Sep 1, 2004, 10:06
(This post was last modified: Sep 1, 2004, 10:21 by noisynoodle.)
In what format do you folks prefer to have the lab print your enlargements (8x10 +) ... Jpeg or Tiff? Is there really that much of a noticeable difference in the end picture if the highest quality of jpeg is used?
Its getting as though a lot of places won't print tiff files given their size. Am having to look at custom labs and such. These of course are a lot more expensive. However, if the print is that much nicer... then the money is worth it.
Alternatively... what other format would you save them as for printing purposes.
Is there a noticeable difference in picture quality though? I am happy to pay the extra bucks if the picture quality is that much better between jpg and tiff.
If its marginal on anything less than poster size I won;t worry about it and will stay with high quality jpg file.
Nice to see you Rufus!
To my eyes, it's extremely marginal........
Others may feel quite differently.
I had an A3 printed not long ago. It has pride of place in my living room. Everyone agrees that it's VERY sharp.
Sep 1, 2004, 12:00
(This post was last modified: Sep 1, 2004, 12:08 by paskelius.)
Jpeg is a compressed format - TIFF is not. You lose alittle bit every time you save a jpeg. For printing a 4x6 - you likely will not see a difference. For printing an 11x14 - you might. It is not really about sharpness - it is about compression artifacts, and a gradual degradation of detail.
You can get a solid print from a jpeg - it may not be worth the cost difference - your call.
p.s. I have been working recently with 2 different commercial printing companies on CD covers. For commercial work like that or brochures, etc., they will not accept jpeg as a source. This may not be relevant to you, but...
Hmmm, I wish I could show you this A3
Hmmm... so really then, whenever i get my pics out of the camera and begin post processing them i should always save them as tiff's until I am done processing them and then save it as a high quality jpeg? Occassionally i will open save a pic a few times before I feel "officially" happy with it. I assume then that each time i save it its degraded that much more. Saving as a tiff over and over again should technically be fine until the final save.
What do you normally print stuff out with Toad? Where do you go? a speciality shop in van or your local london drugs etc?
pay half my flight Rufus, and you and I will be marvelling at that photo in real life....
That is the workflow I use. I only save as jpeg for the web or email.
I print a variety of places - the corner 30 minute photo developer or other. I go to a specialty shop for 8x10 or larger.
Ruf: I don;t doubt that your A3 looks great, but what I am saying is nevertheless true.
Question again: What exactly is workflow (i have a eye for taking pictures, but am trying my best to get technically versed and experienced).
Just to confirm. Workflow = camera to processing, saved as a tiff each time until you are happy with the picture and then saved as a jpeg for printing purposes. correct?
That is my workflow - correct - but there are many other possible ones.
I shot and saved jpegs for years, because frankly the RAW workflow is so much more complicated. I feel (personal opinion only) that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks now, however.
I will try this for a while. I was probably losing heaps of quality just by saving and resaving pictures everytime i opened them to do a bit of processing work.
You probably don't lose "heaps" of quality - it is pretty subtle.
I know when I work with PhotoShop on a major retouch or artsy project, though, I may save and reopen dozens of times. Even a minute loss adds up over time.
For somebody that saves only once, the difference is neglible, I am sure.
Jerry said this:
"a speciality shop in van or your local london drugs etc?"
Is this code Jerry? What on earth does it mean????
Jerry also said:
pay half my flight Rufus, and you and I will be marvelling at that photo in real life...."
Which would be a real hoot!
Unfortunately, I am saving up for a packet of chocolate-chip cookies at the moment.
That makes sense, Ruf. Wasn't clear from the earlier posts - and it got down to the old discussion of the relative merits of RAW vs jpeg. If you save only once as jpeg (and save at the top quality setting), the difference should be insignificant without pixel peeping.
One last question: why convert to jpeg for printing? Is TIFF not widely supported by photo processers in the UK, or is it an internet upload bandwidth issue?
Initially it was definitely which was better for printing and were the differences noticeable.
I never use RAW. I know I should be for better results, but it seems kind of cumbersome.. or so I have been reading.
As far as "workflow" goes.. that was a term I have been seeing a lot and decided to clarify. From now on it will be tiff until jpeg time.
Tiff is not the easiest format for printing around here. I usually use london drugs but they aren;t willing to print tiff anymore.
Rufus: London Drugs is a photo/electronics/choco chip cookie type store here. Perhaps its back to lens and shutter for me. The service is terrible here though. *sigh*.
"Rufus: London Drugs is a photo/electronics/choco chip cookie type store here. Perhaps its back to lens and shutter for me. The service is terrible here though. *sigh*".
........And then Rufus mumbled, (through a crumbling cookie), "back to lens and shutter??
I dont, (crunch), understand that either!"
Don't get me wrong though - these packages (well the ones I've seen) only have limited capability - e.g. tones, curves, crop, resize, filters etc. - so good for photo correction mainly.
If you're a heavy manipulator or pro, I probably think Photoshop (PSP/Gimp <- better add these in for Rufus's sake) would still be the way to go, but you'll need to get your workflow down pat.
I'd say 90% of the time I'm having prints done as jpg, I'll use a tif file on any of the large interpolated images just to keep the artefacts to a minimum but for the jobs that actually go to the printer rather than the lab are done up as pdf files.
But aren't pdf files just as large? is there a difference between pdf and jpeg printing or is it minimal again?
The issue I am having as well is that the store i go to doesn't want to deal with tiff files because they are too large for them.. they feel they are too busy to deal with large files.
Is pdf a better idea than tiff?
I am really sorry folks about this... I am just trying to get my head around the different file types.
Sep 1, 2004, 17:54
(This post was last modified: Sep 1, 2004, 17:55 by paskelius.)
No reason to use anything but PhotoShop if you can afford it. It is the industry standard and everything is compatible with it. The only compelling reason for using something else is it's rediculously high price IMO. The "minute" loss of quality when saving as a jpeg is not a PhotoShop issue - it is a "compression" issue.
Save for printing as a jpeg by all means if TIFF is a problem for print shops - but only save it once - and begin with RAW - my advice.
Ruf: Yes that makes sense now. I never upload photos to a processor - always take them in on a CD - so I haven't had that problem.
Jerry: I use Lens & Shutter (a local camera shop) for my printing - I think their printing is actually done in Vancouver by Custom Color (the pro lab). I haven't used Fred's actions yet, but lots of people swear by them. I don't use very many actions at all.