RAW or JPEG trackside?

[MikeHoyer]

I've always shot JPEG since I've had my digi-SLR, but I'm thinking of experimenting with RAW files.

Looking at some, it seems that there is a lot more you can do with them, but is it worth it for mainly web images?

Some of the main advantages would be useful, as they would take up a lot more storage space, and I guess require a bit more post-processing than JPEG's...

[924nut]

Mike
I am like you in that I should mainly JPG, one weekend I did decide to shoot RAW, the good side of it was that there was more that I could do with the image once back home. But overall is it that much more noticeable - I am sure there is a differance but in 99.9% of shots it would be very difficult to tell.
The downside is the buffer is filled up quicker on the camera so rapid bursts are reduced (you probably have a bigger capacity than my 7D) and you need more storage space. The other draw back is all the extra post processing time. I personally went back to JPG but will probably try it again at some stage.

[forzaf1]

I use RAW for all my shooting. Processing time is the only downside to it. Your need a fast laptop though because certain programs like Nikon Capture can't handle RAW images for to long.

Alex

[photohsr]

I shoot Jpeg with my 1DmkII exclusivly, for a number of reasons;
1. With 2000-3000 images a weekend storage space is a factor
2. Meeting Monday deadlines you don't have the time to spend on coverting.
3. With using "L" series glass and the highest jpeg setting the quality is there
for poster size prints, covers shots etc.
4. A very interesting discussion or raw vs jpeg here

Bob H.

[C.U.Motorsport]

Originally Posted by forzaf1

I use RAW for all my shooting. Processing time is the only downside to it. Your need a fast laptop though because certain programs like Nikon Capture can't handle RAW images for to long.

Alex

Do you take a laptop out to the track with you?

I cant afford a laptop so i will probably just have to resign myself to tracking down lots of cf cards

[forzaf1]

Originally Posted by C.U.Motorsport

Do you take a laptop out to the track with you?

I cant afford a laptop so i will probably just have to resign myself to tracking down lots of cf cards

When I am doing it for fun then my laptop is at home. When its business and F1 then the the laptop is back at the media centre.

Alex

[rdjones]

I always shot in JPEG, its easier and quicker both track and when I get home.

[C.U.Motorsport]

Think of RAW as your negative, and JPG as your print.

If you shoot a roll of film and take it into Snappy Snaps to get developed and printed, they'll give you back a set of prints and the negatives.

The prints would have been processed in a particular way and at a particular size from the original negatives, so if you wanted to alter the colour or exposure slightly, or just print them bigger, you would get better results by doing this from the original negatives rather than working with the print.

When you set a camera to output jpg files, it is in effect "developing" your prints with the settings that you configure (colour saturation, sharpness and size for example), but the RAW files are the digital version of the negative and can be used to create new "prints" outside the camera.

If you plan to only shoot for web use JPEGS are fine, Raw files allow much more flexibility. I understand that the JPEG compression does change the image every time you open and save it. If you need really large images for adverts etc then the only starting point is a nice large raw file!

Some good info on the subject can be found here.

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/33_cms101-5.stm

and

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

[philneast]

I mainly shoot JPEG for motosrport because of linits storage space on memory cards.
The speed of selection and processing JPEG is an advantage in getting articles and results onto web sites such as www.kartsportnews.com as soon as possible.

For general photography I shoot RAW because you can do so much more in processing the imge.

RAW does not lose any quality in compression as JPEG does. For motorsport the slight loss in quality when saving in JPEG is not really an issue for me.

[MikeHoyer]

That's probably the best option really, I noticed when I tried shooting JPEG for a bit the other week, the memory card took quite a while to write after a few shots, and this was with just a couple of cars on track, and a pretty fast card! Not what you need for a big race...

[Hubble]

It's JPEG for me too. Used to shoot RAW all the time, but just not practical when shooting 500+ images per day. The extra processing time and storage capacity required just make it impractical. I may go back to shooting RAW and JPEG now I have bought a 1D MkIIN, as you can have CF and SD cards in it at the same time, and write RAW and JPEG to different cards

[DWA]

I would agree with the JPEG line. Shoot all my pics at circuits in JPEG. Only ever switch to RAW for either static shots when I know the image is to be used in a very large size for promotional posters etc or for studio shots when again they can be reproduced at a very large size. Although usually supply these to clients as a TIFF in this case. For web use, most magazines and newspapers JPEG is fine and much quicker to deal with.

[Andrew W]

I shoot RAW regardless, in fact, I have never ever shot a jpeg from any of my 1D's, simply use a good quantity of 2Gig cards and if need be I also carry a portable image bank thingummie...

Andrew

[Snapper Baz]

Iv'e only shot in jpeg, never had any problems with it...have just done a number of 30x20 glossy pics for business jet pilots of their jets taking off and they are excellent (the jets filling the frame almost)...in fact just got an Italian order for 4 of one picture today which is good news! Don't think I'll bother changing at the moment.

[James North]

I've ocassionaly used RAW trackside, but for me so far the disadvantages outweigh it's advantages, the files are much bigger and it slows down the camera, which isn't great when the action is thick and fast.

[Joe T]

I always use RAW, but after reading this thread, I think I might have changed my mind!

[RotorFan]

The "high" quality JPEG setting on almost all cameras is pretty much lossless, I find. JPEG doesn't necessarily equal lost quality. Even the MPEG2 quality on DVDs are lossy but the bitrate is so high that people thing its a lossless source, and it pretty much is.

[F1Nut]

There is no other way of shooting than RAW.

I now shoot all my images in RAW, the quality has goon up to as much as 50%.

But remember, the software is the key to a good final image. Don't us Photoshop!



Regards, Steve.

[Joe T]

Originally Posted by F1Nut

But remember, the software is the key to a good final image. Don't us Photoshop!

Whats wrong with photoshop?

Cheers.

[MikeHoyer]

What do you recommend we use then?

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by MikeHoyer

What do you recommend we use then?

Mike, most of the guys I talk to work in JPEG only trackside. Occasionally I do stuff for an ex-F1 photographer - he shoots exclusively in high compression JPEG, and so I have to when working for him. It certainly speeds up the transfer process, and he can then send them out quickly to the mags. I may shoot some RAW this year, as my new toy (1DmkIIN) can store RAW and JPEGS on different cards (CF and SD) simultaneously.

[Andrew W]

Originally Posted by Hubble

Mike, most of the guys I talk to work in JPEG only trackside. Occasionally I do stuff for an ex-F1 photographer - he shoots exclusively in high compression JPEG, and so I have to when working for him. It certainly speeds up the transfer process, and he can then send them out quickly to the mags. I may shoot some RAW this year, as my new toy (1DmkIIN) can store RAW and JPEGS on different cards (CF and SD) simultaneously.

Any MK2 can shoot large/med/small (and various qualities/compression) JPEGS and RAW on the same card also....Some shoot this method, possibly using $Gig cards because obviously it'll eat your card space. But in reality (in my case) I shoot RAW only and don't find the process to be any slower when editing back in the media center. As the program is ingesting the images you can edit/sort/cull and then as need be create full size (better quality) JPEGS from the selects.

Andrew

[924nut]

Following through this thread - most of the snappers Trackside are using jpg, but a couple have stated they only use RAW - but the examples they are giving are PIT shots - yes the answer is clearly RAW for that type of shot but trackside is completely different - you cant stop the action whilst the buffer clears on your camera

[Andrew W]

Originally Posted by 924nut

Following through this thread - most of the snappers Trackside are using jpg, but a couple have stated they only use RAW - but the examples they are giving are PIT shots - yes the answer is clearly RAW for that type of shot but trackside is completely different - you cant stop the action whilst the buffer clears on your camera

Visit my site, you'll see a mix. All shot RAW, both paddock/pit and track.

You just have to have a finely tuned workflow and also be selective about what you shoot rather than say, holding down the shutter button and taking huge bursts of frames to try and obtain "something". I very rarely use the available 8.5fps of the 1DMK2 but it's there if need be (for spills etc...)

The 1DMK2's (and "N's) were designed for this.

Andrew

[C.U.Motorsport]

Just checked your site and I think it is marvellous, both with respect to the pictures, and the website itself.

Do you do any kind of tweeking on your images at all?