HerbChong wrote:
last time i checked, about 8 months ago, not only did they require RAW for all cameras that supported it, they also required specific settings for each body that they accepted. they said they would make exceptions under special circumstances.
Herb...
Ok... now you lost me. I knew that SI had some "recommended" settings for certain cameras but wouldn't shooting RAW in itself negate any in-camera settings relative to image characteristics?
John--G wrote:
Ok... now you lost me. I knew that SI had some "recommended" settings for certain cameras but wouldn't shooting RAW in itself negate any in-camera settings relative to image characteristics?
it would seem so... perhaps he was talking about ISO?
i don't remember the list because i looked at the SI photographers site for other reasons, not because i planned to shoot for them. the settings included color space and file naming. this ensured that the files would not screw up their workflow.
HerbChong wrote:
last time i checked, about 8 months ago, not only did they require RAW for all cameras that supported it, they also required specific settings for each body that they accepted. they said they would make exceptions under special circumstances.
Herb...
I'm sorry, Herb, but with all due respect, this sounds...well...uh...how can I politely say this...nuts!! SI requires "specific settings"? What in the world?
Do you mean to say that if I shoot football game "X", for example, and they want to purchase one of my shots from that game that the image has to be made with "specific settings" in the body? I wonder how in the world they know what camera settings are best for a properly exposed image at the specific places I might be shooting. Interesing.
I think you might be confusing the suggested SI settings for a particular body with the images they actually use for the magazine or even the online version. Those are "suggesting settings"...not required settings. Heck, they even mention in the "transmit" section that "the best file format" for transmitting is JPEG.
Of the shots I've had picked up by SI, ESPN the Mag, etc., not a one has been a RAW image. They're always JPEGs. Ironically, there have been times I shot RAW and converted to JPEG, but what gets picked up has always been the JPEG (that's what gets transmitted).
That's not to say they wouldn't ever want RAW images, but I don't believe it's accurate to say they only use RAW.
Not sure why people gripe about RAW and converting. RAW files are almost always invisible these days to the software. Its not like they are unusable globs of data until you run them through a RAW processor. They may require some curves/levels/color/sharpening to look their best but thats a very simple one or two click operation...and can take care of all your photos at once.
Does RAW require more work...perhaps, but just a bit. Aperture and Lightroom have really done a great job at neutralizing the negative side of RAW...processing.
i started periodically checking the same SI web site for changes in their file and camera setup requirements a few years ago because of all the assertions that no-one ever does volume shooting in RAW. as far as i can see, RAW is still what they want if they have a choice and they like it a whole lot more if you have one stashed away to give them even if it's the JPG they receive. if you picked up a replacement camera from their pool, did you go through the menus to make sure it worked a certain way before you start shooting? if you are using their cameras, aren't you using their memory cards and turning them over as you shoot?
shoeless wrote:
I am the photo editor at a mid sized university paper, and I require my photographers shoot JPG only. For the purposes of our average (but no better) newsprint which prints 90% in grayscale (and generally speaking images are unpredicatable in their levels), JPG is fine, and it saves me lots of time when sorting through the hundreds to thousands of photos I have to deal with each week. What's more, managing jpg images is a lot easier, and if/when other section editors want to look at pictures it's easier for them to deal with JPG images. Not to mention server space becomes an issue with RAW images. Not to mention we use Mac Minis at the office ( ) so JPGs are more practical.
That said, personally I shoot RAW anytime I am doing anything "artistic". Group photos, photos of my family, etc, etc. I'm not totally convinced it's worth it if you are not planning on printing the images 8x10 or larger, but I do it anyway ...Show more →
at times i shoot for 2 different county newspapers. yes they want a jpg as a final product. newsprint in either color or b&w is to say the least minimum quality to get the point across. i as the shooter am responsible for the editing and its an email to them as a specified finished product. so i have the option to shoot as i may and have to make the deadline as prescribed by them.
everytime i shoot jpg and give it a good looking over it turns to disappointment from a personal point of view. but then i'm being paid to give them what they require plain and simple. what i start with is my choice and what they end up with is theirs.
I have over 3 million shots taken with JPG in the last two years - all shot to sell, not to process.
And if I think back to the days of that F word: film - where in the darkroom I could play with some aspects, but generally it was expected that I would get it right in the camera. But for the life of me I can't remember when I shot film, did I use Provia 100-RAW or Provia 100-JPG
We now use .jpg fine pretty much all of the time in the studio. If you take a little care to set the lighting properly and set your color temp in the camera to something close to actual and get your exposure dialed in it works just fine. At first we shot RAW but found we didn't need to for most things and it just added another step to the process which took more time.
I shoot 100% JPEG using a 1Ds. Especially in controlled settings (static subjects, studio lights, manual WB), the in-camera result at ISO 100 can be made almost perfect. As a film shooter, I don't find this method particularly constricting. Plus, options to process RAW files under Linux are limited.
I find this discussion rather interesting. There seems to be a lot of debate about which is better. The truth is "better" is based on the needs of the user and the task at hand. My advice to a neophyte is to explore both options and make a practical, informed decision about which to use and when. I shoot RAW because it delivers what I want. I do not use RAW as safety net for sloppy shooting or as a photographic panacea. RAW does not take the burden away from the photographer to understand how to use the camera and think creatively. RAW is merely one tool amongst many tools that make photography such a delight.
rico wrote:
I shoot 100% JPEG using a 1Ds. Especially in controlled settings (static subjects, studio lights, manual WB), the in-camera result at ISO 100 can be made almost perfect. As a film shooter, I don't find this method particularly constricting. Plus, options to process RAW files under Linux are limited.
If I'm shooting on a tripod, MLU, with a cable release, and really trying to capture a great picture, RAW. When I'm chasing the owl that lives in the park behind me, or shooting my buddies' sons soccer team, or anything else that I'm not looking to print, JPG. I'm not a sports shooter at all, but I'm always amazed at how well the AUTO settings on my 5D work.
I have over 3 million shots taken with JPG in the last two years - all shot to sell, not to process.
And if I think back to the days of that F word: film - where in the darkroom I could play with some aspects, but generally it was expected that I would get it right in the camera. But for the life of me I can't remember when I shot film, did I use Provia 100-RAW or Provia 100-JPG
again less dynamic range to work with in post. you have cut out a good portion of the image for the saving grace of a few meg of HD space and a little bit of time getting truely intimate with your image. again its all about what satisfies you.
I have over 3 million shots taken with JPG in the last two years - all shot to sell, not to process.
And if I think back to the days of that F word: film - where in the darkroom I could play with some aspects, but generally it was expected that I would get it right in the camera. But for the life of me I can't remember when I shot film, did I use Provia 100-RAW or Provia 100-JPG
that is 4166.66 shots per day for 720 days straight. now how do i even comment on that? safety in numbers i suppose?
I have over 3 million shots taken with JPG in the last two years - all shot to sell, not to process.
And if I think back to the days of that F word: film - where in the darkroom I could play with some aspects, but generally it was expected that I would get it right in the camera. But for the life of me I can't remember when I shot film, did I use Provia 100-RAW or Provia 100-JPG
One picture every 18 seconds 18 hours a day (I assume you eat and sleep some) for two years, how do you find the time to read FM?
SI requires "specific settings"? What in the world? 
) so JPGs are more practical.