't seem to like RAW all that much in general though so his opinion might be bias.

 

[Tomasko]

Impractical? RAW? Why's that?
Raw's perfect for virtually anything. If you can afford quality gear, you can surely afford some backup SD cards too
If you know at least the basics of the sport you're shooting, you can predict what happens next and you don't have to shoot bursts all day long...

He doesn't seem to like RAW

Not sure who Ken Rockwell really is (never heard of him here in Europe before I joined this forum), but with such statement he doesn't seem to be really a pro.

 

[table1349]

Depends on your skill level. I shoot sports and I shoot jpeg. I have no issues with it, but then I have a number of years experience shooting sports, my equipment and the venues I shoot. I also trust and carry an external light meter that is calibrated with my bodies and I use it. If you get your exposure right in jpeg then there really is no reason to shoot in raw as there will be little if any need for that sort of post processing. And if you understand your equipment you can adjust the exposure settings to what you want, not what came preset from the factory.

As for Ken Rockwell, lets just say that you need to take what he says with not just a grain of salt, but a 50lb bag of salt.

 

[TheBiles]

I always shoot jpeg when I'm at a sporting event because I usually end up with about 600 shots after a 3 hour football game, and that's like 20GB of space I don't want to sort through.


--
Sent from my HTC Pyramid.

 

[Tomasko]

TheBiles,I still don't see any benefit of shooting jpeg (except small size). Let's say you can get 300 photos on one SD card. That means that for one event you'd be ok with just 2 SD cards. You can afford L lens, semi-pro camera etc., but you're not happy about photos taking up space on your SD card?
Converting raw to jpeg takes maybe about 30min (when we're talking about approx. 600 photos) and while converting you can go to the toilet, have lunch or whatever. You'll come back to pc and it's done. However, benefit over jpeg in terms of extra data is HUGE. Not even mentioning, that I honestly don't believe, you'll use all 600 photos from the event, so the processing time is even shorter, because you don't need to convert them all.

gryphonslair99, one thing is to get a correct exposure, but other thing is that you may need to tweak those photos. What if you'd want to PP them later? While shooting jpeg you can completely forget about that. I know some people don't need/want to do that, but I find it rather strange to shoot semiprofi/profi gear and ditch raw completely...

 

[imagemaker46]

I have always shot jpegs, never really felt a need to shoot raw. If the exposures are correct, being able to pull a virtually un-noticable bit of detail out of a frame that is going to be used for a magazine isn't what I need. If it is a large commercial shoot, fashion etc where every detail counts then sure why not. It all comes down to personal preference. There is no right or wrong when it comes to what format you shoot in. I just prefer jpegs.

 

[Kerbouchard]

It depends on the required turn around time. If you are trying to sell pictures on location, you are shooting JPEG. If you operate on a large volume, lower profit business, it's also JPEG. If you are taking those 600 shots and hoping to sell 1 to Sports Illustrated, you shoot RAW. It just depends on the situation and how much time you are putting into it.

As far as what Tomasko says, some is true, but a lot isn't. Processing 600 photos takes a lot longer than 30 minutes. Sure, you can do a batch convert and walk away, but you didn't accomplish anything by shooting RAW. You just batch converted it based on a generic setting later. Unless you are actually processing each photo, or shooting in a similar enough conditions where you can process one, and batch process the rest, it makes just as much sense to shoot in JPEG as it does to shoot in RAW.

RAW requires more work later, but can help salvage shots that would be unsalvagable without it. As far as not being able to edit JPEGS, that's nonsense. Heck, the 800 pixel, resized, processed, jpegs that are posted on this site get edited all the time. They display just fine online, and with the larger file, would print just fine, also. As far as non-destructive editing, which was RAW's greatest advantage, Adobe Camera RAW can now edit JPEG's non-destructively(to a point).

So, basically, if I'm shooting for a quick turn around time, it's JPEG. If I'm shooting something where I'll have some time to edit, it's RAW.

 

[Tomasko]

Kerbouchard , you completely misunderstood what I was trying to explain Oh well, I guess I'll have to offer the longer version.

Processing 600 photos takes a lot longer than 30 minutes. Sure, you can do a batch convert and walk away, but you didn't accomplish anything by shooting RAW.

You're wrong. You have accomplished one basic thing - you got all the extra data you could possibly get from your photos! That's the alpha and omega of shooting raw. I was comparing jpeg vs raw and impact of PP time after coming home. When somebody is shooting jpeg only, he's got what he shot. No extra data, no extra PP capabilities etc. What I mean by this is, that difference between speed of shooting raw vs shooting jpeg is only the file size and even size isn't much of an argument, because SD cards are ridiculously cheap comparing to other photographic gear. Speed can be EASILY compared, because batch convert is really fast if you know what are you doing. If you don't have to pp your photos, good for you! But it is always nice to have that option of usable extra data. If you need to sell those images on site, you can use the option RAW+Jpeg which most cameras have nowadays, but it depends on the situation.

RAW requires more work later

Not really. Depends what you want to achieve, what is your goal. But if you're just comparing usability of jpeg from the camera vs jpeg converted in PC, than it's just... What is a polite word for this?

They display just fine online

Which semipro/pro photographer takes photos to only display them online? I rather don't even want to know... Maybe I was taught by too old people or something. I just hope we're not talking here about amateur photographers with their P&S, because if we're really talking about people with $2000 worth gear.......

As far as not being able to edit JPEGS, that's nonsense. Heck, the 800 pixel, resized, processed, jpegs that are posted on this site get edited all the time.

You're kidding me right? You really want to compare edit-ability of jpegs vs raw? Once again, if we're talking about amateur photographers who post they whole work on Flickr/Facebook and such, than this whole discussion is rather pointless.

As far as non-destructive editing, which was RAW's greatest advantage

Another moment I have a strange feeling I'm on a wrong forum. Non-destructive editing as GREATEST advantage of raw? COME ON! You can't mean that for real...

 

[JDaves]

When I shoot a sporting or any special event that has very poor lighting I often shoot in "Raw-jpeg". This setting allows you to use the jpeg files if you have hit your setting right or use the Raw to save a photo. It does take up a lot of space and it slows your shutter speed. The post processing time is shorter than all Raw. Again this is just for events that the lights are not very good and I don't plan on shooting 600+ pix.

 

[bigtwinky]

I'm pretty much always shooting RAW. I carry enough memory cards with me to store what I need to. I buy memory cards when they are on sale and get Sandisk 16GB Extreme for under $60. So storage isnt an issue.

I dont aim to shoot alot (I'd probably shoot more if it were in jpg), I'm a selective shooter and make sure I get a few shots of what I need. I dont get people who just riffle off shots. Sure, there are critical times when burst is a must, but I see people burst all the time. Be selective and you wont have that much to go through.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Point taken, at least the last part. You are right, the data that is not thrown away is, perhaps, RAW's greatest advantage. Look, I shoot almost exclusively RAW and edit what I need to edit, but there are times when JPEG is good enough and saves me a lot of time down the road.

As far as my 14 bit RAW file, edited in a 64 bit environment using a color gamut that can't even be printed...it starts to get into the why bother scale of things. What we can capture can't be reproduced on a monitor and can't be reproduced on print. All that extra data is, well, extra.

Sure, there are times when that extra data comes into play and can really make a difference. IMO, 95% of the time it is thrown away as extra data somewhere in the processing, whether it is the camera converting to JPEG or CS5 converting to JPEG.

If you have the right white balance and the proper exposure, all that extra data is superfluous, since it can't be reproduced or displayed.

As far as amateur photographers who post their images on flikr or facebook vs professional photographers who are shooting for fine art displays, I think I agree with you. The whole discussion is rather pointless. For fine art displays, commercial photography, etc, those people already know what they need and wouldn't be asking this question on an online forum.

You answering the OP and using a less than .1% of the typical photographers as the standard is a bit disingenuous.

FWIW, a lot of pro sports photographers shoot JPEG and just about all of the people I know who offer onsite fulfillment shoot JPEG. Sure, it can be done with RAW, but it's more overhead.

 

[KmH]

A lot of good action sports shooters shoot JPEG. So do a lot of the good wedding photographers.

Both make a high volume of images, and have the experience to make each shot very close to right in the camera.

Shooting action sports is very different than shooting T&I shots, which is where shooting Raw can be a plus. By the same token, those wedding photographers I mentioned above usually shoot the formals and engaement shots as Raw files.

As for the OP, hopefully you have at least one backup memory card. Flash memory is dirt cheap. 4 GB will hold about 225, 12-bit, 12 MP Raw files.

Kingston 4 GB Class 4 SDHC Flash Memory Card SD4/4GBET

SanDisk Ultra SDHC 4GB SD Memory Card (SDSDRH-004G-A11, US Retail Package)

 

[tirediron]

Electronic storage is cheap. Cheap like borchst. Why limit yourself? Shoot the best of both worlds: RAW+JPG (Large/Fine) - that's what my camera is always set to. It does go through memory cards a little more quickly, but they're not expensive, and I would MUCH rather have a bunch of stuff to throw away then be bemoaning the fact that I should have shot....

 

[table1349]

TheBiles,I still don't see any benefit of shooting jpeg (except small size). Let's say you can get 300 photos on one SD card. That means that for one event you'd be ok with just 2 SD cards. You can afford L lens, semi-pro camera etc., but you're not happy about photos taking up space on your SD card?
Converting raw to jpeg takes maybe about 30min (when we're talking about approx. 600 photos) and while converting you can go to the toilet, have lunch or whatever. You'll come back to pc and it's done. However, benefit over jpeg in terms of extra data is HUGE. Not even mentioning, that I honestly don't believe, you'll use all 600 photos from the event, so the processing time is even shorter, because you don't need to convert them all.

gryphonslair99, one thing is to get a correct exposure, but other thing is that you may need to tweak those photos. What if you'd want to PP them later? While shooting jpeg you can completely forget about that. I know some people don't need/want to do that, but I find it rather strange to shoot semiprofi/profi gear and ditch raw completely...

First off you can PP jpeg's, just not to the drastic extent that you can Raw files. Secondly, if you have the photographic skills and knowledge to get it right in camera you don't need to do a lot of post processing. Finally no publication wants photos hours or days after the event. If you are shooting for a daily publication they need them right after the event or even during the event to meet deadline. It is not uncommon for me to upload photos at half time, between innings, period end etc. or on occasion even during the event.

Gear has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to photographer knowledge and abilities. I shot for 30 years with film. There were no safety nets, no let the camera do it for you. You had to know your craft. Digital hasn't changed that. All digital has done is let more people slog around trying. Those that truly succeed are the ones that still go out and learn their craft and learn to use the tool not rely on the tool as a crutch.

 

[Tomasko]

First off you can PP jpeg's, just not to the drastic extent that you can Raw files. Secondly, if you have the photographic skills and knowledge to get it right in camera you don't need to do a lot of post processing. Finally no publication wants photos hours or days after the event. If you are shooting for a daily publication they need them right after the event or even during the event to meet deadline. It is not uncommon for me to upload photos at half time, between innings, period end etc. or on occasion even during the event.

Gear has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to photographer knowledge and abilities. I shot for 30 years with film. There were no safety nets, no let the camera do it for you. You had to know your craft. Digital hasn't changed that. All digital has done is let more people slog around trying. Those that truly succeed are the ones that still go out and learn their craft and learn to use the tool not rely on the tool as a crutch.

Yes, you can edit jpeg for sure. And loose tons of image data in the process doing it One thing is to get right exposure, but other thing is to get the result you want. What if you don't want correct exposure? What if you want to bring up details which would be otherwise lost if you shot it as jpeg? What if you want to fine tweak the exposure, sharpness, saturation etc? Photoshoping jpegs isn't exactly the ideal way, especially if you do larger prints.
Sure, if you work as a photojournalist, you don't do PP (or only minor tweaks). But photography isn't only about getting the correct exposure. It's an art too and if you want to achieve certain mood/effect, you have to post-process, if you like that or not. There are many effects which can't be done with filters, flashes etc. Before, you had to do it in darkroom, now you do the same in PC when converting to jpeg.
During your film days, you processed your images by yourself or used a service, which did it for you?