In my last test, I was really pushing the limits of the jpeg, forcing it to do slight color correction on top of being underexposed by an entire stop. I thought I would do a test that would tip the scales a little towards the jpeg.
Here's the shot:
Again, the camera was set to take a RAW and JPEG simultaneously. This time, the scene was properly exposed both for color balance and exposure. The only hitch is that I shot the scene at ISO 400. (not typical for a studio shot, but I shoot mostly outdoors, so it's more pertinant to me.)
Raw conversion was done by Bibble, with no modifications.
The output of this conversion and the in-camera jpeg were brought into photoshop and saved with a setting of 80. Essentially these two images are as straight from the camera as possible.
It is starting to looky like a blown setting or some sort of something.
Might be the dreaded jpg10 monster. Too many artifacts...
hahaha ooops, just kidding...
Mitch, I do not use jpg10 to print larger prints with a lot of detail. If you don\\\'t have fine details and textures etc. in your image, you can get away with it though. If your originals are perfect, and don\\\'t contain much detail, you can get away with a lot of stuff. Why use more compression when you don\\\'t need to? That\\\'s the million dollar question. Onethumb likes jpg10 because it saves a lot him of diskspace and bandwidth here at smugmug.
With a \"raw\" file the process of applying the required algorithms is now given to your computer rather than to your camera. This means that the conversion process can take advantage of the more powerful processor in your computer as opposed to the processor in your camera. And, because your computer\'s more powerful processor is being used, camera manufacturers have the option of using more powerful algorithms to process your photograph than could be used in the camera. This can have the effect of giving you richer, sharper pictures. Each camera manufacturer\'s strategy for deploying the \"raw\" conversion algorithms is different but you can easily see that using your computer rather than your camera to create your photo is an advantage.
There is an even more powerful reason for shooting your photographs in the \"raw\" format and that is the ability to make exposure, white balance and other edits to your photo before you even create the photo. Photo editing applications such as Photoshop handle most exposure and white balance editing on jpeg, tiff and Photoshop files by actually removing data from the photo. To test this out just launch a photo in Photoshop, open the Levels panel (Image>Adjustments>Levels) where you\'ll see a histogram for your photo. At the bottom of the histogram are three diamond shaped sliders. Move in the left and right sliders toward the center. In most photos this action will have the effect of increasing the contrast of your photo. Click on the \"OK\" button, which accepts your levels changes. Then reopen the Levels panel and you\'ll most likely see the histogram with open vertical lines. These open vertical lines indicate missing information or data that has been removed from the photo in order to achieve the effect you saw on your monitor.
With a \"raw\" photo you can make these levels and other adjustments before you use the conversion algorithms. In Photoshop CS this is done when you double click on a \"raw\" photo. Photoshop will present you with a panel with various exposure, white balance, contrast, saturation, shadow and other adjustment options in addition to a very large thumbnail of your photo. You can play with these adjustments and Photoshop will adjust the thumbnail photo to give you a very good representation of what the final photo will look like if you accept these settings. When you click \"OK\" your editing adjustments are made to the algorithms that convert your \"raw\" data to reflect the changes you want to make in the photo. The most important thing to remember here is that your adjustments are being applied while your photo is being created. This means that no data is lost and your photo will have all the tonal characteristics that are possible with that file. Because no data is lost when you adjust a \"raw\" file this gives you the ability to make exposure changes to your photo that are as wide as two f-stops or more. This is the reason many commercial photographers shoot in \"raw\" and it is the reason many photojournalists use the \"Raw + jpeg\" setting on newer pro-level digital cameras.
Once your \"raw\" file is converted to a photograph in Photoshop CS, the raw conversion software for your camera or another application you will be able to save the photo as a Photoshop, tiff, jpeg or other common file format. Some programs like Nikon Capture have a batch conversion function that allows you to convert an entire folder of photos with one setting.
All you really need to remember about \"raw\" file formats is that they allow you to produce the best photos with the data that was captured at the time you clicked the shutter.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but surprisingly, I prefer the bottom one here (and of the onion, previously). I'm biased towards mildly prefering RAW as a superior "format", pixel-for-pixel, so I'm a little surprised that I'm prefering the JPEG. (I just hate RAW for workflow and wasted time in-camera during a shoot, and the barely-seen pixel benefit is less useful than getting the right shot).
Incidentally, I dream of the days when we have 16bit floating-point per color component (or better!). That'll be incredible.
\"As far as quality and versatility goes, nothing beats a RAW file. RAW files contain the most information (like capturing 4096 shades of gray instead of only 256) and allow for the most versatility when it comes time to open your image in Photoshop.\"
-Excerpted from Ben Willmore\'s BetterPhoto.com on-line course called Photoshop Mastery: The Essentials
W, what demosaicing algorithm did you use when you converted that raw file? Different algorithms can produce a better result than others on different images, that is another advantage of raw. The ability (in some cases) to choose what algorithm is best for that image before converting. BTW, what processes did you use on that image? It looks quite a bit softer than it could be, obscuring some details. I\'m not sure if you applied enough sharpening, or something else.
Anyway, you just can\'t argue that gaining up to 2 stops of dynamic range is not worth it. Even if you don\'t see the advantage on one shot, you may on the next 15-20 in a row. Plus all of the other advantages of raw, like avoiding toothcombing, and after the fact camera setting adjustments, make it a no-brainer if you have the time or ability to shoot in raw or jpg/raw.
BTW, if you suck at editing in general, raw files are probably not for you. The camera can do things better than rookies can almost every time.
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
1. When I order an 11X14 from the 11X14 crop at "compress 10" I will get as good a print as when I uprez and print to my 2200, right?
2. When setting custom prices for either the 11X14 or 16X20 I get the message "Some products not listed due to small image size. Try uploading a larger image." HUH? Larger how?
3. If I were to order a 16X20 from the "compress 10" would I be happy? with it.
Mitch
Hey onethumb, I think he's getting this in custom prices because when EZ Prints discontinued Youth Sweatshirts, desk clocks, and XXL adult sweatshirts, I made them go away by setting the res requirements at 9999 pixels?
Mitch, yes and no: our claim is that a JPEG 10 image cannot be distinguished from a JPEG 12 image at the same resolution on the same printer.
Your upsampling versus EZ Prints' upsampling presents a small and probably insignificant differenence.
But inkjet versus continuous-tone laser is significant because one is dithered and the way they render colors, retain shadow detail, etc., is quite different.
\"Mitch, yes and no: our claim is that a JPEG 10 image cannot be distinguished from a JPEG 12 image at the same resolution on the same printer.\"
Baldy, want to make a monetary commitment on your claims? I mean a bet?
I will provide you with the same images with the minimum pixels required, in both jpg10 and jpg12 compression factors. (A few different sets of images if if you like) We will blow those up to 20x30 or similar, and I will bet 3$ to every one of your $ that you will see more blotching or jaggies etc on the jpg10\'s.
Thanks for th reply. That would explain why I got that message.
Now as I see it this thread was started with jh4wvu asking, in so many words, how do I upload my file so that I can get the best possible picture when a print is ordered. Simple question but not so simple an answer, it seems.
I am begining to think that onethumb's reply to BenA2 is the only answer, but not one that I like.
"Quote:
Originally Posted by BenA2 Also, I have a question for you about re-rezing. Since joining smugmug, I have adopted the practice of re-rezing my 4×6 print images to 302 dpi because I understood EZ-prints wouldn't resample these--giving me the best representation of the image I uploaded. It seems to me, to have the best control over sharpening, one should re-rez, then sharpen. Would your contention be that I should perform final sharpening on the original image size and accept that when EZ-prints re-rezes and re-sharpens, I'll get the same or better results compared to re-rezing and sharpening at 302 ppi?
I think the easy answer is to do what I would do in your case: Do it both ways, get prints, and compare them yourself."
Again in so many words. Order prints until you get it the way you like it. That works for the event photog. at less than a buck a pop could upload half dozen different files (uprez, no uprez, jpg10, sharpen, no sharpen, whatever) pick the one that is best and adjust work flow. If I am able to get everything working as I would like, for the most part, the smallest prints I will offer will be 11X14. I could crop a 4x6 out of the 11x14 and have that printed, but as baldy pointed out printers are different. So my only real option is to order prints for the size I will offer which is $$$.
So back to jh4wvu, for his 8x12's what is the best starting point. I think he was looking for input from those who are currently uploading. How are they doing it and is it working?
Photoshop CS Color working space
I shoot Raw a lot and when I'm just taking pics of my friends etc, I shoot jpeg, however in both situations I have issues getting the color space correct in PS CS. I really have never been told how to set this up correctly, and I searched the forum's and found this disscussion. I'm sure this is a pretty easy thing to setup, I'm just clueless. I've been doing post processing for a year now just guessing. Any help is appreciated.
FYI I'm shooting with a D70, is there a workspace I download to plugin to PS that I don't know about???
I shoot Raw a lot and when I'm just taking pics of my friends etc, I shoot jpeg, however in both situations I have issues getting the color space correct in PS CS. I really have never been told how to set this up correctly, and I searched the forum's and found this disscussion. I'm sure this is a pretty easy thing to setup, I'm just clueless. I've been doing post processing for a year now just guessing. Any help is appreciated.
FYI I'm shooting with a D70, is there a workspace I download to plugin to PS that I don't know about???
Newbie to Dgrin
I think I have it figured out from the PS help, ignore my post if anyone see's it...
Comments
11X14
2050 X 2609 Pixel
16X20
2048 X 2560 pixel
Mitch
Here's the shot:
Again, the camera was set to take a RAW and JPEG simultaneously. This time, the scene was properly exposed both for color balance and exposure. The only hitch is that I shot the scene at ISO 400. (not typical for a studio shot, but I shoot mostly outdoors, so it's more pertinant to me.)
Raw conversion was done by Bibble, with no modifications.
The output of this conversion and the in-camera jpeg were brought into photoshop and saved with a setting of 80. Essentially these two images are as straight from the camera as possible.
The RAW is on top; in-camera on bottom.
Again, the two files are available for download:
http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/pepper.zip (11,203 KB)
-Winn
Strange...it looks like those are printable to me.
[url=""]http://www.ezprints.com/help/ResolutionGuide.asp[/url]
[url=""]http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality[/url]
I assume you have given it a couple goes?
It is starting to looky like a blown setting or some sort of something.
Might be the dreaded jpg10 monster. Too many artifacts...
hahaha ooops, just kidding...
There is an even more powerful reason for shooting your photographs in the \"raw\" format and that is the ability to make exposure, white balance and other edits to your photo before you even create the photo. Photo editing applications such as Photoshop handle most exposure and white balance editing on jpeg, tiff and Photoshop files by actually removing data from the photo. To test this out just launch a photo in Photoshop, open the Levels panel (Image>Adjustments>Levels) where you\'ll see a histogram for your photo. At the bottom of the histogram are three diamond shaped sliders. Move in the left and right sliders toward the center. In most photos this action will have the effect of increasing the contrast of your photo. Click on the \"OK\" button, which accepts your levels changes. Then reopen the Levels panel and you\'ll most likely see the histogram with open vertical lines. These open vertical lines indicate missing information or data that has been removed from the photo in order to achieve the effect you saw on your monitor.
With a \"raw\" photo you can make these levels and other adjustments before you use the conversion algorithms. In Photoshop CS this is done when you double click on a \"raw\" photo. Photoshop will present you with a panel with various exposure, white balance, contrast, saturation, shadow and other adjustment options in addition to a very large thumbnail of your photo. You can play with these adjustments and Photoshop will adjust the thumbnail photo to give you a very good representation of what the final photo will look like if you accept these settings. When you click \"OK\" your editing adjustments are made to the algorithms that convert your \"raw\" data to reflect the changes you want to make in the photo. The most important thing to remember here is that your adjustments are being applied while your photo is being created. This means that no data is lost and your photo will have all the tonal characteristics that are possible with that file. Because no data is lost when you adjust a \"raw\" file this gives you the ability to make exposure changes to your photo that are as wide as two f-stops or more. This is the reason many commercial photographers shoot in \"raw\" and it is the reason many photojournalists use the \"Raw + jpeg\" setting on newer pro-level digital cameras.
Once your \"raw\" file is converted to a photograph in Photoshop CS, the raw conversion software for your camera or another application you will be able to save the photo as a Photoshop, tiff, jpeg or other common file format. Some programs like Nikon Capture have a batch conversion function that allows you to convert an entire folder of photos with one setting.
All you really need to remember about \"raw\" file formats is that they allow you to produce the best photos with the data that was captured at the time you clicked the shutter.
[font=\"Times]Copyright John Santaro-Lexar
[/font]
[url=""]http://www.scantips.com/basics9j.html[/url]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but surprisingly, I prefer the bottom one here (and of the onion, previously). I'm biased towards mildly prefering RAW as a superior "format", pixel-for-pixel, so I'm a little surprised that I'm prefering the JPEG. (I just hate RAW for workflow and wasted time in-camera during a shoot, and the barely-seen pixel benefit is less useful than getting the right shot).
Incidentally, I dream of the days when we have 16bit floating-point per color component (or better!). That'll be incredible.
Don
-Excerpted from Ben Willmore\'s BetterPhoto.com on-line course called Photoshop Mastery: The Essentials
Anyway, you just can\'t argue that gaining up to 2 stops of dynamic range is not worth it. Even if you don\'t see the advantage on one shot, you may on the next 15-20 in a row. Plus all of the other advantages of raw, like avoiding toothcombing, and after the fact camera setting adjustments, make it a no-brainer if you have the time or ability to shoot in raw or jpg/raw.
BTW, if you suck at editing in general, raw files are probably not for you. The camera can do things better than rookies can almost every time.
Mitch, yes and no: our claim is that a JPEG 10 image cannot be distinguished from a JPEG 12 image at the same resolution on the same printer.
Your upsampling versus EZ Prints' upsampling presents a small and probably insignificant differenence.
But inkjet versus continuous-tone laser is significant because one is dithered and the way they render colors, retain shadow detail, etc., is quite different.
Baldy, want to make a monetary commitment on your claims? I mean a bet?
I will provide you with the same images with the minimum pixels required, in both jpg10 and jpg12 compression factors. (A few different sets of images if if you like) We will blow those up to 20x30 or similar, and I will bet 3$ to every one of your $ that you will see more blotching or jaggies etc on the jpg10\'s.
Thanks for th reply. That would explain why I got that message.
Now as I see it this thread was started with jh4wvu asking, in so many words, how do I upload my file so that I can get the best possible picture when a print is ordered. Simple question but not so simple an answer, it seems.
I am begining to think that onethumb's reply to BenA2 is the only answer, but not one that I like.
"Quote:
Originally Posted by BenA2
Also, I have a question for you about re-rezing. Since joining smugmug, I have adopted the practice of re-rezing my 4×6 print images to 302 dpi because I understood EZ-prints wouldn't resample these--giving me the best representation of the image I uploaded. It seems to me, to have the best control over sharpening, one should re-rez, then sharpen. Would your contention be that I should perform final sharpening on the original image size and accept that when EZ-prints re-rezes and re-sharpens, I'll get the same or better results compared to re-rezing and sharpening at 302 ppi?
I think the easy answer is to do what I would do in your case: Do it both ways, get prints, and compare them yourself."
Again in so many words. Order prints until you get it the way you like it. That works for the event photog. at less than a buck a pop could upload half dozen different files (uprez, no uprez, jpg10, sharpen, no sharpen, whatever) pick the one that is best and adjust work flow. If I am able to get everything working as I would like, for the most part, the smallest prints I will offer will be 11X14. I could crop a 4x6 out of the 11x14 and have that printed, but as baldy pointed out printers are different. So my only real option is to order prints for the size I will offer which is $$$.
So back to jh4wvu, for his 8x12's what is the best starting point. I think he was looking for input from those who are currently uploading. How are they doing it and is it working?
Any way I'm late for my real job, have to go.
Just my 2 cents
Mitch
I shoot Raw a lot and when I'm just taking pics of my friends etc, I shoot jpeg, however in both situations I have issues getting the color space correct in PS CS. I really have never been told how to set this up correctly, and I searched the forum's and found this disscussion. I'm sure this is a pretty easy thing to setup, I'm just clueless. I've been doing post processing for a year now just guessing. Any help is appreciated.
FYI I'm shooting with a D70, is there a workspace I download to plugin to PS that I don't know about???
Newbie to Dgrin
http://brit.smugmug.com
I think I have it figured out from the PS help, ignore my post if anyone see's it...
http://brit.smugmug.com