more-or-less

I have been shooting with a Nikon 850 for a little over a year now. I have a couple of lingering questions I have not been able to resolve for myself.
First, I have been shooting raw + jpeg. My jpeg’s are about 31megs and raw files are about 93megs. After processing my raw files with ACR & PS and saving them as Tiff files they are about 268megs. I would expect that I would be able to see a pretty big difference in the print quality/detail between the jpeg & the tiff 24x36 prints. Both scaled to 300 dpi before printing. It seems to me that with all the additional information in the tiff file it should be obvious the differences in the two prints. I am very hard pressed to see much of any difference. In fact, the sharpness in the jpeg seems to be better than the tiff. That may be that I just haven’t mastered the art of editing for sharpness and noise reduction as well as the in camera jpeg’s.

Shouldn’t I expect to see a much better detail in the image given the difference in the file size 31meg vs 268meg?
The only advantage I see in shooting in raw is the flexibility to bring out more detail in the over and/or under exposed areas of the photo.

What am I missing?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The several responses in this thread should help: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-566983-1.html

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

There are a lot of misconceptions and biases around JPEGs. A JPEG image has almost exactly the same number of picture elements as a raw or TIFF version of the same image. Any slight difference comes from the way the JPEG algorithm "blocks" pixels when compressing and storing the image. The significant difference is in the intensity depth of each pixel...8 bits versus 12, 14, or 16. But since most printers can't resolve much more than 8 bits of depth, and since most paper is not really white, it is not surprising that there might not be much visible difference. Also...when presented with a pixel that the printer does not have the ability to print correctly, it is possible to get a pixel that does not look "good" against its neighbors. So it is not unexpected that there might be cases in which a JPEG image looks subjectively better.

more-or-less

Thanks for the input.
If you are trying to sell high quality large prints does it make sense to continue to shoot raw given the PP time required and the size/space it takes up?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

If you are planning to do significant post processing, it makes sense to expose and work in raw or TIFF. The reason is that the "deeper" files give you more space in each byte to move things around without pushing them out beyond the range of the 8 bits available. It is also true that some data can be lost each time the file is compressed for saving. Data loss can be managed and limited by using the "Large"file size parameter, which uses a less severe compression algorithm and loses significantly less data. If you print your images as exposed, this is generally much less of an issue, because you are not repeatedly saving your fileand degrading your image.

Just as a matter of full disclosure, I was for years a non-editing JPEG guy. I now shoot in raw and plan to do some post processing, generally in LightRoom. My old images are in no way garbage, but my newer ones are better. I still use camera controls to give myself the best possible starting point, which significantly reduces the amount of work and time required in post processing.

BebuLamar

I don't expect to see any difference in prints between a TIFF and a JPEG. Printers can't make use of 16 bit from a 16 bit TIFF file. The JPEG compression throw away details that can not be reproduced in a print. The TIFF would be advantages if you edit the image and try to bring out details in the shadow.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Just the larger size of a file does not mean it has to be a higher quality file, it could go the other way as well, a small, but well processed image will always be higher quality, than a large, but not well processed image. To that you have to add, that there is a lot more to printing, than just to push a button. To print a good print does involve a bit of work! That is probably the main issue!

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

You can recreate a jpg from a raw file as many times as you like, but you cannot reproduce the original raw file from a jpg because jpg is not a lossless compression algorithm. Sometimes, you can get close, but it depends on the settings that were used to make the jpg. The quality level of the compressed file also depends a lot on how much content was in the original image. I can compress a D850 45 megapixel image to just a couple of bytes if the image is something like an 18% gray card because all the compressed file has to say is 45 mega pixels of the 18% gray value. On the other hand, if the image is busy (high frequencies), data will be lost during compression and you will not be able to get back to the original. This matters in post processing. You can do more with the raw pixels that came from the camera's sensors as opposed to the color corrected, sharpened, and compressed jpg that your camera gives you. If you don't do much in PP, say, except for cropping, it won't matter to you.

more-or-less

What should I be looking for when printing?

more-or-less

What should I focusing on when looking for high quality prints?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I also shoot a D850 for the last 15 months, and I have all but quit shooting RAW with it. The in-camera processing is SO GOOD that I can see no room for improvement by PP'ing them and spending all that unnecessary time at the computer. I am a photographer, not an editor. The JPG processing capability in the D850 is totally controllable by the user and can be fully adjusted to yield the same results that you get with PP software short of cloning out unwanted elements in an image.
Check this post for examples:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-567042-1.html

(One of these I have printed at 4'x6' and its sharp enough to undergo extremely close up scrutiny!)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I am so glad for this thread and that you are speaking up about this in a rational manner !! MANY of the newer cameras are as capable as the 850 IMO. The NEED for reality based photographers to shoot raw diminishes with each passing day due to sensor and software technology advances. As mentioned above, the human eye as well as most imageing media are MOSTLY unable to see or reproduce the "detail" that raw is promised to produce !

..

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Is there a need to shoot in both Jpeg and Raw? It appears Raw is the vanguard. Why use something less than??

ELNikkor

Wow, 93mb for 1 RAW photo from the camera? And I thought my D750 was over-achieving when it put out 34mb when it was rated 24mb! And after processing, 268 mb for 1 image?!? = 4 images to a GB? Who needs that, and how often?

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

That says a lot, from a very credible source.
Wow!