jpg versus raw

[Gunder]

Sailing.

Why?????

[Free Range Lobster]

Why?????

On boat you typically only have one chance at "magic shots" there are no "ok turn the boat around and do that again" opportunities.
There's no room to move around.
You're in the way.

Off boat you're extremely restricted how much shooting you can actually do.
Not too many places you can get good sailing photography from land.
Which limits you to helicopters or other boats.

Also cameras and water don't play nice.

"Ok guys! turn around and go at it again!"

[summit]

Not really... Please explain how shooting at 2 fps vs 1 is better for web than print..... a good shot is a good shot no matter what, crapy photos are always going to be crapy pics wether there on line, in print etc.

You are missing the point getting all defensive here. The point is that having 2.5 times faster FPS *can* mean (in general) better action photos than RAW vs JPEG if you have a less demanding output medium like showing your friends on an uncalibrated computer screen. That is what most people do here.

Please explain why you cant devlop good shutter discipline by ussing a digi.... If any thing it should be easier.

It is not impossible, but most find shutter discipline is imposed by limiting your photos and cost. With film, if you sprayed off every roll you would quickly run out of film and your processing costs would be high. Even cheapskate Joe Blows-1hr-Photo was paying ~$0.25 per frame and only carried around 3 rolls of Kodak Gold 200 for his Canon Rebel G. That took more consideration than a 300D with a 1GB card. Spraying a bazillion digital shots is free and storage is easy and cheap. You don't have to change memory cards every 36 frames.

If you pre-focus as you SHOULD be the shutter delay just about dissapears.

Absolutely... now try letting off and refocusing because your subject moved since your single shot... most P&S do not have Servo focusing one prefocused. Or try prefocusing on empty space (yes you try to pick an appriatly far tree) or MFing with a P&S.... wheee! It is easy to tell you haven't shot skiing much with P&S cams... but why should you? I wouldn't if I were you. P&S action technique is different because the equipment is different.

Whinning about gear limitations is not an excuse for poor technique.

I couldn't agree more.

[Gunder]

You are missing the point getting all defensive here. The point is that having 2.5 times faster FPS *can* mean (in general) better action photos than RAW vs JPEG if you have a less demanding output medium like showing your friends on an uncalibrated computer screen. That is what most people do here.

Again I make the point you do NOT need the faster frame rate to get better pics. Plus a less demandng output devise is still not an excuse for shitty pics.

It is not impossible, but most find shutter discipline is imposed by limiting your photos and cost. With film, if you sprayed off every roll you would quickly run out of film and your processing costs would be high. Even cheapskate Joe Blows-1hr-Photo was paying ~$0.25 per frame and only carried around 3 rolls of Kodak Gold 200 for his Canon Rebel G. That took more consideration than a 300D with a 1GB card. Spraying a bazillion digital shots is free and storage is easy and cheap. You don't have to change memory cards every 36 frames.

Thats not an excuse. Thats just being to lazy to learn the art.

Absolutely... now try letting off and refocusing because your subject moved since your single shot... most P&S do not have AI servo focusing one prefocused. Or try prefocusing on empty space (yes you try to pick an appriatly far tree) or MFing with a P&S.... wheee! P&S action technique is different because the equipment is different.

No its not that difficult. All you have to do is visualise where you expect them to be, prefocus on that spot, wait for them to show up snap the pic. Wether you have a PS, or a DSLR its still the same technique. For the record AI servo is useless even on a more expensive DSLR.

[summit]

Again I make the point you do NOT need the faster frame rate to get better pics. Plus a less demandng output devise is still not an excuse for shitty pics.

This was taken with a 2.2fps A70...
(3.5 years ago)
Now would this picture have been as interesting if I only had 1 RAW frame? (just supposing it was captured with the RAW-capable S45 that I replaced the JPEG-only A70 with)

[hop]

It's interesting that he didn't throw in a grab or something, or somehow cleaned up is body position in the air.

Otherwise, I've got nothing to add to this (jpeg shooter 99% of the time because I'm lazy and don't have the PP skillz or capabilities).

[Gunder]

This was taken with a 2.2fps A70...
(3.5 years ago)
Now would this picture have been as interesting if I only had 1 RAW frame? (just supposing it was captured with the RAW-capable S45 that I replaced the JPEG-only A70 with)

YEP!

One frame of peak action is going to be 100x better than 4 frames of less than peak action.

[lemon boy]

all I know is that I suck balls at timing "peak action" particularly as it applies to big foofy faceshot upwellings. As such, shooting 20 shots to a sequence is a big boon for my very very very minimal photographic skillz.

[summit]

YEP!

One frame of peak action is going to be 100x better than 4 frames of less than peak action.

Gosh... I wonder why they invented motordive/burst mode then? Is it because everyone else sucks at photography?

Or is it to increase the chances of getting that peak shot?

[lemon boy]

dude, you do know that the first motordrive was invented by Fujifilm purely to sell more film right?



I have no idea of the veracity of the above statement

[Gunder]

Gosh... I wonder why they invented motordive/burst mode then? Is it because everyone else sucks at photography?

Or is it to increase the chances of getting that peak shot?

Humm..... Peter Mathis shoots all of his ski shots with hassy.... humm no real fps there....

Seo shoots all of his flash shots with no FPS.

Want me to keep going with examples?????

The WHOLE POINT is that you DO NOT NEED FPS to get good shots.

[summit]

Humm..... Peter Mathis shoots all of his ski shots with hassy.... humm no real fps there....

Seo shoots all of his flash shots with no FPS.

Want me to keep going with examples?????

The WHOLE POINT is that you DO NOT NEED FPS to get good shots.

I'm sure you shoot everything single frame too.

You are still ignoring my real question. I'll pose it again succinctly: What is burst mode for and does it help?

I guess another question is do you want an honest debate here or do you want to keep preaching from the pulpit to make sure we all know how kick ass you and some other industry greats are? (and we DO know you are good already)

[Gunder]

I'm sure you shoot everything single frame too.

You are still ignoring my real question. I'll pose it again succinctly: What is burst mode for and does it help?

I guess another question is do you want an honest debate here or do you want to keep preaching from the pulpit to make sure we all know how kick ass you and some other industry greats are? (and we DO know you are good already)

Summit, dude you need to go drink a beer chill out and re-read all of the above posts. I never said that burst isnt helpfull, I've been saying that you dont have to have it and it is not necessary to get good action pics. I've never once talked about my own shit in this thread, fuck i could careless I have been mearly point out the fact you dont need a bunch of tech shit to get good pics, you just need to devlope a few basic skills....

[summit]

Summit, dude you need to go drink a beer chill out and re-read all of the above posts. I never said that burst isnt helpfull, I've been saying that you dont have to have it and it is not necessary to get good action pics. I've never once talked about my own shit in this thread, fuck i could careless I have been mearly point out the fact you dont need a bunch of tech shit to get good pics, you just need to devlope a few basic skills....

Dude... you should listen to yourself. You sound like I normally do... arrogant. You were preaching to everyone like if they do have and use the technical tools, then they are weak. Now maybe you have finally offered some clarification.

And I've always agreed that any photographer should know that the eye behind the camera is most important part of the equation. But when it comes to action photography, having better gear HELPS (if you know how to use it) a lot more than in other photographic specialties.

------------------------------------------

Your argument was that everyone should be an expert and always be able to click their P&S at just the right second to the point where they will always get better results with single shot or lowspeed/buffer RAW than with JPEG burst.

I disagree and think that most people here will see a better advantage from bursting JPEGs on lower end cameras in most ski action situations (not all) rather than low speed/buffer or single shot RAW. (Most not all)

[dipstik]

For the record AI servo is useless even on a more expensive DSLR.

huh?

Seo shoots all of his flash shots with no FPS.

Thats because all of the flash shots are totally set up and calculated.

He's in direct communication with the athlete, and knows exactly when and where they will be when they come into the frame, and he sets up the strobes accordingly.

There's nothing at all wrong with that. However, that level of control and predictability is never found in most other types of sports photography, and therefore high FPS and AI Servo can be incredibly helpful, but, I agree with you on this, they are not essential for getting good action shots. Just very very helpful.

[Gunder]

------------------------------------------

Your argument was that everyone should be an expert and always be able to click their P&S at just the right second to the point where they will always get better results with single shot or lowspeed/buffer RAW than with JPEG burst.

I disagree and think that most people here will see a better advantage from bursting JPEGs on lower end cameras in most ski action situations (not all) rather than low speed/buffer or single shot RAW. (Most not all)

Don't put words in my mouth that I didnt say. I never said that everyone should be an expert, but I did make a realtively strong point, that you do not need a buch of tech features to get good pics when mastering some very basic skills will let you do the same thing.

Mastering a wedge turn doesnt make you and expert skier, but it does let you get down a lot mountians.....

I STRONGLY BELEAVE that taking the time to learn the basics will give you
10X the number of good shots then just using the jpeg / burst function. You are not giving people enough credit for there ability to learn some very basic stuff....

Finally there is nothing arrogant at all about expecting people to master the most basic fundamental skills before they expect to get lots of good shots even with a bunch of extra and more expensive tech features.

[AstroPax]

...a quote from an editor at Sports Illustrated magazine:

---
When you are at a sports event, and you miss some of the shots because
of camera settings, you loose money. Our best photographer, knows the
sports he shoots, and rarely (RARELY) takes more than 2 or 3 shots in a
sequence. 90% of them are just single perfect shots. How he does it? He
knows when to press the shutter and factors in the delay of the camera.
What body? D200. He makes 3 times the money the other photogs do. Lens?
VR 200 F2.0, and he almost never sets the VR on. Go figure!
---

[hop]

That's a horribly written paragraph for an editor.

Unless it's someone like Grant.

When I dabbled in shooting Ultimate frisbee I found it was easier to time a single shot than it was to spray and pray. I get something like 4.5 frames a second with my D200 but often I'd bracket the moment I wanted with two frames that were lame.

The same is sometimes true when shooting whales.

[AstroPax]

That's a horribly written paragraph for an editor.

Ummm...maybe because it was written by a PHOTO editor (vs a copy editor)?

[AstroPax]

The only reason to shoot jpeg is if quality does not matter.

Define quality. Photography is more or less art...therefore, quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless, that's not the only reason.

Sometimes, storage space can also be a deciding factor.

I always shoot both jpeg and RAW, simultaneously.

In the initial editing process, I preview/sort the jpegs because it is easier than previewing/sorting raw files.

Furthermore, a lot of news agencies deal strictly with non-post-processed jpegs, especially for breaking news when time is of the essence.

I don't understand why so many here think it has to be an absolute of one, or the other. It's whatever works for the particular task...whatever fits the bill.

[cj001f]

I don't understand why so many here think it has to be an absolute of one, or the other. It's whatever works for the particular task...whatever fits the bill.

Heretic!

[hop]

Ummm...maybe because it was written by a PHOTO editor (vs a copy editor)?

...hence the jab at my friend Grant, a photo editor who is renowned for his perfect English.

[Gunder]

Define quality. Photography is more or less art...therefore, quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless, that's not the only reason.

Sometimes, storage space can also be a deciding factor.

In the initial editing process, I preview/sort the jpegs because it is easier than previewing/sorting raw files.

Memory is cheap...... images are priceless.....

So storage should never be a deciding factor.

[dipstik]

...a quote from an editor at Sports Illustrated magazine:

---
When you are at a sports event, and you miss some of the shots because
of camera settings, you loose money. Our best photographer, knows the
sports he shoots, and rarely (RARELY) takes more than 2 or 3 shots in a
sequence. 90% of them are just single perfect shots. How he does it? He
knows when to press the shutter and factors in the delay of the camera.
What body? D200. He makes 3 times the money the other photogs do. Lens?
VR 200 F2.0, and he almost never sets the VR on. Go figure!
---

Whats the source on that quote?

I have a hard time believing Sports Illustrated's "BEST" photographer shoots with a relatively short lens, and comes back with 90% keepers.

[Gunder]

Whats the source on that quote?

I have a hard time believing Sports Illustrated's "BEST" photographer shoots with a relatively short lens, and comes back with 90% keepers.

The 200 F 2 and the Canon 200 F1.8 are very special lenses. I.e. extremly fast for there focal lenghts and really isolate the subject from the background well. In fact the Canon version has been discontinued for some time now, and currently sells for more than it was new. You don't need a much longer focal lenght if your set up ar the right spot.

I never could understand why everyone thinks that longer is better for sports. Heck nearly everyone one of my favorite shots from every sport was shot wide angle...