Post proceessing question

[wvav8tor]

This weekend I had my first opportunity to photograph a wedding, I did not want to do it because as I have stated many times I am not a photographer just a picture taker. I couldn't turn down my brother or his daughter and it seems they have a lot more confidence in me than I do. I had good tools in hand(Canon 5D, 430ex flash and a couple of L lenses) so I said what the heck and gave it a try.

Before I get to my question whatever a pro charges to do a wedding they more than worth it!!!!:hail: I found the whole experience physically exhausting and I have not even begun the raw file post processing. Now to my question, after I complete the processing of the raw files how should I save them? does saving them as a jpg lose anything in the printing process? Should I be saving in some other format or in the end there is not much difference?

I just want to add one more thing, if you are at a wedding and have a camera STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!!!!! of the person hired or asked to do the photos.(I hope this helps the pros out there)

Thanks
dusty

 

[Alpha]

jpeg is a compressed format, which means you lose data. Save as TIFF or PSD.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

I'd recommend saving the file as a .TIFF. JPG is compressed, so you lose a small to VERY big chunk of image quality (depending on the JPG quality). I've printed tons of 100% JPGs, but then again, I wasn't shooting a wedding

 

[Alpha]

I've never seen a good printer that prints jpg as its standard format.

 

[Mav]

After you're done processing the RAWs just save them as high quality JPEGs, or if you'll have some additional editing steps save as TIFF or PSD.

 

[ANDS!]

I've never seen a good printer that prints jpg as its standard format.

Are you saying you can't get good quality prints out of a JPG?

To the OP - just keep the RAW files, and save the workspace as a Photoshop file.

 

[Alpha]

Are you saying you can't get good quality prints out of a JPG?

Depends on the resolution. But the proof that jpg is a sub-standard format is in the hardware pudding. All of the best printers on the market use TIFF as their standard format. This includes laser-based setups such as the Oce LightJet and Durst Lambda, as well as large format inkjet (giclee) printers from any number of manufacturers. Yes, they will accept jpg but their standard is TIFF, and with good reason. Consider the printers that use jpg as their standard. They are not built for super high print quality. They are built for ease of use and/or high-throughput work. This includes systems like the Noritsu laser photo printers found in many labs, dye-sub printers, and consumer inkjets. Side-by-side there's clearly no question that one is better than the other. All things being equal, a digital image with more data always results in a better print.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Mav]

Depends on the resolution. But the proof that jpg is a sub-standard format is in the hardware pudding.

The proof that you're wrong is that I have great looking 30" wide prints in my house printed from a lowly 6MP JPEG. Perhaps you should qualify this way off the deep end (for the Beginner's forum) post a bit more. What exact kind of resolution are you talking about, what exact print size, and what general viewing distance? What you're suggesting is overkill ten times over, even for a lot of pros.

Side-by-side there's clearly no question that one is better than the other.

Based on actual prints that you've made, or just a JPEG vs TIFF or printer "spec" comparison?

All things being equal, a digital image with more data always results in a better print.

No you're just oversampling more because your eyes are only capable of resolving so much per viewing distance. And I honestly don't know how many quadrillion different tone levels will ever satisfy people when the human eye can only discern about 100 per channel. Nyquist sampling says 256 tones per channel and 8-bits is already plenty.

 

[Alpha]

Well a lot of pros have their megapixels so far up their asses that they all but ignore print quality. We've had this discussion many times over. If you wanna argue, then PM me. I get much better resolution than 6mp out of even a 35mm scan, and there's no way I'll print that large unless I really wanna see some grain.

You wanna talk print comparisons?

Have you ever even printed on a Lambda or a Lightjet?

 

[Mav]

How close do you view a 30" print? Is your nose touching it?

 

[Alpha]

You're not entering into a discussion that you're qualified for. You haven't printed on the industry standard printers, have you?

Crummy printers always give crummy results. If you have a lab print something on a Noritsu, it's not gonna look that great whether it's TIFF or JPG. But if you do a side-by-side on a really great printer, which I have, the difference is plain as day.

 

[Mav]

And this is waaaaay off the deep end considering it's the BEGINNER'S forum, wouldn't you say? Ah so all of my prints surely must be crappy now.

 

[Alpha]

The question is TIFF or JPG for the better print? On a good printer, the answer is always TIFF. I've seen the difference a thousand times over.

And who cares if this is the beginner's forum? God forbid they want to make a fine print...

 

[Mav]

Do you not realize that all these things are relative?

 

[RyanLilly]

Back to the OP, Save all of your raw files, ALWAYS. You can also save you edited works as PSD, so if you feel the need to go back and make other edits you don't have to start from square one with the raws. For you final output to give to your brother or print, I would use quality 12 jpegs.