chuck A7R3

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.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

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.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

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.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

RAW format is not an image format like JPEG or TIFF. RAW is the unprocessed data file that JPEG and TIFF image files are made from. RAW is what its name implies, raw unprocessed date, with a little tiny jpeg imbedded in the file for viewing purposes. Many folks don't shoot RAW because the files need to be processed. JPEG images can be altered but not to the extent of RAW since there isn't as much data to work with in a JPEG file as there is in a RAW file. If you want all the data the image sensor gathered, shoot RAW. If you want the camera to process "develop" the data into a JPEG, don't shoot RAW.
JPEG images can't be better than RAW because that's what they started out as. JPEG is definitely easier and more convenient than RAW and many people prefer the finished "processed" files because they are smaller and easier to work with and are perfectly fine.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Yes, a huge difference between jpg and raw at any resolution or number of pixels, because it is a question of the amount of data retained for each pixel. On both those trips I expect you will experience situations of high dynamic range. If you blow the highlights and you have the raw, you stand a fair chance of regaining detail in the highlights. In a jpg they are gone forever. With raw, you never have to worry about your white balance, because every possible white balance is contained in the raw data. In jpg if your white balance is off, the best you can do is to add a color cast that will partially compensate for the color imbalance.

I once decided to shoot jpg only, and when I found out how absolutely intolerant they were or any post processing, I stopped shooting jpg altogether and work exclusively in raw, and I never looked back.

Barketh

Good information everyone. I just learned quite a bit. Thank you for the lesson!

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

At times I swim countercurrent to the major flow and the RAW vs JPEG is one such stream.

Typical is for people to start with the camera and fuss about the exactness of the image. A different approach is to start with the output ... will you be printing... will it be on your 50" TV or a laptop screen... how will your image be perceived. The output dictates the game. When I inspected an industrial process, I started at the finished product and walked the line to the beginning... out of habit I do photography much the same... there are times in photography when a 10 mp JPEG would do fine depending on the output and perception of the image.

JPEG is easy and fast, and the little guys inside of your camera know what they are doing and do it fast. If the image is oops-ed, then RAW is useful to save the day.

Interesting discussion here ....
https://digitalphotographycourses.co.za/shoot-jpeg-not-raw/

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

In camera jpeg processing can be ham-handed at times. So not only is there some compression, but settings for contrast, sharpness, color space, saturation, etc can have the effect of diminishing detail, create less smooth tone and color transitions, etc.

Also, a jpeg file has less dynamic range. While it's true that at the end of the day, the raw file is usually exported to a jpeg, but in the latter, YOU get to make the choices as to how tone and color transitions are mapped, not the camera.

It's correct that the image resolution, in pixels, doesn't change, but the amount of fine detail capture and the number of steps in a tone/color gradient are higher - and both will result in better image quality.

https://www.slrlounge.com/workshop/dynamic-range-and-raw-vs-jpeg/

If the differences either don't apply to your subject matter, or if you are ok with not needing too much post processing, then be happy shooting jpegs.

From my position, proposing that there are no differences or that the differences don't matter sounds in this day and age, especially after this topic has been discussed ad nauseum here and on the internet, like a severe case of willful ignorance. Or maybe they have never shot and processed raw files correctly, and are unwilling to even try.

BlackRipleyDog

When I acquired my first camera (D70s) back in 2008, I was unaware of Raw even though my camera had it. I shot some aerial stills from a plane and came back with the money-shot as my company's first delivery of refinery expansion modules loaded on a barge under-tow by a tugboat was winding it's way down the Penobscot River in Maine headed for the Gulf coast of Texas. As it passed underneath the bridges in Bucksport, I was on the side of the plane to be able to capture the moment.
When I got back on the ground, I immediately went to my desk to do post on the files. Within an hour, I had printed that shot and presented it the yard's GM before the official photographer on the support boat made it back to shore. My pilot had been contracted by the yard to take shoots of the journey down the river and I even beat him.
A couple weeks later, I was contacted by a local magazine as they were doing a story on the yard and the work we were doing. The art director selected about 4 images to illustrate the story including the aforementioned barge/bridge shot.
Her only advice to me, was to always shoot in Raw. Every thing I shot that day was in Fine Jpeg. She made them work but her options were somewhat restricted in what she could do with the files.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I will never understand the pro-jpeg argument - absolutely nothing is lost when shooting raw - no downside, other than a few minutes of time for a few that need to provide instant images, or shooting in studio settings where there is 100% control over the light and contrast. And, as the art director inferred, raw images are far easier and faster to edit. It sure sounds like the vast majority can benefit from shooting raw files if their camera can produce them. There really is no rational or meaningful downside -

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

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.

BlackRipleyDog

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.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I shoot RAW+JPEG only for convenience of viewing the JPEG in Windows Explorer. I always edit the RAW.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

That’s how I do it. I simply use the jpegs for a quick view and culling process. Choose what I want to pp in raw by briefly viewing the jpegs. Then delete them. Maybe cumbersome to some but that’s where I’v landed.

Bill_de Loc: US

IMHO there is no argument that using the raw data you may get results that are different/better than an out of the camera JPG. But in many cases the difference may be minimal if what the JPG produced in camera is what you wanted in the first place. The JPG that comes out of the camera is an end product produced by the camera's use of the raw data. That is what you get when you process the raw data in PS and then convert it to JPG for posting or printing. Of course you do lose the ability to do local adjustments.

Either way, we have a lot more freedom than we had when shooting Kodachrome, and we all cried a little when they took that away.

--