jpg versus raw

[dipstik]

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...

Come on dude, do you need to contradict everything anyone says?

Shooting football/baseball/basketball/soccer/tennis/golf/etc. with a wide-angle is unrealistic, you know that as well as anyone.

When I think Sports Illustrated I think field sports, like some of the ones listed above. Its pretty impossible to get close to the action in those situations, save for basketball, and thus I find it incredibly hard to believe that SI's "best" photographer gets enough reach with a 200. There is a reason why the sidelines of every major sports game is littered with 300-500mm lenses.

[MeatPuppet]

Come on dude, do you need to contradict everything anyone says?

I think he probably knows a little something about this topic. I'm always glad when I get to hear people, who are good at something, talk about their area of expertise.

[brice618]

Relative to gunder and many photogs on the board I suck, but what I try to imagine when capturing something is something I read... "you never want to see the shot you want to capture", because you want the shutter to be released and the camera seeing it. I think it makes sense and has made some great shots for me, a lot of it is knowing what to capture though.

[Gunder]

Shooting football/baseball/basketball/soccer/tennis/golf/etc. with a wide-angle is unrealistic, you know that as well as anyone.

When I think Sports Illustrated I think field sports, like some of the ones listed above. Its pretty impossible to get close to the action in those situations, save for basketball, and thus I find it incredibly hard to believe that SI's "best" photographer gets enough reach with a 200. There is a reason why the sidelines of every major sports game is littered with 300-500mm lenses.

Remote Cameras. All the big boys working for SI are ussing them.

Also maybe he's there BEST photog because he is CREATIVE enough to try different ideas / techniques....

[dipstik]

I give up.

It's like talking to a wall.

[AstroPax]

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

dipstik,

I have some late breaking news for you...

Some of the very best published sports images...not just in SI...but in a bunch of other pubs...are actually shot with a "relatively short" 200mm lens.

For example:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news_story.html?id=1719

That's just one example. Look around. 70-200mm shots are everywhere.

[Gunder]

I give up.

It's like talking to a wall.

Ditto.

It's impossible to explain new concepts / ideas when people wont open there minds to ideas other than there own pre-conceptions.

[AstroPax]

There is a reason why the sidelines of every major sports game is littered with 300-500mm lenses.

...and there is a reason why those very same exact sidelines are also "littered" with just as many 70-200mm lenses...

...and also a ton of wide lenses.

That reason is called "using the right tool for the job", using whatever it takes to achieve the desired effect, for example:

10.5mm:



17-55mm ~ 32mm:



70-200mm ~ 200mm:



400mm:


Yeah, I know, those are not football, soccer, hockey, or basketball shots, but the same principle applies.

[cj001f]

It's impossible to explain new concepts / ideas when people wont open there minds to ideas other than there own pre-conceptions.

Uh, we don't all want to take the same kind of photographs of the same subjects in the same ways with the same tools for the same reasons. That's what makes photography cool.

You have your way of taking photographs, others have theirs. You seem to think that anybody who doesn't do things your way is a moron (or at least that's the way many of us interpret it witness the responses in this thread). So no, not everyone wants to be a proskiphotographer, take pictures of professionals skiing, carry professional grade equipment, or thinks professional skiphotogoraphy is the end all be all of expressive and interesting photography.

[Gunder]

You have your way of taking photographs, others have theirs. You seem to think that anybody who doesn't do things your way is a moron .

Not at all. I do however think that anyone that finds it hard to believe that so and so took X shot with Y lense becaus thats different than the status qou is a moron.

CJ, Have I ever said that my way is the only way?????

I dont think so.....

I dont think I have ever made a singel comment epecting people to use pro grade gear either. In fact EVERY post of mine was about how you do NOT need pro level gear to get good images. Hence every post stating you dont need a high FPS to get good action shots. I have made a lot of comments on how people should learn and master some VERY BASIC techniques inorder to get the most out of what they have.

So why dont you quit trying to put words into my mouth that I havent said. Go back and re-read all of my posts. Every single one was about mastering very basic skills or whats better for image quality. None of wich had anything to do about having pro level gear or doing everything the way that I do. I could careless if people shot the same as I do, heck I prefer seeing shots shot differently then how I would have, becasue thats waht makes photography so cool and interesting.... there is an infinite number of variables. HOWEVER if you do not understand that there are a few BASIC skills that need to be mastered to produce good images than you have a LOT to LEARN about photography. All of the best photogs out there have mastered the EXACT SAME skills and this mastery allows them to produce techniqualy perfect images and allows them to spend more time using there gear in creative ways to produce unussual and cool images.

[cj001f]

how about you tell people some good sources/methods/exercises for learning those basic skills?

if you don't want a bunch of people to misinterpret you, change what and how you write it, because sure as shit a bunch of people thought similar.

PS: Telling people to reread what you wrote definitely implies that they are a moron, or at least deficient. When you are forced to tell it to multiple people....

[AstroPax]

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME SHOOTING JPEG DOES NOT INCREASE YOUR FRAMERATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When shooting in a continuous mode, at some point the frame rate will decrease (once the buffer fills). Doesn't matter if you are shooting raw, or jpeg.

Regardless, the "effective frame rate" (once the buffer is completely filled) will usually be higher if one is shooting jpeg only for the simple fact that the buffer can dump jpegs off to the memory card faster than it can dump raw files (or raw+jpeg files).

So yes, shooting jpeg ONLY can, in fact, increase the "effective frame rate" at some point in the process because the shutter will not fire until the buffer is ready for the next file, and the buffer will be ready for the next file faster if that next file just happens to be a smaller jpeg only.

[AstroPax]

how about you tell people some good sources/methods/exercises for learning those basic skills?

Don't shoot in continuous/burst mode.

[Gunder]

When shooting in a continuous mode, at some point the frame rate will decrease (once the buffer fills). Doesn't matter if you are shooting raw, or jpeg.

Regardless, the "effective frame rate" (once the buffer is completely filled) will usually be higher if one is shooting jpeg only for the simple fact that the buffer can dump jpegs off to the memory card faster than it can dump raw files (or raw+jpeg files).

So yes, shooting jpeg ONLY can, in fact, increase the "effective frame rate" at some point in the process because the shutter will not fire until the buffer is ready for the next file, and the buffer will be ready for the next file faster if that next file just happens to be a smaller jpeg only.

Astro, that really isnt increasing your framerate its only clearing the buffer faster. Untill the buffer is full the frame rate does not change. Once the buffer rebuilds the frame-rate will then be the same. Shooting RAW on a 8.5 fps camera gives you 8.5 fps until the buffer is full. Shooting jpeg on the same camera still only gives your 8.5 fps until the buffer is full. So you DO NOT get a faster effective frame rate, just more frames.

[Gunder]

how about you tell people some good sources/methods/exercises for learning those basic skills?

if you don't want a bunch of people to misinterpret you, change what and how you write it, because sure as shit a bunch of people thought similar.

PS: Telling people to reread what you wrote definitely implies that they are a moron, or at least deficient. When you are forced to tell it to multiple people....

CJ, once again, go back and re-read. I think I was prety clear about NOT needing PRO GEAR and that "my why isnt the only way" Once again EVERY POST WAS ABOUT TECHNIQUE.

I want implying that you where a moron.... but maybe I shoult state it now?

When your proven wrong on multiple occasions in the same thread maybe its time to stfu sit back and learn. You and dipstick both seem to think that you know everything there is to know.... Well then keep thinking along those lines maybe someday you will learn that you and me and all of us have a lot to learn about photography. Even the great masters will tell you that they where constantly learning.


I'm over this thread. I personally think its bull shit that I should have to sit here and defend myself over stating some simple facts, and sugestions for improving based upon what gear you have.

[AstroPax]

Astro, that really isnt increasing your framerate its only clearing the buffer faster. Untill the buffer is full the frame rate does not change.

Dude, read what I wrote. "effective frame rate". How about "overall effective frame rate". Not "rated frame rate", or "max fps".

I agree, you can never "increase" the RATED "max fps", but you can certainly "decrease" the "effective" fps buy shooting larger files, such as raw.

The buffer is part of the system. It doesn't take very long to fill a buffer when shooting raw at the max fps. Therefore, in practice, one will usually achieve an overall higher fps rate (not to exceed the max rated fps) when shooting jpeg only because the buffer will not fill as fast, and therefore, the fps will not slow as fast.

If I shoot continuous raw for just 1 minute, and then I later shoot continuos jpeg only for just 1 minute, I will have recorded more jpeg frames than raw frames. I do see your point. Maybe I should term it "overall average frame rate", or something like that.

[midget]

I give up.

It's like talking to a wall.

Yup, that's what it's like for everyone that has a clue that tried helping you out since you apparently know everything there is to know about photography. Apparently you are ready to take on Ansel mother fucking Adams, maybe Scott Markewitz, Robert Beck over at SI perhaps? Keep reading your technical spec manuals, they'll tell you everything over real-world experience.

Uh, we don't all want to take the same kind of photographs of the same subjects in the same ways with the same tools for the same reasons. That's what makes photography cool.

You have your way of taking photographs, others have theirs. You seem to think that anybody who doesn't do things your way is a moron (or at least that's the way many of us interpret it witness the responses in this thread). So no, not everyone wants to be a proskiphotographer, take pictures of professionals skiing, carry professional grade equipment, or thinks professional skiphotogoraphy is the end all be all of expressive and interesting photography.

Sure it makes it cool, but here's the thing, your way doesn't work. There are probably 834,432,234 right ways to do things in photography. Every argument you make manages to be one of the wrong ways even with there being so many right ways to do things.

[midget]

Dude, read what I wrote. "effective frame rate". How about "overall effective frame rate". Not "rated frame rate", or "max fps".

I agree, you can never "increase" the RATED "max fps", but you can certainly "decrease" the "effective" fps buy shooting larger files, such as raw.

The buffer is part of the system. It doesn't take very long to fill a buffer when shooting raw at the max fps. Therefore, in practice, one will usually achieve an overall higher fps rate (not to exceed the max rated fps) when shooting jpeg only because the buffer will not fill as fast, and therefore, the fps will not slow as fast.

If I shoot continuous raw for just 1 minute, and then I later shoot continuos jpeg only for just 1 minute, I will have recorded more jpeg frames than raw frames. I don't know, maybe I should term it "overall average frame rate", or something like that.

You guys are arguing about the same thing but not talking in the same language.

Shooting in jpeg will give you more available photos to take in the burst mode in a given amount of time for those that couldn't understand what either of these two are talking about. In both jpeg and raw you will get the same frame rate (FPS) however after the frame buffer runs out you are SOL until the frame buffer clears. You have more pictures available to you in the frame buffer in jpeg than you do in raw because jpegs take up less room. A frame buffer is purely memory space.

[cj001f]

Sure it makes it cool, but here's the thing, your way doesn't work. There are probably 834,432,234 right ways to do things in photography. Every argument you make manages to be one of the wrong ways even with there being so many right ways to do things.

Umm yeah, I was definitely wrong when I said the same thing you said above about buffers and jpeg vs. raw. Clearly, I am a moron.

Again, how about some tips for people to improve?

[AstroPax]

You guys are arguing about the same thing but not talking in the same language.

Yeah, I know.

Why do I even care? I almost never, ever fill the buffer of either my D200, or my D2Xs. 3-5 frame burst. A few minutes pass. 3-5 frame burst. A few minutes pass. 3-5 frame burst. A few minutes pass. Etc., etc., etc.

[midget]

Umm yeah, I was definitely wrong when I said the same thing you said above about buffers and jpeg vs. raw. Clearly, I am a moron.

Well maybe you did. I didn't feel like reading all of your flapping of generally bad advice. Chalk one thing up on the win column though, do you want a medal? You still don't know what you are talking about in general though.

Again, how about some tips for people to improve?

Pretty simple, like I said in my last post, get to know your equipment and subject inside and out. Also....now I know this might be a really new concept that's hard to grasp, try listening to advice like you don't know everything.

yah i'm going to stop posting on this and just go back to laughing at you every time you say something though.

[cj001f]

yah i'm going to stop posting on this and just go back to laughing at you every time you say something though.

I hope one day, maybe one day, I could be as cool as professional ski photographers. In the meantime I'll just be content with the callout - it's about as useful as the advice "know your equipment and your subject"

[midget]

I hope one day, maybe one day, I could be as cool as professional ski photographers. In the meantime I'll just be content with the callout - it's about as useful as the advice "know your equipment and your subject"

Can't resist I have to respond to that too. If you are relying on high frame rates and AF speed to get your shot, then you need to take that advice. If you can't predict what's going to happen, then you do not know your subject well enough and you need to figure it out. It's like someone from Florida that's never seen snow or a mountain trying to develop a marketing strategy for a ski resort. Sure they will do the job, but it's going to suck not knowing your tools or your subject matter inside and out.

Why do myself and Grant have this attitude towards you? You talk a big game man, you flap here with bad advice and are flat out wrong with most things photo related, yet you seem to think you really know your shit. And it just keeps flying.

I know what I'm talking about. When someone decides to flap nonsense and ignore (correct) advice, well I'm going to call you out. Why am I going to be an asshole and do that? Because bad advice is 945,234,235 times worse than no advice at all. Don't like it? Stop talking out of your ass.

[cj001f]

Can't resist I have to respond to that too.

I knew you wouldn't resist, and it was the response I was expecting. Glad you guys have a foil.

[Gunder]

I knew you wouldn't resist, and it was the response I was expecting.

So CJ do you always go out of your way to piss of people that are trying to help you?