SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

Recently, I sent two photos to a professional photo lab to have canvas prints done. This very well known and respected lab was to do some color work to balance colors in my two sent photos. I sent them edited niff photos. After receiving these photos they requested that I send them nef photos since the edited niff photos were "soft". After receiving my nef photos they requested that I either send them jpeg or pnd files which I did.
Finally, after all these different formats were sent they informed me that the best that they can do with these two photos was produce soft pixelated photos. I informed them to credit my account and charge me only for their time and effort to this point and do not continue with the originally ordered canvas prints.

For my next submittal photos they requested that I send them only unedited original raw nef prints so that they can perform their work. This is a very respected lab located on the west coast.

In working with professional labs is it your experience to send unedited photos and allow them to perform their work? I would appreciate your thoughts and experiences.

Leitz Loc: Solms

I always send digital files, never sent a photo to have a photo made.
Edit: Unless it was to have a different size photo made, or duplicates.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

SteveLew,

This is where photographers come into conflict with each other, the difference between resolution values, for screen (monitor) and (printer).
The photo lab where you sent your image files should have stated the minimum resolution of each image file you needed for printing a fine art photograph. They normally either set a standard in DPI (Dots Per Inch), or PPI (Pixels Per Inch, or the minimum pixel dimensions for the selected printing size for inches (6000px x 4000px).

Go back to the image files you sent to the printer with your image editing software and look at the pixel dimensions and resolution values of those files, they should match, or exceed the requirements of the printer. Example: 11 x 14 inch would print nicely at 300dpi (PPI), or 4200 x 3300 pixels).

Michael G

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Steve,

Your description above is a little confusing but I'm going to assume that when you say you sent them "two photos" that you actually sent them two image files (edited niff???). I've never heard of niff. I have heard of tiff. I'm also going to guess or assume a few other conclusions according to your written narrative of events, and that is that the lab says that the "best that they can do with these two photos was produce soft pixelated photos" and this is probably because you send them edited files that were cropped and had too few pixels and not enough data to make the size canvas print you expected. As someone else has already pointed out, you need a certain number of pixels to create large prints. If you crop, or use less that the best image settings in camera, you may not have enough information for large prints. In other words, if you set your camera to make medium sized jpg's, you simply can't expect a 20x30 canvas print. You absolutely need your camera to be set for the largest and best jpg or raw setting you can get for large prints.

The reason the lab has requested that you send unedited raw files next time is because they know how to effectively enlarge a cropped area of file and achieve a large print even if the area being cropped it quite small. I think they are being professional, and I hope that we have explained this enough for you to know what to do and why this is happening next time you encounter this problem.

Ted Liette Loc: Greenville, Ohio

I always send edited files to outside companies like this but I always send a jpeg file and I never had a problems. I always use CG Pro Prints for my canvas prints and I've always gotten great results. Maybe I've just gotten lucky? Here is the website: http://www.cgproprints.com/

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I always ask what the min - max resolution they will print and convert to a JPG file for printing. What Lab and what were their requirements?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This should have all the information you need to have them print exactly what you want.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

I would seriously question any lab that would not accept your edit raw files, converted to high quality jpegs, according to the suggested resolutions in the provided link.

For example, you can get a perfectly sharp 20x30 from an image that is 1920x1280 (2.5 mp), if you accept the standard viewing distance of 4-1/2 ft. If you think the images would be viewed closer, then you would need to bump the resolution up a bit. So if you expect the loupe crowd to show up, looking at your print at a distance of 2 ft, then you'll need 4680x3120 (14.5 mp).

When I owned a 6mp Nikon D70, I routinely printed images as large as 40x60 and sold them in galleries and art shows, and no one was complaining about loss of fine detail, sharpness or pixelation.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

How are you sending these files? Some e-mail programs will default to a lower resolution file unless you specify otherwise. The lab might be thinking that you downsized the file after editing. Could that be your problem?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Steve, I ran the digital side of a pro lab for five years, so I think I can help you.

Most pro labs want JPEG files in sRGB color space. They want you to save the LARGEST POSSIBLE files that your camera can produce. You can use JPEG capture at the camera and set exposure, white balance, and every other file parameter menu correctly for the look you want, OR you can use raw capture and post-processing that yields an sRGB JPEG.

Never down-size a file unless you are sizing it for the actual print dimensions (in pixels) for the largest size print that the lab will send to their printer. The usual minimum resolution is 240 pixels per inch of finished print surface, up to around 11x14 inches, and it goes DOWN from there. Very large prints can be made at 180 PPI or even less, because usually they are viewed from a greater distance. You can resize images in software to enlarge them. The more pixels you start with, the larger you can go... So start with everything your camera can record, and compose tightly in the viewfinder, rather than cropping on the computer.

SOME pro labs will let you submit files in Adobe RGB color space, but unless you have a monitor that lets you view 100% of the colors in Adobe RGB, I would avoid using it. Most monitors are capable of displaying 100% of the colors in sRGB. Silver halide photo paper used by most pro labs cannot display all the colors in sRGB, and sRGB cannot contain some of the colors that can be reproduced on photo paper. Adobe RGB does not contain many more colors that can be printed on silver halide papers.

High-end service bureaus CAN take advantage of Adobe RGB color space, however, IF they are using high-end Epson or Canon ink-jet printers. Those printers have lots of inks that can cover a MUCH wider gamut of colors than traditional (process RA-4) silver halide photo paper can record.

CALIBRATE your monitor using a good colorimeter-and-software package from DataColor or X-RITE. Adjusting color on an uncalibrated (or "eyeball" calibrated) monitor is a foolish waste of time, money, paper, chemistry, or ink. It just makes everyone frustrated, too — most of all, you, when the lab cannot deliver what you want because it's not really in the file! Unless your monitor is calibrated to an international standard, you cannot see what is really recorded in the file.

Get the lab's printer profiles and install them on your system. This lets you enable Soft Proofing in Photoshop or Lightroom or Capture NX2, or whatever you use for post-processing. It lets you simulate, on your CALIBRATED monitor, what you will see on prints from the lab.

Most photo labs DO NOT like to work with raw files. Most won't even accept them. There are too many different, proprietary raw formats... The lab does not know what "look" you wanted. They expect you to adjust your own images, on a calibrated monitor, and send them files that reproduce properly. That is why it is SO CRITICAL to have a decent monitor and calibrate it regularly, and to use the lab's paper/printer profiles for soft proofing.

By the way, 'niff' is not a format. TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) has about 49 different varieties.

Call your lab and have a long conversation with them about what to submit. I think you'll find they are eager to help you get what you want.

If you were sending me a file for a 24x36 inch canvas print, here is what I'd want:

Pixel Dimensions of *at least* 4320x6480; JPEG in sRGB converted from raw, OR an uncompressed 16-bit TIFF, in PC-Byte Order, converted from raw. Files color-adjusted while soft-proofing using the lab's Epson printer profile for the canvas of your choice... Note that I said nothing about *file* SIZE, which is unimportant. The size of the image in pixels is very important.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The majority of labs... pro or otherwise... want 8 bit JPEGs for printing. Many labs will not accept anything else for printing.

Only a few will accept any form of proprietary RAW (such as Nikon NEF). A few more might accepts DNG, which are a slightly more universal type of RAW (free converter available from Adobe).

"NIFF" is a music file format. I suspect you mean TIFF, which is fairly widely used 16 bit image file format. It is useful to edit images in this format, with the additional bit depth. But only pro labs are likely to be able to work with it. PSD is similar 16 bit, but a proprietary Adobe file format (Photoshop, etc.) that may or may not be workable with other software.

"PND" is a file format associated with some pension system, has nothing what-so-ever to do with images. Maybe you meant PNG? That's another 8 bit image file, fairly common though not as ubiquitous as JPEG. For image editing or priinting purposes there's almost no advantage to using PNG instead of JPEG.... any software that can save a file as PNG can certainly also save it as a JPEG. So I'd recommend JPEG instead.

8 bit (JPEG, PNG) versus 16 bit (TIFF, PSD): 8 bit has approx. 16 million color possibilities. That sounds like an awful lot... until you consider that 16 bit has 231 trillion possible colors!

When working on images... adjusting and retouching them in various ways... better results can be expected if they are "worked" in 16 bit mode. But, for many (most?) printing processes, an uncompressed, high quality 8 bit files is more than adequate, saves a lot of size and space, speeding up processing.

If you shoot RAW with your camera, likely the NEF files are 14 bit... but some Nikon can be set to shoot 12 bit for faster frame rate and to be able to store more images on a memory card. Either of those will be a proprietary NEF file, that requires specialized software to convert to a format that's usable for printing. That software will interpolate either 14 bit or 12 bit files into 16 bit, for post-processing work.

If you set your camera to shoot JPEG instead, while you can convert them to 16 bit format such as TIFF or PSD, there is little reason to do so. Once "reduced" to 8 bit, there is no getting back the data that was "thrown away".

"Soft, pixelated photos" suggests that the files you sent them were far too small... either due to your camera's native resolution or because you reduced the size of your images a lot already, before sending them. Again, a high quality 8 bit JPEG is generally what's wanted for printing, but since they were to do image editing and optimization work prior to the printing, a 16 bit TIFF might be needed in this case. The lab should be able to tell you the exact specifics they need... what color space (Adobe RGB or sRGB), what file type, and what resolution (pixels per inch). Regarding resolutionr, many printing processes can be done with 170 ppi... but a lot of people like to use 240 ppi. More doesn't gain you anything. Personally I use 300 ppi simply because the math is easier. A few printing processes need higher (one I know of uses just over 400 ppi, but it's not commonly used these days).

There are other things that can cause "soft, pixelated photos". For example, some cameras that can be set to shoot smaller size RAW files (primarily to save memory card space or speed up the camera). Some Nikon also can be set to shoot in a crop mode (D7200: 1.3X), which reduces image resolution significantly. Plus, lens quality, use of filters on lenses, shutter speeds and other factors can effect image quality a lot.

FYI, prints on canvas, in particular, typically have a lot of texture that makes them very forgiving of image quality, fine detail and sharpness. In other words, a canvas print usually doesn't need nearly as high quality an image file as, say, one that's being printed high quality, smooth, matte art paper.



To be brutally honest, it sounds as if you are pretty unfamiliar with digital image post-processing and are quite confused. The lab's request to send them the original, unedited NEF files (not "prints") is probably the best idea. Personally I never send unedited, unfinished photos to anyone, ever... including labs for printing. But, I've learned how and am fully set up to do my own image post-processing (as Bill describes above). You appear to have little or no experience at this, which isn't a bad thing. It's just something you haven't needed to be able to do until now. For a couple nice big canvas prints - assuming this is something you only will be doing occasionlly, I don't know that it's practical to get set up with all the computer power, software, calibrated monitor, printer profiles, etc., and then spend a year or two studying and learning how to use it all effectively. So, I'd go with the lab's suggested procedure, since they appear to be set up to handle your NEF files.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Good reply Burk, your knowledge is remarkable. Jpeg forget Raw.

SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

Thanks for your replies. I did sent them highly cropped tiff files that they could not use. I have learned something from all of you. Thanks again and I will get a specific requirement for sending Bay Photo my files next time. Thanks to you all for your prompt replies.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Bay Photo is a good lab. I used to run into their people at Kodak/Bremson Users' Group meetings in Kansas City and Rochester, NY, years ago. They should be able to steer you well.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

For what it's worth, I like to record both at the camera, striving to get great JPEGs most of the time. I have different workflows for both file formats. JPEG is the quick (or proofing) workflow, and raw is reserved for when I need something better or must post-process extensively for some reason. But I never send raw files to labs or service bureaus. They get JPEGs for silver halide prints, and 16-bit TIFFs for the best inkjet output.