Yes, another RAW question, sorry - this one's about printing

[MarcusM]

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?

 

[Dubious Drewski]

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)

 

[Antithesis]

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.

 

[JerryPH]

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.

 

[Big Mike]

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.

 

[Aw45]

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?

 

[Double H]

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.

 

[Iron Flatline]

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?

 

[nicfargo]

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.

 

[yeti]

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.

 

[MarcusM]

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.

 

[Double H]

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)

 

[bhop]

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.

 

[Digital Matt]

the way jpegs are compressed your image will loose information over time.

Really? How do they lose information? Do they rot? Do they rust?

 

[THORHAMMER]

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.