RAW files and photo software to read them

Susan P wrote:

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

You're right about how they were printed. Many people prefer to make
their own prints in order to control the process and get better results.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It's true; RAW files cannot be sent for printing. They are unfinished
files, and will not have any color balance, color correction, tonal
correction, etc., applied. You wouldn't know what to do with them,
in other words.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

JPEG is compressed in a lossy way; TIFF is better if you're going to be
editing the pictures and re-saving them, but the files will be much
larger and may need to be converted to JPEG to send them for printing.

--
Jeremy |

Susan P wrote:


QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Usually. However for many prints, good quality "home" printers,
properly used will give results that are indistinguishable (and often
better) than most prints from many 1-hour photo services.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It depends on the company. If they use Photoshop (which is very likely
somewhere in their organization) then the photo printing company can get
the RAW PLUGIN for photoshop and then read the file. It is a question
of communications, usually, to make sure the company understands the
content and what to do with it. ..The service people who take the
orders might not be educated about RAW.

It is not necessarily in your best interest to submit a RAW file in any
case. As the term suggests, "RAW" means "unprocessed". You may
(likely) want to make adjustments to the image prior to committing the
job in TIFF or JPG.


When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These

TIFF can conserve detail better than JPG. JPG immediately truncates
(re-scales and truncates) each image pixel from 12 bits to 8 bits and
that is just the beginning of the evil it does... Having said that, once
a 10/10 JPG gets to the printer, a print cannot even bring out the full
depth of the JPG.

are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

B&W in JPG is fine. Keep the RAW (which may be converted to the
'universal' DNG (Adobe)) for long term storage. Or for processed
images, best keep them in TIFF for full depth.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Susan P" wrote in message
...
I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use a
very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are fantastic,
I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging extra.
Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig

Alan Browne wrote:

Susan P wrote:


QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?


Usually. However for many prints, good quality "home" printers,
properly used will give results that are indistinguishable (and often
better) than most prints from many 1-hour photo services.

I meant to add: "however, the inks used on various printers have
differing life on paper. Some may fade earlier than others."

"Craig Marston" wrote in message
...
"Susan P" wrote in message
...
I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use
a
very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are
fantastic,
I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging
extra.
Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
about this?

Susan P wrote:

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

Your photographer should be answering all these questions for you. If he
isn't, then hire another photographer.

You want TIFFs, which are lossless. JPEG is good, too, more than likely.
You might as well get the RAW files, as well, just to have them. CDs are
cheap.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:23:53 +0100, "Craig Marston"
wrote:

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging extra.
Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

NB Don't try Colab, they're currently in administration and looking
for a buyer.

--

Hecate - The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

Dirty Harry wrote:

"Craig Marston" wrote in message
...

"Susan P" wrote in message
...

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use

a

very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are

fantastic,

I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging

extra.

Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig


Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
about this?



A quote from one recent review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...00/page_14.htm

"As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800"

That review is for an A3 inkjet printer that costs a bit over US $500 -
not a professional level expensive machine. Similar quality results are
available from similarly priced printers from Canon and HP. Epson
probably has the edge on quality and print longevity. If A4 is big
enough, then an Epson R800 costs about 40% less.

It is not comparing the results to a "one hour photo lab", but to
skilled, painstaking wet process printing.

Where I live, the cost of consumables per A3 print from that printer is
about 1/3 of the cost per "one-off" print from a lab, and about half the
cost per "one-off" A4 sized print. A lab is probably cheaper for small
prints, and about the same for multiple large prints - once you
negotiate a discount.

You can factor in the capital cost of the printer to make it appear less
attractive compared to a photo lab, but it is hard to quantify the
inconvenience of dealing with a lab versus the convenience of printing
at home.

If the prints from that epson printer last only 1/4 as long as they are
claimed when displayed, then they will still last twice as long as some
wet process prints that I have had done in the past.

There are issues relating to print head clogging, particularly if the
printer isn't used regularly, or is switched off from the wall plug.
There is probably little - or much less - point printing at home unless
you want larger prints, are reasonably computer literate, and have
either good digital camera equipment or can get good quality scans from
film, and will use the printer regularly.

Dirty Harry wrote:

"Craig Marston" wrote in message
...

"Susan P" wrote in message
...

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use

a

very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are

fantastic,

I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging

extra.

Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig


Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
about this?



A quote from one recent review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...00/page_14.htm

"As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800"

That review is for an A3 inkjet printer that costs a bit over US $500 -
not a professional level expensive machine. Similar quality results are
available from similarly priced printers from Canon and HP. Epson
probably has the edge on quality and print longevity. If A4 is big
enough, then an Epson R800 costs about 40% less.

It is not comparing the results to a "one hour photo lab", but to
skilled, painstaking wet process printing.

Where I live, the cost of consumables per A3 print from that printer is
about 1/3 of the cost per "one-off" print from a lab, and about half the
cost per "one-off" A4 sized print. A lab is probably cheaper for small
prints, and about the same for multiple large prints - once you
negotiate a discount.

You can factor in the capital cost of the printer to make it appear less
attractive compared to a photo lab, but it is hard to quantify the
inconvenience of dealing with a lab versus the convenience of printing
at home.

If the prints from that epson printer last only 1/4 as long as they are
claimed when displayed, then they will still last twice as long as some
wet process prints that I have had done in the past.

There are issues relating to print head clogging, particularly if the
printer isn't used regularly, or is switched off from the wall plug.
There is probably little - or much less - point printing at home unless
you want larger prints, are reasonably computer literate, and have
either good digital camera equipment or can get good quality scans from
film, and will use the printer regularly.



I've seen great prints from a Durst Lambda printer, they were taken on a
Nikon D100 and were printed to A2 from the Jpeg file, the printer has built
in interpolation software that does a great job. The print was about £30

In article ,
Susan P wrote:

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

The answer is "it depends."

Some "printing companies" use ordinary inkjet printers of the kind you
can walk into a Circuit City and buy yourself. Some use more expensive
inkjet printers (high-end inkjets can run many thousands of dollars).
They are still computer inkjet prints, not photographic prints.

Does that make them worse? Again, it depends. Color photographs are easy
to make from computer files, but most color photographs don't really
last very long. An archival inkjet print may last longer than an
ordinary consumer photograph.

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

Photoshop can read RAW files; so can the stand-alone software you can
download from the Nikon Web site.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

No, no, no.

JPEG degrades the quality of the picture. It does this to make the file
smaller on disk. JPEG is only intended for situations where file size is
critical and image quality is not important. That's why it is used on
the Web--file size is more important than image quality on the Web,
because big files take a long time to download.

TIFF files are bigger, because they do not degrade the quality of the
image.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html