Post proceessing question

[manaheim]

For most normal people who also look at photos in more normal ways, and who do not print on fine art printers, this is total, utter, complete overkill. I have no idea why people insist on making things far more complicated than they ever need to be, especially to beginners and non-pros.

I think we're kind of essentially in agreement by default. The point is: do what works for you. My only modifier to that was up the standards a little bit when you're doing something for someone else, because really... what does it hurt?

I would say the same for keeping the RAWs, but you seem against that for some reason. I couldn't say why unless you are deeply concerned about floppy disk storage space or something. You know, they make these high density 3.5" ones now... they're wicked cool. (I hope you realize I'm joking, here...)

 

[Alpha]

I've lost perspective?

What business does one have calling themselves a photographer if they care so little about the quality of the final product?

There are perfectly legitimate excuses for using high-throughput printers at lower quality standards, such as fast proofs, small prints, and any other occasion when speed and efficiency are of the highest priority. Or perhaps if you're just broke.

But thinking that great prints are above you or are unnecessary for whatever other reason is just a positively stupid way to approach the art and the craft.

 

[ANDS!]

What business does one have calling themselves a photographer if they care so little about the quality of the final product?

Again, are you saying that a JPEG can not render a QUALITY print? And when I say quality, I don't mean SATISFACTORY - I mean QUALITY. If not then you need to qualify your statement.

 

[manaheim]

I love it when we get into these in the beginner's forum... I wonder how many beginners we chase off into the woods. lol

 

[Alpha]

Again, are you saying that a JPEG can not render a QUALITY print? And when I say quality, I don't mean SATISFACTORY - I mean QUALITY. If not then you need to qualify your statement.

Compared to a TIFF on a good printer, no I don't believe a jpg can render a QUALITY print. I can only qualify that statement with the tests I've done on various consumer printers, Noritsus, large format Epson and HP inkjets, and LightJets.

I may not be able to convince you of what I've seen with my own eyes but I know it to be true.

 

[ANDS!]

Compared to a TIFF on a good printer, no I don't believe a jpg can render a QUALITY print.

Thats not the question that was asked.

 

[Alpha]

Thats not the question that was asked.

Of course it is. The OP is about file formats. If you have a different question then PM me or start a new thread.

 

[ANDS!]

The OP asked if it were possible to save a file as a JPEG and be able to print out a quality photo. You seem unable to answer whether or not a JPEG can produce a quality print without first qualifying it against ANOTHER format.

Frankly, you are doing newcomers a disservice by insisting directly and indirectly that there is one file format that can produce a quality print, when that is simply false on so many levels.

 

[Alpha]

The question was "does saving them as jpg lose anything in the printing process?"

The answer is no. The image is the image. But saving as jpg does lose a lot in the compression process.

Given that the OP is shooting RAW, the question of whether a good print can be had from a jpg is a question of processing workflow and is therefore intrinsically relative to other formats. In that case, I believe I've already answered.

The only scenario in which jpg is an end unto itself is if you're shooting jpg only, which is to be avoided at nearly any cost. Even in this case, it's still an intrinsically relative question, begging to be compared against other shooting formats.

Given that there are multiple choices, the merits of jpg are inherently relative to other shooting and processing choices. If there were only jpg, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Mav]

I've lost perspective?

What business does one have calling themselves a photographer if they care so little about the quality of the final product?

There are perfectly legitimate excuses for using high-throughput printers at lower quality standards, such as fast proofs, small prints, and any other occasion when speed and efficiency are of the highest priority. Or perhaps if you're just broke.

But thinking that great prints are above you or are unnecessary for whatever other reason is just a positively stupid way to approach the art and the craft.

Right. Exactly. That's how you've lost all perspective. You think that YOUR way is the ONLY 'correct' way and anybody that has a different approach is "stupid". I run into folks like yourself on these forums all the time, calling other people stupid (even if indirectly) because they're not willing to accept their ram-rodded opinions as if it's the ONLY valid approach to something. You fail to consider other approaches as even being valid in the first place. You fail to consider that other people have different priorities. You fail to consider that other people enjoy photos differently and experience them in different ways than you do.

I don't need to shoot in RAW and print from TIFF and spend tons of money getting fine art prints done just to relive all of my daughter's "firsts" and her cute expressions and other things. I also don't need to bother myself with that to relive a magical sunrise or sunset, or other great scenic photo. Seeing the photo puts me right back there in real-time as if it was happening in the present. I experience the photo by re-living it. I'm not looking for minute difference between a TIFF and JPEG print. I have no clue how you truly "experience" photos, but obviously it's A LOT different than how I experience them, thus leading to a different approach. I'm going to keep doing what works for me, and you can keep doing what works for you. Neither of us are stupid when we're doing what works for us. The only stupidity here is assuming that everybody is just like you, has the same exact priorities, and will experience photography the same exact way that you do when in fact everybody is different.

I also love it when people try to "own" a particular word such as "photographer" based on one's acceptance of a particular idea or concept, and then trying to claim that those who don't subscribe therefore cannot be "photographers". This kind of crap happens on other web forums for other topics too, and it's just as absurd there. Same ****, different day, different topic. All of it is stupid. I do care about print quality, but since I experience photos very different than you, I can get away with "crappier" prints to enjoy them than you can. I would not enjoy them any more than I already do with fine art prints from TIFFs, so why bother? And no I'm not printing on Costco Noritsus because I'm broke either. Funny, and obviously you don't get it. With the photo of my daughter, when I see it I'm right back there on that deck and will always be right there on the deck 20 or 30 years from now when I look at this photo again. Or I'll be right back at the beach, or back in Paris for that once in a lifetime trip and spectacular sunset. Or I'll be up on the deck of that high rise condo in Chicago at sunset, or standing in the freezing cold at 530am watching Old Glory blow gently in the wind with beautiful golden light just starting to come up from Lake Michigan. That's how I experience photos. I can look at photos taken over 10 years ago and I'll know exactly what I was thinking and feeling at the time and literally re-live the moment. I'm simply not looking for subtle tonal differences or bits of noise or other stuff that others look for. Implying that I'm stupid or "not a photographer" because I have a different approach to photography just goes to show that you don't understand any other approach than your own and also fail to respect other approaches and LACK PERSPECTIVE on how other people experience and enjoy photography. I'm not the one that's stupid for doing what works for me, I'll tell you that.

BTW, all of those crappy photos linked were shot and processed from the JPEG only and look great enlarged on crappy Noritsus. :mrgreen: Heck, the flag one looks great even when printed on the crappy M$ Office / PowerPoint optimized Color Laserjet printers at the office (using it for a company event flyer). OK, it does start to look cruddy after a print from that and then after running it through the color copier. You lose the motion effect of the flag since the printer and then the copier try to make that black and can't keep the shadow/motion effect going.


Anyways I'm not going to waste anymore time on these brickwall style arguments.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ Mav...

I'm sorta with you on this, sorta not.

I 100% support the "hey this works for me, and I'm happy with it, so I'll keep doing it" position. That's great. Going back to our MP3 conversation earlier... if 128 works for you, rockin'.

However, I do think that you are somewhat masquerading "this works for me" as "This is all that is needed", and perhaps even with a bit of "Anyone doing anything more is wasting their time." It's not outright, but it's certainly strongly implied.

If 128 works for you and we should accept that, then we should also accept that Alpha requires to have an orchestra parked in his personal concert hall at all times. Right? (just making a joke to make a point, Alpha, k?) :mrgreen:

I would propose that what Alpha is doing is likely a higher quality than what you need. That's fine. You don't need it, so don't do it. Alpha does (and I do as well), so we do it. Also fine.

What I think we can all do to help the OP and other people like him is accept that there are significant levels and gradations of quality that they can take advantage from... it's good to hear perspectives from people who use all levels of these to understand how much they may or may not care about any given level.

I know I'm probably coming across as the unasked for mediator here. Sorry if so. Next time I'll try to bash people more violently.

 

[Alpha]

I just simply frown upon anything that would suggest you categorically save raw conversions into a lossy format...even if it's possible to get an acceptable print from them.

 

[manaheim]

I just simply frown upon anything that would suggest you categorically save raw conversions into a lossy format...even if it's possible to get an acceptable print from them.

I totally agree with that.

Save your RAWS!

 

[wvav8tor]

Goodness, I had no idea that I could stimulate such a great discussion. You guys can go back and forth with each other all day long as far as I am concerned because if you are a beginner or unpolished picture taker like me you would do yourself a disservice by “running off” There is much to be learned by this type of interaction and everyone no matter what their opinion of the OP was have made a contribution to the discussion. If you read it a lot of info can be garnered and if you choose not to it is your loss.

Thanks all
dusty

 

[Samriel]

I've learned a lot from the ongoing discussion here, and although it has been stressful reading some of the posts at times (because of a certain repetative pattern with other posts), it was worth it in the end.
Thanks a lot!