Shutter speeds

[Cathus]

Are you looking at the basic RAW files? if so you will probably find that they are a little less vibrant & a little less sharp.

When the camera takes the shot as a jpg, it does its own processing of the shot, it adds some vibrancy in colour & adds sharpening, you'll find your camera has different image modes where you can boost the colours, contrast etc.

With jpgs, your camera does the processing for you, with RAW you have to do the processing, so you need to adjust contrast, colours, sharpenign etc to your taste.

The differences between RAW & jpg on the screen shouldn't be massive but there wil be a difference.

Set up your camera, take eactly the same shot on jpg & RAW, load them into your PC & compare to see the difference.

[wadooz]

Thanks Cathus, I went straight out as soon as I picked up your message. The light is fading now and I'm just watching the Aussie cricketers demolish England again so it was a bit rushed and they weren't good examples but it was enough to tell a difference. I'll go back to my zoo pics and see what Canon's DPP can do for them. Doesn't look like the cricket is going to last long so I'll get back to you soon.
At least we retained the ashes. (With style)
Cheers

[wadooz]

A couple of hours with DPP and 24 of my disappointing shots are now looking pretty good! Considering I took about 250 shots initially it'd take quite some time to make them all acceptable. I guess it's just a case of picking the best to fix.
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.

[Cathus]

Cool, glad you've sorted it.

It depends on the time available for processing. I'd say RAW every time as you put more of yourself into the photo & have a bigger say in how it comes out. But on my team sports shots I do jpg purely because I don't have the time to develop up to 700 shots a game (though I do process every jpg shot in PS, it only takes 0-15 secs as opposed to a few minutes with RAW)