abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I am very satisfied with Costco. If you are not happy, they will reprint it free. I cannot imagine any doing better but I would sure be glad to hear from others.

As a result, I stopped printing my own because Costco is cheaper, better and faster. This was quite a decision for me to make because I had been printing all my photos since 1959 but I like to think I know a better thing when I see it. Or bump into it.

Sirpixxalot Loc: NNJ

Shooting in raw does not mean a better photo however raw hold more details then jpeg which you can tweaked in post processing the way you like. If you set your camera setting to "fine" jpeg and large you will be fine. Also what software do you use to crop the image? If you are using PS then go in to prefrences and set printing option at 300 dpi or higher i also recommend to crop the image to the print size to hold maximum dpi. It seems that your problem is dpi not the camera. These are my 2 cents.

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

Whoa! There is a lot going on here. Let me try to summarize. If you shoot RAW you are turning off all your in-camera processing. Settings you might have made, such as saturation, sharpness etc are disabled. The camera records only what the sensor sees, and in full detail, as a raw file, which will be 3-4 times the size of a max resolution JPEG. I rarely shoot RAW because the file size slows the camera way down, and most of the time I can create what I need with JPEG. After you download the RAW file to your PC you will have to open it in a RAW processor. Elements and other editing programs have one built in, or you can use the one that came with your camera. In the RAW file you will be able to customize the operations the camera did not perform when recording the RAW image. RAW processors have limited editing capabilities, so if you need additional editing you will have to convert the raw file to JPEG. I use Sam's club processing, and after all my editing, download the full size resulting JPEG image. After selecting the print size the Sams' Club interface will let me crop the image to suit the size selected, and tell me if the image detail will be satisfactory. By downloading the full size file I can go back later and reorder different sizes without another download. I'm sure other . printers will do the same, but Sam's is really inexpensive.

hccfred

Most beginners don't understand megapixels. If you take the width of your image size and multiply it by the height say 4000 wide by 3000 high you get 12mp. If for example you set your camera at 640x480 you are shooting at 0.33 mp. You probably couldn't make anything larger than a 4x6 print. I always shoot at the highest resolution possible. You can always make the image smaller with no problem. Also, set your camera to the highest quality available whether it's fine, extra fine. etc.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Jpeg files are not necessarily RGB color space, same with TIFF, it is what you assign them to be. There are various color spaces, sRGB the most common for printing at the Costo's , etc. of the world.

You can assign a color space within the camera it's self, or assign it in the software your using, especially when shooting RAW.

A commerical digital lab can print in RGB if you request.
CYMK is done in print shops, which are not the same as a commerical digital lab. Think magazine.

Color space does not effect print size, it will create issues with what you see on your monitor vs the print.

Checking the file size will aid in deciding just how large it can be printed. As an example a file size that is 5000x6000 pixels will easily make a 16x20 print. One divides the file size by 200 to get an ok photo , 300 to get a higher quaility print.

There are software programs that can take a small file size and increase the opportunity to make a larger print but there are limits before the file falls apart.

altonsullivent Loc: Maryville Tennessee

I met an amazing photographer who never does post processing. He doesn't know how to. Hence, he always shoots JPG. His photos are always tack sharp and the color is perfect. Then there are those like me who gets lucky every now and then.

Even my sharpest photos I try see if I can sharpen them up in LR or Photoshop. I can "enlarge" them a little (10%) in PS if needed. I shoot Large Fine Raw. That is one decision that may be one of my best.

With every new version of LR or PS new solutions for improving photos emerge. I'm now reworking some of my 300D and 20D photos from a few years back with pleasing results, including improved noise reduction and sharpening ability.

Shooting raw gives you back every detail of the initial shot including the ability to change exposure settings. It takes more storage, especially if you shoot Raw+ JPG. Just buy a Drobo or similar inexpensive storage device. Sooner or later you will need that anyway.

gessman Loc: Colorado

On of the most knowledgeable people to frequent this forum since my arrival here, Bob Mielke, uses Costco for his printing and that's all the recommendation I need to use that service. There are other recommended services but I have a Costco within minutes of me, so...

RowdyBlue

I don't shoot in RAW but I do shoot in the highest quality next to RAW. I had a photo enlarged to 16x20 and it looks more like a painting. It still looked good, but it's not sharp. Another thing I've noticed, when I load my pics to the computer and look at them, they are all different resolutions. Can anyone tell me why? (I have a Canon Rebel T2i)

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

Don't have enough information to provide a specific answer, but here are three possibilities. If your camera is 5 megapixels or less, and conditions were not perfect (for example, too dark and your lens would be forced wide open, never a good thing) 16x20 would be pushing the upper limit. Or, if you cropped your file significantly, and still tried to print a 16x20 you might not get a good result even with a high megapixel camera. Finally, maybe it just was not focused as well as it could have been, or the camera or subject moved. Post a sample or the original if you can and we can take a look.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Always shoot in raw.

Photo-Al Loc: Sonoma County, CA

New at TIFF, etc. Normally I shoot and save in highest JPEG. I saved a shot in TIFF and the photo turned out to be 39MB in size. That would be a huge file to send to a lab via email for printing, no? The JPEG max quality was around 7 MB. I understand the degradation of JPEG files as they are continually reopened, but not sure I understand how quickly that degradation would actually be noticeable to anyone????

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

You're getting a lot of good advice here, and some that is not so good. Trouble is, you can't always tell what is the good advice, and what is the not so good, if you're new at the game.

1) You do NOT need to shoot in RAW to make 'big' prints. RAW is a format, not a size. RAW simply means the camera does not do any processing of the image, and YOU do - afterwards, in Photoshop or whatever.

2) To make a LARGE print, use your camera's LARGE(est) size. Simple as that. The bigger the file size, the bigger the print you can make without losing image quality, and without having to do a lot of stupid post-processing gimmickry to get the image big enough to print without losing detail.

I get the impression from your post that you are not an experienced post-processing Photoshop user or someone like that. And that's fine. Just don't get caught up in all the mumbo jumbo about color space, CYMK, RGB and all that nonsense. Doesn't have a thing to do with enlarging your photos to print bigger sizes. Don't pay any attention to people who say "always shoot in raw" - completely unnecessary if you do not want to spend hours jacking around with your pictures after you take them.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

TIFF is completely unnecessary unless you're sending the image to a printing shop that needs that type of file.

A JPG image will loose some quality every time it is OPENED, EDITED and re-saved.

The amount of quality loss varies with the original size and color density. You start with more, it takes longer to get a noticeable degradation in quality. You start with small, it doesn't take long for it to be noticeably degraded.

I've seen tests done where no NOTICEABLE change was detected until 20 to 25 edits.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

If you have nothing to do but sit in front of a computer and edit then go ahead and shoot in raw. I'll go the opposite route of an above poster and say I never shoot in raw. I say this after reading a thread about 15 minutes ago about people who want to try and learn Photoshop. 2-3 pages of mixed messages, people who have not even learned basic PS and are still trying ways to figure out ways to take better photos via the computer. If you set your camera on "Large Format", "Fine", and use jpg you should have no problems with photos of at least 20x30. You can do any minor touchups with a program as simple as Picassa 3 plus you won't have photos that look like paintings or comic book pages. Some folks use PS over the top and their photos no longer look like photos and then there are those who use a minimum of PP and still maintain a beautiful photo. Bottom line with the camera you have you should be able to make decent enlargements by just having the right settings on your camera---that's what you need to check and then of course there is the main ingredient--YOU as the picture maker......

RowdyBlue

Maybe I need to read my camera manual some more. I usually have my camera set on "Landscape" most of the time or "Standard". So for more quaility enlargement, set it to "Fine". Thanks coco1964.



:-) :D