Amateur. Canon T7i, Canon EF-S18-135. Shot RAW+Jpg, . I use PSE19. Took sports photo in the AM and the PM. AM sunny, PM cloudy. Most shots were zoomed to 135. Used Shutter priority to freeze action, AM 1/1000 girls softball, PM 1/1600 boys hardball. ISO was on Auto, AWB, Spot Metering, High Speed Continuous Shutter. I used 1600 because I thought the action in boys hardball was faster (ball movement, running etc). At the time, I did not think of the cloud over effect on my shooting. Morning shots came out fantastic. It’s the baseball shots where my question lies. The only setting difference between am and pm was the shutter speed.

In post processing via PSE19 Raw (first go-round with PSE Raw), where I crop heavy to get ‘closeups’, I noticed that the hardball pics looked grainy, even before processing/cropping. As this continued pic after pic, I ‘assumed’ that I should have taken the cloud over into consideration re: the shutter speed. On one pic, I noticed that I cropped to tight and wanted to reverse my crop. I couldn’t find a ‘reverse’ button as on the regular PSE19 cropping (I know now how to), so I decided to use the same corresponding jpg shot to get the crop I wanted. When I brought up the same jpg file, I noticed that it DID NOT seem grainy. Even after cropping the jpg, it seemed way clearer than the RAW image. Checked others and it was the same, jpg’s seemed clearer than the RAW’s.

So, my question is…. If all the files were grainy, I would have understood. But the jpg’s being better ‘quality’ than the RAW bewilders my Amateur mind. Any thoughts? Hopefully the pics attached are good enough to tell the difference as easy it is to do on my screen.

raw 1


jpg 1


raw 2


jpg 2

Not the same level as a TV, but I bought a 15" electronic picture frame to do the same with my pics, mainly family stuff from over the years. It's a big hit when company's over.

The #1 reason is youth sports pics. I am using PSE and now have 18. I will crop usually to bring in a shot ('zoom' in on the player/play in question) and/or to cut out unwanted parts of the image. With those and other images that are keepers, I usually am looking to PP them for clarity/color/composition and in doing so (without really thinking about it) always cropped it to a 6x4 crop. I also may turn a taken horizontal shot and crop it into a vertical finished image (especially in sports). As I said originally, it was 6x4 mainly because when I did home print pics, it was on 6x4 paper. I also like to find what I call 'pictures within a picture'. Catching an unintended point of interest not related to and away from the original desired point of interest. Cropping to that 'other' pic, as I said, will also be a new 6x4 grab.

All saves are usually to jpg.

Amateur. Canon T7i. Usually jpg, sometimes raw & jpg. Besides cropping for composition, I generally crop all my keepers at a 6"x4" size with PSE when processing. am i doing my images an 'injustice' to crop to that size versus a larger size, or does it not matter. I'm sure i picked that way back due to the size i would print out pictures at home. I do very little home printing nowadays, so if cropping, is there a better size? Most of my work gets put on electronic picture frames, emailed to family, or ends up online. I do some canvas printing, usually 16x20, but probably had already cut it to 6x4 when PSE processing originally. Thanks.

Don't know if this is the case here, but I have some continuous shots that the next shot is darker than the shot in front of it. This usually occurred when the lens was zoomed in to the max.

Great shots, good work.

Amateur here. These shots were taken at night with field lights. I was able to walk along the sidelines approx 10' from the field. Canon t7i. 1 shot with a canon 75-300, f5, 1/100, ISO 6400, the other a Canon 18-135, f5.6, 1/320, ISO 12800. ISO seems to be the difference, if you can keep the shutter speed as low as possible for action shots. The top shot is the 75-300

I prefer a sling type strap to move off my chest easily as I am walking around not taking pictures, and also like the lens cap to be attached, but all easily removable or interchangeable. I got 2 car key ring type rings onto the camera strap rings. Then using small spring clips, the cap or strap easily come off and on.

I've made proof sheets in Microsoft file explorer. Open file with pics, Choose large or xlarge icon view, shrink or expand the window to get your 3x3. Best on a large monitor. Then use Ms snap-it to capture the 3x3 image, paste to word doc

Mine is the usm.

Thanks for your quick reply's guys. I'm just a senior amatuer, picking it up more in retirement. So when I head out it is usually with one lens generally knowing what I am shooting. For indoor sports, I might bring both the 50 & 85 low-light not knowing how close to the court I can get, then crop alot. Anything outside, its just the 18-135 for its 'everyday' usefulness close-to-far. My thought on the Tamron was the same, just further reach, useful for close ups of Grandmom across the cafe table from me, and for further out shots of the football action, scenery or animals etc.

I have a relatively new Canon 18-135 EF-S f/3.5., with a new Canon Rebel T7i. On the premise of 'bigger is better', would an addition of the Tamron 18-400 be useful or a waste of money. Except for the normal long distance scenic shot, most of my pictures are sports (youth basketball and football), family and vacation shots. At times, my football pics are yearning for a longer focal length. As a side note, I also have a 50mm and 85mm canon lens.

PS. I realize there were other Tamron posts, but upon checking they did not answer this question.

Great site and love all the useful advice and those that give it.

Why reformat after each download?