I have read a fair amount about RAW, and I have shot some in RAW. One question that never seems to be answered, is concerning printing.
If I have a RAW format and convert it to a TIFF, will this result in better quality prints than if I print from JPEG?
How do you RAW shooters normally print?
Why do you need to archive in Tiff, you have the raw file allready !
To preserve my layers of retouching and editing. Until I can save all of that in a raw file, tiffs or psds will exist.
I normally just print 4 x 6 or 5 x 7, up till now. But I just ordered a new lens and flash and plan on trying to set up some studio shots so I will probably be printing 8 x 12s in the near future.
I have to disagree on the premise, commercial and product work is by nature a layer oriented task much of the time. on the contrary much of the time weddings and portraits look worse when someone photoshops the heck out of them.
No, I dont need to use layers to adjust my portraits. I get close enough to the way I want in the setup of the shot.
(unless I need to clone something )
I might have to pull up 5 shots out of
700 keepers to clone something.
If I am playing with layers for portraits or wedding shots then I am doing something wrong, thats my view for myself, I need to be spending that time marketing and making contacts.
Youll never make any money per dollar
pulling up layers for all your shots of a wedding. unless you charge 30K per wedding !!!
Im not a big time wedding look actions user, I make my own very detailed and intricate develop settings and presets in lightroom and I use those.
If it works for you, thats awesome, but I dont need them for 98% of the weddings and portraits I shoot.
whatever works for you, theres no right or wrong, just sharing. I like to keep things pretty darn simple...
question:
Why do you need to archive in Tiff, you have the raw file allready !
You just re export to the size to print at each time you do a print. If its often enough make a CD. This is the beauty of lightroom.
Exactly! Lightroom or Bridge.
There is of course the argument using RAW to archive is potentially dangerous because you are using a proprietary file format, which perhaps one day nothing will be able to open.
Of course there is Adobe's DNG format which is a 'public' file format that also has the option to embed the original RAW data inside it. This method does leave you with a big fat file, but does have the benefit of being able to open it 'forever' and containing the RAW from the camera untouched.
Personally at the moment I only archive the RAW, but I'm considering the above option.
8X10 is the smallest I print. Most of the time I am doing 11x14 to 18x24. At those sizes, you can see the difference between jpeg and tiff. (I use Genuine Fractals for up-sizing)
No not really. If you can print from a PSD then you might as well. There's no advantage of converting to a Tiff first. Can someone explain how a JPEG just randomly loses information over time...this just doesn't seem right to me. It'd be like a compressed word document of mine tossing out sentences over time...just seems unrealistic to me is all.
My advice to you is to never bother with JPEGS. Shoot in Raw files and then convert to TIFF's. Print, and archive in TIFF's. You will have a larger file size but the way jpegs are compressed your image will loose information over time.
To answer your question you will not see a difference in the two formats.
Oh yeah the dpi does not always have to be 300 it depends on how large you are printing. What size do you print at?
All I can say is to each his own. Not every wedding photographer shoots the same style (nor is every portrait photographer a wedding photographer). If you shoot 700 keepers and do minimal processing and that works for you, awesome. I prefer to shoot 1/3 of that and take my time making each one as special as I can, because that's half of the joy in it for me. The good thing is, photoshop and lightroom easily adapt to any style of work. Ask Pete, Chapter 3: Your questions, answered | L.A. Land | Los ::
May 12, 2008 Sorry I didn't get to all of the questions. As usual, Peter skipped the easy ones like mine and only tackled the tough ones.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/05/ask-pete-chap-1.htmlHOME |
My advice to you is to never bother with JPEGS. Shoot in Raw files and then convert to TIFF's. Print, and archive in TIFF's. You will have a larger file size but the way jpegs are compressed your image will loose information over time.
To answer your question you will not see a difference in the two formats.
Oh yeah the dpi does not always have to be 300 it depends on how large you are printing. What size do you print at?
I come from old-school print media school of thought - tiff all the way. With the Epson 7800 I print with and Colorburst RIP, I can print 200DPI and get as good as the eye can tell. This also allows for a larger image.
They should both be 300 dpi like drewski said, and there should be an embedded color profile, thus making the two look exactly the same on paper.
I usually print via photoshop at the lab at school to get the highest quality prints, so I don't really have experience printing directly from RAW. I just assume they'll both print at 300 dpi.
Sorry, I was thinking portraits !! lol
The content of the photo is irrelavent. You don't retouch portraits? I save all of my layers of editing. I'm always learning new techniques and methods, and I never know when I'll want to change some settings to an adjustment layer or something else to re-interpret the image. I also will keep a print jpg if it's something I print often. I don't want to waste time opening a huge tiff or psd everytime I want to print something. Storage is cheap.
the way jpegs are compressed your image will loose information over time.
Really? How do they lose information? Do they rot? Do they rust? ;)
If I've worked up an image and have converted my file to PSD (16 bit), is there any reason to go to TIFF in order to print?
Use TIFF/RAW for editing, and the *last* thing you do is convert it to a 300 DPI JPG and you are good to print.
:thumbup:
Starting with RAW files is more about editing that just printing.
I have read a fair amount about RAW, and I have shot some in RAW. One question that never seems to be answered, is concerning printing.
If I have a RAW format and convert it to a TIFF, will this result in better quality prints than if I print from JPEG?
How do you RAW shooters normally print?
What size are your prints? Normal 5x6 printouts or something bigger?
JPEG is a lossy compression, so it would loose details that you do not usually perceive. TIFF is lossless. Strictly speaking printing 5x6 pictures from a TIFF is better, but you won't be able to find the difference between a high-quality JPEG and a TIFF just by looking at a 5x6 printout.
If you are printing a poster, then you might want to go for TIFF as every compression artifact on the JPEG will be magnified and someone standing very close to your poster will be able to see it.
I save my film scans and raw files as 100% full size photoshop jpgs. I don't notice any loss or artifacting in the files even when zoomed in on the monitor.. I print 8.5x11 pics occasionally and they look as good as the higher file size versions I used to save them as.. personally, for me, saving as tiff is a waste of HD space.
Sorry, I was thinking portraits !! lol
You should definately use .PSD in that case. All your layers, masks, and paths will be intact. Plus why keep all these different sizes around when you can just re-export from the PSD ? Dont bog yourself down by keeping
final print or web sized work on your drive just have the .psd dng, raw, or tiff handy.
If you can honestly notice the difference between a Tiff image and a full-quality Jpeg at 300dpi then you are a better man than I.
Use either format for printing if you want, but there's no appreciable difference between the two (if it's a full-quality JPEG)
Thorhammer, I agree. I just leave all my files in RAW. I export to JPEG if posting on a website or giving to someone, but for my own purposes I keeps it RAW baby! If I need to I burn to DVD...no big deal really.
My advice to you is to never bother with JPEGS. Shoot in Raw files and then convert to TIFF's. Print, and archive in TIFF's. You will have a larger file size but the way jpegs are compressed your image will loose information over time.
To answer your question you will not see a difference in the two formats.
Oh yeah the dpi does not always have to be 300 it depends on how large you are printing. What size do you print at?
question:
Why do you need to archive in Tiff, you have the raw file allready !
You just re export to the size to print at each time you do a print. If its often enough make a CD. This is the beauty of lightroom.
Most "quickie-cheapie" places do not support TIFF format printing (ie: the walmart places and so on), and as stated, once a picture gets put on paper, it takes some pretty incredible set of eyes to see the difference between a JPG and TIFF printed picture. Usually this is becuase you are on a much smaller format than a 17" or larger screen and the resolution is way less.
Use TIFF/RAW for editing, and the *last* thing you do is convert it to a 300 DPI JPG and you are good to print.
No not really. If you can print from a PSD then you might as well. There's no advantage of converting to a Tiff first. Can someone explain how a JPEG just randomly loses information over time...this just doesn't seem right to me. It'd be like a compressed word document of mine tossing out sentences over time...just seems unrealistic to me is all.
The JPEG image is not deteriorating over time. Its just sitting there as happy as before. The loss only occurs when you make an edit and save it. Actually, the edit isn't really even necessary (I don't think). I think the loss occurs everytime you save the image.
 What dress should i wear for an interview ?
 Financial Representative =Insurance salesman?
|
Yes, another RAW question, sorry - this one's about printing