Photographing w/a quick turnaround time. JPEG or RAW?

[Shacklebolt]

So, I'm covering the CMJ Marathon in NYC. It runs Tuesday through Saturday, basically 7 PM - 2 AM every night. I have to get the photos to my editor by 11 AM every morning, the following morning.

I'm guessing I'll come up with 1000 shots/night. Perhaps more, perhaps less. I know I won't have time to do any really advanced editing beyond cropping and other minor adjustments. Is it still worth it to shoot in RAW?

(gear: Nikon D300, D80)

 

[Kebabselector]

What software do you have?

I've done quick jobs using Lightroom (no doubt Aperture would be the same). Sorting through 1000 images and correcting them in 9 hours is probably pushing it.

I hope they are paying you good money for your stress.

 

[GoCubsGo]

If you're in decent lighting condtions and you're sure of your exposure then shoot JPEG. If you think you'll difficult lighting and other exposure challenges then shoot raw. Editing thousands of images in 9 hours is a lofty goal.

 

[Shacklebolt]

If you're in decent lighting condtions and you're sure of your exposure then shoot JPEG. If you think you'll difficult lighting and other exposure challenges then shoot raw. Editing thousands of images in 9 hours is a lofty goal.

Sorry, I need to clarify. I'm not editing a thousand photos a night. I'm sorting through a thousand photos picking out 100 or so to edit, compress, and send. And the only photo editing software I'm planning on using is Aperture.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I suppose it depends on how many you actually have to deliver. Sorting through the files to find good ones will take about the same amount of time either way. So if in the end you only need to edit a few dozen shots, some batch raw processing (e.g. lift and stamp in Aperture) and final individual tweaking should be quite feasible.

[Edit: you were replying at the same time as me. If it's only 100 shots you're delivering, I'd shoot raw. But I'm a control freak and can never bring myself to shoot JPEG! ]

 

[peskaa]

RAW if you're using Aperture. Should be a doddle to edit down the numbers and send off a few keepers. Hell, I'd even edit mid-shoot by engaging in some chimping and deleting as many as possible that you know don't cut the mustard.

 

[sarcasticdesign]

RAW if you're using Aperture. Should be a doddle to edit down the numbers and send off a few keepers. Hell, I'd even edit mid-shoot by engaging in some chimping and deleting as many as possible that you know don't cut the mustard.

this pretty much sums up the thread perfectly. no shame in chimping, use the "lock" button as needed, and shoot RAW.

 

[Edge100]

I know a lot of serious PJs and sports shooters use JPEG, but for them rapid turnaround means "no time to get back to my computer; these are going out wirelessly right NOW"

If you have time to get back to your computer and sort/keyword and do minor edits as required, I say stick with RAW.

 

[ChrisA]

I'm guessing I'll come up with 1000 shots/night. Perhaps more, perhaps less. I know I won't have time to do any really advanced editing beyond cropping and other minor adjustments. Is it still worth it to shoot in RAW?

RAW will allow you a greater range of correction than JPG. If you are using Aperture the only speed advantage of JPG is that there is less total ammount of data on the memory card so the download goes faster. This is pretty minor. Aperture allows you to start work on the images just as soon as the first image is done downloading so you don't have to wait.

I would not choose the image format based on your deadline. choose the format based on how tricky the lighting is for you and how much post processing you plan to do. If the shots are in easy, flat light (like on an overcast day outside) then JPG will work fine.

 

[peskaa]

I know a lot of serious PJs and sports shooters use JPEG, but for them rapid turnaround means "no time to get back to my computer; these are going out wirelessly right NOW"

If you have *that* much of time pressure, you'll usually find a picture desk editor on-site or remotely doing editing rather than the 'tog. Or they have their laptop with them, and maybe an assistant.

 

[stagi]

I would shoot RAW. With my workflow I edit every shot a bit anyway (normally a minor exposure tweek, and some contrast and sharpness tweeks) and its really just as fast to edit a RAW vs. JPG so you might as well have as much info as you can to start off with. To me the only advantage to shooting JPG is the HD space you save.

 

[zephyrnoid]

.JPG = larger files
.RAW = uncompressed full color gamut
If all you are doing is sorting and then uploading for delivery, I'd go with raw.