No, convert it quick and easy now. When your skills improve, convert it again to get that masterpiece look.
Or.. you mean you don't keep the raw files?
Minimum Resolution for 10R digital prints?
- Thread starter eug
- Start date
- Status
Or.. you mean you don't keep the raw files?
I don't shoot in RAW now, only JPEG FINE.
Do intend to start shooting in RAW, since I have got my new 512MB CF card. If I do I will definitely keep the RAW, as that is the real digital negative.
I was only teasing you when you say learn the "RAW" skills later.
I don't see why not.
There are many factors contributing to the quality of a print, and image/print resolution is only part of them.
I believe many has succeeded in making very impressive large prints (8x10 or even larger) from only 2 mega pixel image files.
Unless you are printing something real big (sorry, I am not sure what is the actual size of 10R), or require really fine details to be discernable in the print, I would worry more about other things like image composition, colour management etc before I worry about print resolution if I were you.
Most modern day colour inkjet or professional labs can do a very good job in the print resolution.
Dwelling too deep into image resolution and print size discussions without looking at the actual image is to me a waste of time.
Would you share a little bit about what kind of photo/s you are going to print?
- Roy
If you are referring to the 6MP output of a 602/601, it should be adequate. I've printed excellent 8R group portrait shots from a 602 before using Qimage Pro and a inkjet printer.
Though, it may not fare as well with an architectural/landscape shot with a lot of fine detail, it should still look pretty good. However, I've not tried printing 8R from photo labs before.
I know that ... but I just want to concern myself with the MPs first and if Fuji Super CCD's 6MP (processed) is good then I might want to get Fuji. I like to be have the ability to print at 10R for all purposes, whether commercial, as a hobby or for distinction. I do not want to overspend at the same time.
I see.
My CP995 is 3.1MP (2048 x 1536 pixels). I have generated very good 8X10 inch prints from its photos using my Canon S9000 printer.
Without cropping the print size at 200 ppi is 10.5 inches by 7.7 inches. Basically no observable pixelation to the naked eye at reasonable viewing distances.
The Fuji super CCD's 6MP (processed) image, though may not contain as much details as a real 6MP camera can produce, still should in theory have more details than a normal 3MP CCD.
If you do not doextensive cropping to your images, my feel is that you should be happy with 10R prints from the Fuji camera.
You might want to wait for CS members who have actually used and printed large priunts from the Fuji camera to comment before you make your decision.
- Roy
I've been able to print some good 8R macro shots using my 602z (taken at 6mp/fine) and an epson 830. Haven't really tried architectural shots yet thouh.
I am pretty sure that a 2.1 MP image can print a good Super 8R, and 3.2 MP probably 10R. If we crop the Fuji's 6MP (Processed) to 2.1MP size will we get a good Super 8R?
Hi guys,
As a guideline in calculating printable size,
First, understand what pixels per side the camera is producing. Example: 3008 X 2000 pixels.
Then understand what resolution is required of the printing device. 300dpi? 240dpi? 200dpi? 170dpi? Dpi for deskjet and ppi for laser photo printer.
In this case, if Fuji Frontier requires 200 ppi to print, then take
3008 pixels divide by 200ppi and you will get 15".
2000 pixels divide by 200ppi and you will get 10".
Translated, a six megapixel camera will produce a sharp 10" X 15"
print. (Technically speaking)
I had sent files from my 6mp camera for printing up to 20" x 30" and still get tack sharp images. How? I either use Photoshop to interpolate the file, or I leave it to the Cheetah ripping server of the Durst Lambda Pro 130 digital enlarger to do the job. Both gets things done well.
As a guide, files from digital cameras will withstand a 200% to 300% interpolation (up-sizing).
Andy Ho
As a guideline in calculating printable size,
First, understand what pixels per side the camera is producing. Example: 3008 X 2000 pixels.
Then understand what resolution is required of the printing device. 300dpi? 240dpi? 200dpi? 170dpi? Dpi for deskjet and ppi for laser photo printer.
In this case, if Fuji Frontier requires 200 ppi to print, then take
3008 pixels divide by 200ppi and you will get 15".
2000 pixels divide by 200ppi and you will get 10".
Translated, a six megapixel camera will produce a sharp 10" X 15"
print. (Technically speaking)
I had sent files from my 6mp camera for printing up to 20" x 30" and still get tack sharp images. How? I either use Photoshop to interpolate the file, or I leave it to the Cheetah ripping server of the Durst Lambda Pro 130 digital enlarger to do the job. Both gets things done well.
As a guide, files from digital cameras will withstand a 200% to 300% interpolation (up-sizing).
Andy Ho
20 x 30? That's real big. Only tried up to 12 x 18 so far using medium fine on my 6mp cam, that should be about 4mp then, looks pretty good.
K
Kiwi
Guest
Originally posted by roygoh
Without the necessary skills to process RAW and converting it to a generic readable form like JPEG, then there is no picture!
Sorry, I know this is slightly off the main topic but since it has been brought up, I would like to ask a question.
What do you all mean by "having the skills" to process RAW images? You mean it's not as easy as using the software that comes with the camera?
I'm using a D30 with the provided RAW image converter to convert my files from RAW to TIFF. After I process my images, then I'll save as JPEG. All along, I've been given the impression that RAW files are THE ultimate "digital negatives" and you always fall back on them. JPG is lossy.
Also images shot in RAW gives you more leeway in adjusting your curves, colour etc in Photoshop. I notice that RAW images are softer but that gives me greater control over the sharpening process. In JPG, images are noticeably sharper.
Please fill me in on this. Pardon me for any ignorance. Thanks!!!:embrass:
Andy is right IMHO. I occasionally send my shots for printing on Lambdas too. The largests I've ever gone is a 40"x70" print (that's the max size Lambda can print). .... Okay, I actually made a composite of 3-4 of my shots via PS, but it came out very good.
I've been using a 4MP Coolpix 4500 for 8 months now, and a 950 before that. Mostly I print 4R for my own keeping, with 1-out-of-30 printed in S8R. Once in a blue moon I'll go print a super-large one on Lambda, usually at my frens' requests.
BTW, here are the sizes, in case anyone's curious...
5"x3.5" - 3R
6"x4" - 4R
5"x7" - 5R
6"x8" - 6R
8"x10" - 8R
8"x12" - Super8R
10"x12" - 10R
10"x15" - Super10R
12"x18" - 12R
anything larger... Rrrrr I dunno...
Hope this helps.
I've been using a 4MP Coolpix 4500 for 8 months now, and a 950 before that. Mostly I print 4R for my own keeping, with 1-out-of-30 printed in S8R. Once in a blue moon I'll go print a super-large one on Lambda, usually at my frens' requests.
BTW, here are the sizes, in case anyone's curious...
5"x3.5" - 3R
6"x4" - 4R
5"x7" - 5R
6"x8" - 6R
8"x10" - 8R
8"x12" - Super8R
10"x12" - 10R
10"x15" - Super10R
12"x18" - 12R
anything larger... Rrrrr I dunno...
Hope this helps.
I don't understanding why people are having so much problems working with RAW files? Is it that hard to master? I have not been guided nor trained by anyone on how to process a RAW file, everything is just very intuitive if you use the original software provided by the camera manufacturer. Do you know that there are more benefits shooting with RAW files?
I am using Nikon D100 and I shoot with RAW file since day one. When you explore around, you will realise that all jpeg and tiff files are only available in 8 bit colour format whereas with RAW files there is the option of saving a file in 16 bit colour format. What's the difference?
1) In an 8 bit file, your colour is sort of fixed at 256 different tones per Red, Green, and Blue channel (it is the standard setting that Photoshop fully supports). In a 16 bit file, the colour tonality doubles. Everytime you darken the image, the lighter part looses details. When you brighten it, the darker part looses details too. When you keep doing that, you realise that posterization and bending lines tend to develop. With a 16 bit file, you have that "extra" information to play with in colour and density correction before actually converting it to an 8 bit file for either printing or doing layout. As I say, a jpeg and tiff file will only provide you with an 8 bit file, why risk destroying a well taken image?
2) Contrary to many believes, a RAW file occupies much lesser space as compared to Tiff files. My D100's RAW NEF files allows me 107 shots on a 1GB card while on Tiff I can only achieve 50 plus shots. On Jpeg Fine mode I get an equivalent of 31_? plus frames. Reason why I say 50 plus and 31_? plus is because I can't recall exactly how many frames since I seldom shoot in these formats and my memory card still contains pictures not transferred to computer. So, I can't check it to verify the allowed frame number.
3) Though many say that you can hardly tell the difference on prints between jpeg fine mode and RAW, I beg to differ. On small prints, you may not see the difference but on big prints, the jpeg fine prints will exhibit a little bit more noise on the colour channel as compared to RAW. Get this into our heads, jpeg whether basic, or fine mode is and will be a file with LOSSY compression capabilities. The name already implies that you will loose a little in terms of quality due to compression factor when saving the file.
4) On digital cameras, there is no such thing as 100% colour and exposure accuracy on every shot you take. My D100 tend to underexpose to retain hi-light details (a good thing) but on RAW I have a lot of control over processing of the image without lost in quality. With a jpeg file, the shadow details will clot up when you try to brighten an overly underexposed image.
5) I too realised the camera's ability to represent graduation tone much better on RAW files than jpeg.
For those of you who does not have an option for RAW and is still shooting on Jpeg, here is my advice for you. After transferring the image to computer, re-save as a Tiff file to prevent further degradation before you burn it onto CD-Rom for archive because everytime you re-save a jpeg file the compression factor will "destroy" and render some information unretrievable.
Regards,
Andy Ho
I am using Nikon D100 and I shoot with RAW file since day one. When you explore around, you will realise that all jpeg and tiff files are only available in 8 bit colour format whereas with RAW files there is the option of saving a file in 16 bit colour format. What's the difference?
1) In an 8 bit file, your colour is sort of fixed at 256 different tones per Red, Green, and Blue channel (it is the standard setting that Photoshop fully supports). In a 16 bit file, the colour tonality doubles. Everytime you darken the image, the lighter part looses details. When you brighten it, the darker part looses details too. When you keep doing that, you realise that posterization and bending lines tend to develop. With a 16 bit file, you have that "extra" information to play with in colour and density correction before actually converting it to an 8 bit file for either printing or doing layout. As I say, a jpeg and tiff file will only provide you with an 8 bit file, why risk destroying a well taken image?
2) Contrary to many believes, a RAW file occupies much lesser space as compared to Tiff files. My D100's RAW NEF files allows me 107 shots on a 1GB card while on Tiff I can only achieve 50 plus shots. On Jpeg Fine mode I get an equivalent of 31_? plus frames. Reason why I say 50 plus and 31_? plus is because I can't recall exactly how many frames since I seldom shoot in these formats and my memory card still contains pictures not transferred to computer. So, I can't check it to verify the allowed frame number.
3) Though many say that you can hardly tell the difference on prints between jpeg fine mode and RAW, I beg to differ. On small prints, you may not see the difference but on big prints, the jpeg fine prints will exhibit a little bit more noise on the colour channel as compared to RAW. Get this into our heads, jpeg whether basic, or fine mode is and will be a file with LOSSY compression capabilities. The name already implies that you will loose a little in terms of quality due to compression factor when saving the file.
4) On digital cameras, there is no such thing as 100% colour and exposure accuracy on every shot you take. My D100 tend to underexpose to retain hi-light details (a good thing) but on RAW I have a lot of control over processing of the image without lost in quality. With a jpeg file, the shadow details will clot up when you try to brighten an overly underexposed image.
5) I too realised the camera's ability to represent graduation tone much better on RAW files than jpeg.
For those of you who does not have an option for RAW and is still shooting on Jpeg, here is my advice for you. After transferring the image to computer, re-save as a Tiff file to prevent further degradation before you burn it onto CD-Rom for archive because everytime you re-save a jpeg file the compression factor will "destroy" and render some information unretrievable.
Regards,
Andy Ho
Thanks. But just a little mistake. Lambda is capable of printing a print at 50" width to any length you want. The roll paper max out at 50 metres. There are many models of Lambda digital printing machines. Papers are fed on turrets for printing. The Lambda 130 Pro is capable of handling 5 turrets of worth of paper material ranging from gloss and matte photographic paper, to duraclear and duratrans for lightbox displays like what you see in the MRT stations or cosmetics counters in shopping centres.
Conventional Durst Lambda enlargers RIPs files one at a time (converting original files to one language the printing machine can understand). But with Cheetah RIP server installed, you can throw many files at it and it will still get the job done simultaneously.
Lambda prints at 200 ppi but with an upgrade package, you have the option of choosing 200 or 400 ppi. The software that comes with the RIP server gives the printing machine the capabilities to interpolate the file size before printing. I can throw it a 200 ppi file but I can set the printer to print at 400 ppi and it will automatically interpolate the file to produce the required resolution for a sharp image. Technically speaking, 200 ppi is more than enough for a sharp prints but if you have a file with plenty of fine texts then 400 ppi will reproduce the texts better.
For Fuji Frontier, the paper size begins with 3R (3.5" X 5") and ends with Super 10R (10" X 15").
For Kodak Noritsu, paper size begins with 3R (3.5" X 5") and ends with Super 12R (12" X 18").
Andy Ho
:thumbsup:
Hi, Andy,
My you are very familiar with the Lambda! Where do you normally send your prints? I seldom print on Lambda (despite the quality and size) due to cost. How much do you pay for yours? If I can find a good price I might go to that printer.
Thanks.
Hi, Andy,
My you are very familiar with the Lambda! Where do you normally send your prints? I seldom print on Lambda (despite the quality and size) due to cost. How much do you pay for yours? If I can find a good price I might go to that printer.
Thanks.
Not sure about Canon, but the D100 can do both TIFF and RAW. Pointless to shoot TIFF - if you want highest quality, shoot RAW.
Regards
CK
K
Kiwi
Guest
Thanks Andy for your very clear explanation on RAW files. Wow, you are very experienced in this area.
Like you, I never touch those jpg modes for my important shots. I was puzzled for a moment when some here said you need "special skills" to deal with RAW files or that they are an overkill.
btw, if we convert RAW files to TIFF using 16-bit, do you know why a number of features in Photoshop are not available?
Also, for my D30's software, in the RAW image processing settings menu, there are options to turn on/off "linear" mode and false color filter (turned on by default). Do you know what that means? I could not find any explanation on them so far even in the software.
Thanks so much!
Like you, I never touch those jpg modes for my important shots. I was puzzled for a moment when some here said you need "special skills" to deal with RAW files or that they are an overkill.
btw, if we convert RAW files to TIFF using 16-bit, do you know why a number of features in Photoshop are not available?
Also, for my D30's software, in the RAW image processing settings menu, there are options to turn on/off "linear" mode and false color filter (turned on by default). Do you know what that means? I could not find any explanation on them so far even in the software.
Thanks so much!
What I meant by needing "special skills" is that you generally don't gain the maximum benefit of shooting RAW if you simply do a straight/batch convert of the RAW files to JPEG/TIFF.
A number of PS functions work only on 8-bit files. Dunno why also.
Regards
CK
- Status
Similar threads
