5th July 2004, 12:58 AM
I delete it because...I guess no point for me to say anything if one already made up their mind...
Originally Posted by Watcher
RAW is nice.... idea, I think everyone will love to shoot in RAW! However, the fact is, no everyone has TIME like most weekend shooters.
5th July 2004, 01:02 AM
Yep, and the article *I* quoted was for Sports Illustrated digital workflow for the Superbowl. Literally the biggest sporting annual event in the US.
Originally Posted by oeyvind
5th July 2004, 01:03 AM
True, yet the people at Sports Illustrated made time to do it. Good for them.
Originally Posted by oeyvind
5th July 2004, 01:10 AM
Well... SI has a few days in term of lead times!
Originally Posted by Watcher
Wire agencies wise, the pix are available almost after the event!
IF you have the TIME, raw is nice... if not, better learn your equipment well and try to get good exposure/WB and shoot JPEG!
5th July 2004, 01:23 AM
For some reason, when I read the thread the first few times I never got the sports element of it. Now I can categorically state that fast lenses are not going out of fashion in the sports arena.
5th July 2004, 01:24 AM
Last edited by Watcher; 5th July 2004 at 01:29 AM.
5th July 2004, 01:50 AM
err, do note. SI has a whole ton of backroom staff to work the coms. Not so for most wire agencies. And for the record, 16000 shots is not a lot for an event as huge as superbowl. From 11 photogs, thats only about 1.5k per person. Look at the setup they have available for them. Most of us who shoot for wire and press media(i do sometimes) have a turnover of way less than 12hrs. Given they had 24hrs x 11-15 backroom ppl, thats a lot of man hrs and tells u alone how inefficient it is really. SI is a weekly thing, the rush is not as bad as a paper that is a daily thing.
I end my gripe here. If u really think shooting raw will do, then by or means go one thinking so. It hasn't work for the ppl i know, i don't see how it will now or in the near future. As to where this is leading, i have no idea since the initial question was about fast lenses and i see no where in the article that says" dudes we use raw and slower lenses now" thread is getting lost.
5th July 2004, 02:46 AM
i know the original intention of the poster was to talk about fast lenses, but i want to address the RAW vs JPG issue here.
for me, since i've quit my job and gone back to school since the start of 2004 (not a conventional school, but that's another story for another time ), photography constitutes a major portion of my income. I've become more practical in my approach. I'll take digital jobs over film jobs if possible, among other changes I've adopted. Like someone said earlier, TIME is money and is of the essence. And with juggling between school, personal time, church and shooting assignments, I'm always in need of time and I don't want to spend too much time in front of the computer managing my pictures.
That's why I shoot RAW!
huh? u may ask. That's right. RAW is cool and RAW is faster! here's how it works.... i go to a shoot armed with 1 gig CFs that give me the liberty to do the entire assignment in RAW. A lot of the things i need to shoot is time sensitive, and many times i will have to send pics back the same night.
I do the shoot in RAW, bring home the CFs, download it via firewire reader(essential!) to my pc, duplicate a set onto another external HDD, and burn CDs of the orignal RAWs. Then I fire up the secret weapon of the DSLR shooter - Capture ONE DSLR. This is to me the ultimate workflow software, designed for fast processing of RAW files. I gleefully load up the program, browse to the dir of RAW files, and start making an initial edit (selection) of the pictures i think are good enough to be delivered. Next, I tweak all of the selected pictures - by toggling exposure compensation sliders, contrast control sliders, white balance sliders (this is easier than it sounds, believe me ), throwing each picture into the processing cache as i go. That means i'm processing RAW files as i'm tweaking them! How can I do that? When I tweak, there's a live preview of the changes (unlike breezebrowser) so I see exactly what i change before i even convert the RAW files. After i'm happy, i throw it for processing and proceed to tweak the next file. Also, I can tweak for 1 photo, and select multiple photos taken in the same situation, and Viola!! - apply all of the RAW conversion settings to these photos. ANd i can throw all of them into the processing cache in one go.
the process of tweaking takes maybe 1 hr, maybe longer depending on the length of the shoot. And all this while the images are being converted to high resolution JPGs or TIFFs as we go along tweaking. so no time is lost!
If I know there are time sensitive photos, i process them first and send them via email to whoever needs them etc. Otherwise, after tweaking everything and sending them to the processing cache, i leave the PC overnight to process and go to bed, or i launch IE to visit clubsnap or photo.net
Notice I haven't even launched photoshop! That's not needed anymore! If i need to crop (i dun crop my photos actually), or resize, or watever i can do it from within Capture ONE DSLR during the tweaking process. C1DSLR also provides excellent sharpening algorithms and noise reduction routines, so the processed JPGs are already sharpened and optimised. So i manage everything from one program alone!
If i had shot JPGs, i would have needed to edit each and every JPG in Photoshop. Worse, it would be much harder to correct color balance, or even exposure problems (especially overexposure) in photoshop. I would have to work at each individual image. Granted I could use photoshop actions to do mass sharpening and noise reduction (read: Fred Miranda routines) but that takes a far longer time than Capture ONE DSLR, and takes up far greater system resources than Capture ONE.
it is entirely possible to deliver images 4 hours after the shoot. I don't use a laptop, but if i had, i would think i can do all the above on the spot at some nice cafe after the shoot and burn CDs of the final JPGs or email essential shots to pple before I even get home.
So, to sum up, don't dismiss RAW until u've discovered all its possibilities! Quality is much better, and workflow is more streamlined. i know it sounds ironic, but RAW for me is faster than JPGs
Last edited by Red Dawn; 5th July 2004 at 02:48 AM.
5th July 2004, 03:38 AM
5th July 2004, 03:47 AM
Similarly OT, it's also copyright infringement. Sad that as photographers we're not more aware of stuff like this.
Originally Posted by agape01
5th July 2004, 08:52 AM
Originally Posted by behyx
uh... you forgot one thing - the SI folks have dedicated staff covering the postprocessing of the photos...
Originally Posted by Watcher
Red Dawn, do you shoot sports in RAW?
5th July 2004, 11:55 AM
I was about to write this , but was waiting for a more experienced person to say it first. I don't have C1, but even with the new Canon EVU, I dare say RAW processing is faster than JPG in Photoshop. Exposure/colour correction/sharpening on multiple images, all at one go, just brilliant!
Originally Posted by Red Dawn
5th July 2004, 12:10 PM
With twice as fast a lens, you can have double the ISO for a given lighting condition. Simple as that. But do you need it? Some do.
5th July 2004, 12:30 PM
True... but the original intent was that RAW is too slow; no condition attached. With Red Dawn's posting, RAW workflow can be easily adapted for both end of the spectrum.
Originally Posted by sehsuan
5th July 2004, 12:40 PM
oops the same pic is also on my handphone and my pocketpc. if the 10D can display a startup picture (like the Ixus can) i would probably place it there too :P
Originally Posted by Jed
if it is any consolation, i watched the movie and bought the soundtrack
5th July 2004, 01:00 PM
5th July 2004, 01:03 PM
the most extreme sports i've shot so far with the 10D are Amazing Race, a triathlon, street soccer and the race car section of DreamCarAsia. for these i didn't have much problem with RAW but for other sports the problem might be one of the camera's 9 frame buffer choking up during continous shooting rather than RAW processing woes. a 1D mkII would be preferable
Originally Posted by sehsuan
the 10D handles jpg and raw similarly within the 9 frame buffer so I wun have gained any advantage usng JPG. but of course, with jpgs one can shoot a lot more, which is essential for some of the faster moving sports.
Last edited by Red Dawn; 5th July 2004 at 01:35 PM.
5th July 2004, 01:34 PM
wat kind of sports? how can it be more demanding than shooting a highly charged concert, with no fixed place to settle down, having to fight for space with 20 other photographers while hanging on to one's dear camera bag with all its associated weight and following the performers from on stage to offstage to backstage, sometimes running, going in and out of the barriade to cover both stage AND crowd, stage + crowd etc, and having to duck screaming teen fans and avoid stage pyrotechnics and confetti guns?
Originally Posted by szekiat
oh, i know why. you got to carry all the big fast lenses which brings us nicely back to the topic. For me, to make things simpler and more convenient, i've streamlined my digital gear to just 2 fast f2.8 lenses - an ultra wide angle zoom and a medium telephoto zoom. Which actually validates canturn's original point i suppose - if i need more speed i simply bump up the ISO. and if that doesn't work, out comes the strobe. I no longer worry about having fast f2, f1.4 lenses. Partly because of economics, partly because ISO 800 and 1600 is very very usable even for publication.
I do have a film backup body in the form of rangefinders + a couple of f2 lenses but i haven't found a need to pull it out yet in a paid job. (they are used mostly for personal stuff :P) So for me and my kind of shooting, yes digital has eliminated the need for faster lenses.
Of course this is not to say a fast lens would make no difference. there are many times a faster f2 or f1.4 lens attached to the 10D would probably produce a different (and possibly better) photo, especially in extremely low light. i have pictures that illustrate that from fast lenses I've owned before (EF35 f2, EF50 f1.4).
What I am saying is that in the absence of fast lenses, ISO 800 and 1600 on DSLRs today do a very capable job of acquiring the shot. you make do with what you have, and fortunately, what we have today (high ISO in DSLRs) is much better than before!
Last edited by Red Dawn; 5th July 2004 at 01:36 PM.
5th July 2004, 04:52 PM
5th July 2004, 05:20 PM
oops just realized i went OT too. so here's my 2 cents worth on the 'faster lens vs. higher ISO' issue. personally i think it boils down to a matter of shooting style and workflow preferences. yes i think the technology is improving whereby cleaner images @ high ISO can be gotten as compared to before, so where the priority is on nailing down the images to be used, it's prob suitable to use slower lenses.
but when it comes to aperture-specific effects, like shallower DoF or faster AF, you can't really get away with slower lenses. also, for sports, some photogs would prefer as much speed as possible, esp when shooting with super-teles when an extra f-stop of shutter speed means the difference between soft and sharp images. ultimately - it comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it.