Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Fidelity Difference RAW vs JPEG
Page <prev 2 of 10 next> last>>
Apr 11, 2019 16:26:59   #
chuck A7R3
 
I appreciate all the input and perspective. My thought/desire in spending all that $$ for the 42MP Sony A7R3 was getting a “max” jpeg quality image in the camera’s highest resolution setting (30-40 MB file size) and thus, as a photo neophyte, avoid all the editing learning complications thereafter. Maybe I wasted lots of money on this venture but I have to admit that the pics are quite remarkable displayed on a 4K 65 inch OLED TV screen. I’m very grateful for all of your perspectives and realize how complicated all of this can be. // Chuck

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 21:33:37   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
Yeah, unbeknownst to me, everything I provided to her was baked-in by the JPEG picture control firmware. She could not tweak the WB if she wanted to. In all fairness, however, my PS at the time was 7 which I don't believe had raw functionality. So I was limited by my software in any case. But from that point onward, I did shoot in Raw for when I made the next upgrade to a CS package which did support Raw.
Now that I think about, I noticed that when I was doing post on those images myself, the steps I attempted seemed a little gelded. I wasn't getting the enhancements I thought I should be getting and was actually degrading the images by forcing some edits and introducing spurious artifacts like a slightly-off color-cast.
Yeah, unbeknownst to me, everything I provided to ... (show quote)


Raw support was added with 7.0.1 as an optional plugin. I have been shooting raw-only since 2006. Haven't missed jpeg at all.

Reply
Apr 11, 2019 22:51:38   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
chuck A7R3 wrote:
I bought a 42MP Sony A7R3 along with the concurrently released Sony 24-105 F2.8 lens in December 2017 when they first hit the market. I’ve wondered if shooting at highest jpeg resolution setting with this full frame 42 megapixel camera (typically 30-35 MB per shot) is much different than if I shot RAW format. I’m not a pro and do not have high end editing software. On trips to Antarctica and the Greek Isles the jpeg format using highest res settings seems great but do I get much more shooting RAW? Thanks for any thoughts.
I bought a 42MP Sony A7R3 along with the concurren... (show quote)


I shot some JPEG the other day as a test since I had not shot JPEG in quite some time. I made some very nice photographs, but, I immediately missed the flexability and fulfilment of dancing in the RAW data and developing the image the way I'm now accustomed. I don't have the fine camera/lens you do, but I recognize it's capabilities and will preach only that it can deliver so much more..... than any JPEG would ever show, IMHO. A trip like that, take extra cards and shoot the heck out of it, in RAW (or Raw and JPEG). Maybe not today or even next month, but one day you will post a message thanking us for telling you to shoot the trip in RAW.

Reply
 
 
Apr 11, 2019 23:28:07   #
chuck A7R3
 
Thanks so much for the reply. Several respondents on this subject concur with the flexibility and enhancement potential of RAW file editing. Appreciate your input. Regards // Chuck

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 06:34:17   #
Justlookin806
 
I shoot JPEG mostly cause when downloading or sending files to customer they prefer JPEG form.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 06:41:45   #
ELNikkor
 
For most of my digital shooting years, I did not have a computer up to processing RAW, nor did I see enough difference in the final image, as SOOC jpeg fit nearly all of my needs. Now that I have a D750 and a new computer with LR, I do shoot RAW as a back-up, just in case my jpegs need more tweaking. Guess what? They seldom do...

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 07:31:05   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
chuck A7R3 wrote:
I bought a 42MP Sony A7R3 along with the concurrently released Sony 24-105 F2.8 lens in December 2017 when they first hit the market. I’ve wondered if shooting at highest jpeg resolution setting with this full frame 42 megapixel camera (typically 30-35 MB per shot) is much different than if I shot RAW format. I’m not a pro and do not have high end editing software. On trips to Antarctica and the Greek Isles the jpeg format using highest res settings seems great but do I get much more shooting RAW? Thanks for any thoughts.
I bought a 42MP Sony A7R3 along with the concurren... (show quote)


Seems odd to me that you spent all this money on high end gear( 4 grandish) and you want to skimp on editing gear. If you only post to FB or never bigger than 8x10 jpeg will do just fine. OTOH, all that RAW data and a good editor, will allow a much better picture. Things like white balance get baked in with jpg, where is RAW you get to set/correct WB. If shooting in odd light, getting it correct in camera to create a jpg picture is a stretch. That quality sensor collects all that raw data to provide you will a palette of choices. 8 bits of data vs 14, you do the math.

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 07:34:30   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
The RAW vs JPEG argument is something that will never end. Ten years ago artifacts were common with JPEG files but they are not so common today due to the progress in technology. RAW data we all know has all the original information but we need special software to bring back all the goodness embedded in it. Without the appropriate skills to develop those files the results could not be what was expected.
Modern JPEG images are of excellent quality and all RAW data sooner or later will have to be converted to JPEG. Those 12 bits of information and those wide color spaces will end up compressed to make the JPEG. What we loose I do not really know.
I shoot both files with my cameras. I believe that the quality of modern JPEG files is excellent and when properly shot a JPEG file needs little post processing. That saves time and memory.
Some of my best shots have come from JPEG images.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 07:44:56   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Useful explanation.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Resolution is defined by pixels. JPEG quality is defined by the percentage removal of data when compressing the image data into a JPEG format, a removal that is non-reversible. The higher the JPEG quality, the lesser the amount of original data is removed.

Your camera is 42 megapixels, creating files measuring 7952 × 5304 pixels, irregardless of whether the stored format is RAW or JPEG. The file size is not determined by the pixel resolution of the image. If you don't have the software needed to edit RAW files, your better choice is the high-quality JPEG, where the quality can be excellent straight from the camera as well as being readily available for minor through highly advanced editing. Using the high quality JPEG setting, the least amount of JPEG compression occurs when creating the files that are physically smaller than the corresponding RAW files, but still are images with resolution = 7952 × 5304 pixels.
Resolution is defined by pixels. JPEG quality is d... (show quote)

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 07:49:31   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
ELNikkor wrote:
For most of my digital shooting years, I did not have a computer up to processing RAW, nor did I see enough difference in the final image, as SOOC jpeg fit nearly all of my needs. Now that I have a D750 and a new computer with LR, I do shoot RAW as a back-up, just in case my jpegs need more tweaking. Guess what? They seldom do...


It's always nice to have an alternative for when the JPG just doesn't cut it. My Jeep has a 360 HP Hemi. I seldom need that power, but when I do it's nice to know it's there.

To each their own.

---

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 09:03:01   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
You have a long way to go to grow into the capability of that camera.

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 09:13:05   #
NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC
 
Did your camera not come with processing software that would allow for RAW image processing? Can you download it from Sony?

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 09:22:43   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
chuck A7R3 wrote:
I bought a 42MP Sony A7R3 along with the concurrently released Sony 24-105 F2.8 lens in December 2017 when they first hit the market. I’ve wondered if shooting at highest jpeg resolution setting with this full frame 42 megapixel camera (typically 30-35 MB per shot) is much different than if I shot RAW format. I’m not a pro and do not have high end editing software. On trips to Antarctica and the Greek Isles the jpeg format using highest res settings seems great but do I get much more shooting RAW? Thanks for any thoughts.
I bought a 42MP Sony A7R3 along with the concurren... (show quote)


Buckle your seat belts this will be a very bumpy thread !

Today especially, If you are a sloppy shooter, and somehow, somewhere, and at sometime in some minute way you MIGHT see an advantage to raw in your very end results.

Make sure you are using the Sony in camera auto HDR and high ISO modes if possible for higher dynamic range and less noise.

..

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 09:39:48   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
mwsilvers wrote:
The only reason to shoot raw is if you plan on obtaining and learning how to properly use good quality post processing software. The advantage of shooting raw is the much greater adjustment latitude vs shooting jpeg. if you don't have good quality software, or the time or interest to learn how to get the best from it, then stick with shooting jpeg.



Reply
Apr 12, 2019 09:42:15   #
was_a_guru
 
Longshadow wrote:

Funny how so many people don't get that.
And keep wanting to compare apples and cucumbers.

Since what one sees in an editor when using a RAW file is an interpolation of the data presented for viewing, if they really want to compare RAW to JPEG, open two editor windows, one with the RAW in it and the other window with the JPEG in it and have at it. That's as close as you'll be able to get in "comparing" them.
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)


Question: If I were to shoot in RAW + JPEG mode what would I see if I printed the pair without any post processing on either? Of course it would be affected by what was shot, but maybe some worst case scenario?

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.