Another RAW question ... Just starting to shoot RAW and learning the PP of RAW photos. Since I know a lot of folks here really are RAW fans, I have a question. (Add-on ... while I was...

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

Just starting to shoot RAW and learning the PP of RAW photos. Since I know a lot of folks here really are RAW fans, I have a question. (Add-on ... while I was doing this, I discovered I have more than one ... guess I titled this wrong!! My bad ...)

* I shoot a lot of "action" type shots (i.e. rodeo) and use "continuous shooting". If I am shooting in RAW or RAW+Jpeg, will the FPS rate be affected? Is the advertised FPS rate of a camera based on a particular quality or file type selection (Jpeg normal, medium, fine, RAW, etc.)?

* As the file sizes are considerably larger, I understand the need for a larger capacity SD card for the camera. I'm not sure I understand the ratings on the cards for speed of transfer from camera to card: how does that impact the FPS on the camera?

* I understand the "lossy" nature of Jpeg as files are re-saved, but I am curious as to the options for PSD, DNG, or TIFF. What are the pros / cons of the choice made when saving a CR2 file that has been tweaked?

* When I shoot RAW+Jpeg, if I want to preview the shoot in the viewfinder, am I looking at the Jpeg or the RAW image?

I want to offer my thanks ahead of time for the help I've found on this forum. Sometimes it's difficult to ask a question cuz you feel "stoopid" for not knowing, but the vast majority of people here do a wonderful job of providing helpful info and providing direction on where to find additional info to help in the learning process. Y'all make it feel ok to ask those questions.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Photo-Al wrote:

* I shoot a lot of "action" type shots (i.e. rodeo) and use "continuous shooting". If I am shooting in RAW or RAW+Jpeg, will the FPS rate be affected? Is the advertised FPS rate of a camera based on a particular quality or file type selection (Jpeg normal, medium, fine, RAW, etc.)?

Yes usually, because you are trying to write more or less information. Detailed camera specs normally provide that info based on image quality (size).

Photo-Al wrote:

* As the file sizes are considerably larger, I understand the need for a larger capacity SD card for the camera. I'm not sure I understand the ratings on the cards for speed of transfer from camera to card: how does that impact the FPS on the camera?

The speed ratings of the card will affect the transfer rate but there are other parameters (camera processor, buffer size, etc.). The number of pics in a burst will also be affected.

Photo-Al wrote:

* I understand the "lossy" nature of Jpeg as files are re-saved, but I am curious as to the options for PSD, DNG, or TIFF. What are the pros / cons of the choice made when saving a CR2 file that has been tweaked?

PSD, DNG, and TIFF are all lossless. DNG is a RAW file format and RAW is essentially a TIFF. PSD saves the layers made in your editing program. DNG is Adobe's RAW format which is supposed to be backward compatible and is usually smaller than camera mfg's proprietary RAW formats especially those with sidecars. Look these formats up in Wikipedia for more info than you need and the answer to your query.

You are looking at a JPEG on your camera when you shoot RAW or RAW+JPEG

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

I shoot in RAW. The frame rate is affected. RAW+JPG is useless with sports continuous shooting.
Anymore, because I'm familiar with the sports I'm shooting, most of the continuous bursts of frames that I take are at most 4 or 5 at a time, so I don't worry about it. The RAW works under these conditions. It's only if you plan on shooting at longer bursts where the card will begin to buffer and back up.

Bottom line, I shoot a lot of sports using RAW mode, and have no problem shooting in continuous mode. Mileage may vary though. It depends on how well you can anticipate what you are shooting, and if you need longer bursts. Experiment at home where you can throw the shots away, and see what works for you. Time it and decide if you can buffer up enough frames to be comfortable with when you are shooting the actual event.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

les_stockton wrote:

I shoot in RAW. The frame rate is affected. RAW+JPG is useless with sports continuous shooting.
<clip>

So when IS shooting in RAW+Jpeg a good choice? I understand a con would be the increased file space and more quickly filling the buffer, but what is a pro of that selection? :?:

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

Photo-Al wrote:

les_stockton wrote:

I shoot in RAW. The frame rate is affected. RAW+JPG is useless with sports continuous shooting.
<clip>

So when IS shooting in RAW+Jpeg a good choice? I understand a con would be the increased file space and more quickly filling the buffer, but what is a pro of that selection? :?:

RAW+jpg is fine if you aren't planning on continuous bursts. Try it out. You'll get a feel for what is acceptable to you. You know what you're photographing and the kinds of bursts you typically do. You will know what is right.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Photo-Al wrote:

les_stockton wrote:

I shoot in RAW. The frame rate is affected. RAW+JPG is useless with sports continuous shooting.
<clip>

So when IS shooting in RAW+Jpeg a good choice? I understand a con would be the increased file space and more quickly filling the buffer, but what is a pro of that selection? :?:

I'll be shooting RAW+JPEG for the upcoming Vacation Bible School at my church because I want to post pics quickly and I don't have the time to develop (post process) the RAW files. I still want the RAW files because IMAO I can produce a better image than that processed in-camera by the alogrithm created by a Canon tech five plus years ago.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

OK, makes sense. Got it. I know exactly where I could use both ... I do theatrical production (dress rehearsal shots) where we want to post some quickly, and there are some I want to post in the lobby, so I'll tweak the best of the lot. Using RAW will probably also help in some that are a tad dark, cuz flash is a no-no during performance.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Photo-Al wrote:

OK, makes sense. Got it. I know exactly where I could use both ... I do theatrical production (dress rehearsal shots) where we want to post some quickly, and there are some I want to post in the lobby, so I'll tweak the best of the lot. Using RAW will probably also help in some that are a tad dark, cuz flash is a no-no during performance.

Shameless self promotion:

http://robert-photos.smugmug.com/St-John-the-Evangelist-Church/2012/2012-05-02-Seussical-Jr-Dress/22915568_tgGLwz#!i=1840841259&k=QcZfhTN

http://robert-photos.smugmug.com/St-John-the-Evangelist-Church/2012/2012-05-04-Seussical-Jr/22915611_hrccX9#!i=1840860777&k=hmLQ4fz

Horton has Autism....kudos and standing ovations for his performance!

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

les_stockton wrote:

quote=Photo-Al quote=les_stockton I shoot in RAW... (show quote)

I think this is always the best advice as no situation will ever be the same. It is all about what you want and what is acceptable to you..

No matter how much we discuss this issue nothing will ever change.

My thoughts are:
The raw file will ALWAYS offer more information, and more flexibility. My gut feeling is the JPEG will offer you more bangs per second and not fill up the buffer as quickly as the raw file. If you shoot both raw and JPEG then that will fill up the buffer even quicker but being realistic how many shots are we going to take? You know your bucking broncho and my guess is you will have the experience to know when something is about to happen and hopefully you know when you want that quick burst?

Bottom line however should be shoot with what you are happiest with.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

Message to Robert-Photos ... great shots. And I have to tell you that your "Photographer's Prayer" is really touching. As they would say in the rodeo, "Good ride, Cowboy, good ride."

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Photo-Al wrote:

Message to Robert-Photos ... great shots. And I have to tell you that your "Photographer's Prayer" is really touching. As they would say in the rodeo, "Good ride, Cowboy, good ride."

Thanks :-D

bioteacher Loc: Brooklyn, NY

Photo-Al wrote:

Just starting to shoot RAW and learning the PP of ... (show quote)

The larger the file the longer it takes to write to the card. The class of card is used to let you know the speed of the card, but I do not believe there is a strict industry standard. Unless you need the JPEG ASAP, I would not bother with them as they take up space on the card and it makes the card slower - can't takes as many pictures in a give amount of time. You can batch export the RAW files as JPEG in Lightroom in a couple of minutes.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

For sports I shoot jpeg always the largest and best quality file.

bioteacher Loc: Brooklyn, NY

JPEG is probably better for fast action/burst mode as file sizes are smaller so they are written to card quicker (no card busy signal), but not the same quality as RAW.

steinr98

The faster the card- the faster the camera buffer will load that file! No question about that. So far the Industry Standard for SD cards are: Class "10" being the fastest. 8 is slower, etc. A lot of cheaper cards are only a class 4 or 6. So ....The burst rate of the camera is what it is; (check your specs) however if you have a faster card, your buffer will load faster and then allow you to start shooting again. You will pay more for a class 10 card- but you only need the class 10 cards for those times when you are shooting in continuous mode. The same holds true for thumb drives. Cheaper is not always better- they have ratings also- one of those items, (Buyer Be Ware!!).