more-or-less

I am using a D850 to create raw files of about 93 megs.
After PP I have been saving them as 16 bit Tiff's of about 268 megs for printing. (printing at 300 dpi)
Would I notice any difference in the print if I were to save and print them as jps's instead? (printing at 300 dpi)

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

Although jpeg is a "lossy" compression, the work flow should be to do all your post editing in TIFF or Photoshop format then save the final print edit in jpeg. The image will only loose data when you open it. Even if you opened and saved it several times, odds are you or anyone else would notice the "loss".

I owned a photo lab for almost 20 years and never had any issues printing jpeg files. Also, most printing facilities will not take TIFF files. They are too large to transfer.

more-or-less

Would you ever save the Tiff file or just save as Jpg?

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

You bet you could see a difference! JPGs are compressed files. The compression process discards and combines data reducing both the discrete greyscale steps/detail and the number of discrete colors in the image. Additionally, every time you open, alter and resave a JPG file, it discards additional information so that over time, the maximum quality of your picture degrades.

The TIFF format is uncompressed. That is why it is so much larger than a JPG file. It preserves every greyscale step and every discrete color that your camera captured. It also preserves the metadata including information on every edit you make, which accounts to some extent for the increased file size.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

If you save the Tiff you can go back and edit it in total again - once a jpg is saved you have less ability to alter it.

have fun

more-or-less

thanks

more-or-less

If you save the tiff file is there any need to also save the raw file?

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I process everything as PSD or TIFF, but when I print, I covert to JPG at quality 11 or 12. I guarantee you will not see a difference. Keeping the file as high-bit for processing/retouching is important, but converting to jpg to print will preserve everything.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Generally, I save the TIFF files and only generate JPEGs when I need them - posting to the internet, emailing, or printing. The compression ratio I choose for each JPEG will depend on how I want to use it and what size I need it to be. Often I will then delete the JPEG after use, and retain the TIFF as master file. However, for those who save tens of thousands of images, JPEGs may be more practical for file storage management.

more-or-less

If you keep the tiff would you then delete the raw file as well?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

If you never plan to reprocess them, EVER, then delete.
I've gone back and reprocessed images later after I've learned more and improved the images.
The raw file will have more info to play with than any other file.

Also, if you are replying to a specific post, use the "Quote Reply" option as I have done.
That way we know who you are addressing.

( Take Captain's advice as gospel)

more-or-less

Thanks

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

Please explain printing at 300 dpi.

You are gaining nothing by trying to print tiff files unless two things are true - you are printing 16 bit wide gamut files and your printer or lab is capable of printing these files.

If you are printing images bigger than 24x36 you are getting even less benefit from your D850. At normal viewing distances for larger prints the average human does not have the visual acuity to see a difference.

It's explained here:

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

Besides, if you are printing 24x36 images with your camera, you are resampling/interpolating to get to 300dpi. The resolution of 8256 x 5504 is only good enough to print 18.3"x27.5" at 300 dpi.

I used to print perfectly sharp and crisp 40x60 images from my D70S - which was 6 mp.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Rather than us, talk to your printer. Most will ask for 8 bit JPEGs and there would be no difference in quality printing from a 16 bit TIFF (printing would just be much slower and likely would consume more ink).\

300 ppi also is probably more than necessary... most printers don't need any more than 240 ppi (note: this is NOT dpi).

However, 300 ppi is actually the same resolution I use all the time.... simply because it's easier to calculate sizes. When needed, I can do the math in my head!

You mention dpi or "dots per inch", which is a print/analog term and is different from ppi (pixel per inch, a digital term).

Depending upon the method of printing, dpi varies a lot. "Photo quality inkjets" commonly have 1440 dpi (this figure is derived from 6 color channels, each of which is 240 dpi). Some "coffee table" books might usbe commercially printed at 240 or 300 dpi. Magazines are printed at roughly 170 to 200 dpi. Newspapers are closer to 100 dpi.

When you send an image that's set to 240 ppi (or 300 ppi, or whatever) to a 6-color, photo quality inkjet, it doesn't use all 6 colors all the time... It essentially sprays a "mix" to make the color required for each of your image's individual pixels.

Digital 8 bit color has a palette of 17 million possible hues. The human eye can only distinguish about 16 million distinct colors. So 8 bit color is more than enough for final display purposes.

16 bit color has an exponentially larger palette... over 23 trillion hues, in fact! This is useful when editing images... especially when adjusting color and exposure levels. It helps prevent "banding" and other issues in images. Clients who plan to do additional image editing and printers who will be making separations from images for commercial printing purposes might want 16 bit TIFF files. But when simply making a print from an image, with most processes an 8 bit file is more than enough. (Online display should always be reduced to 8 bit to save space and bandwidth).

So you really should ask your printer if there is any advantage to you sending them 16 bit TIFFs at 300 ppi.

There used to be a Fuji printing process that used something over 400 ppi, but I don't know if that's still in wide use. My printer asks for 240 ppi for smaller images, and says as little as 170 ppi is sufficient for much larger prints, because they are viewed from greater distance. (I still send them 300 ppi images all the time.)

Depending upon the printing process they are using, they will probably tell you to scale those down to 8 bit JPEGs instead. In fact, some printers require it!

If they do happen to accept 16 bit TIFFs, I wouldn't be surprised if the printer scaled them down to 8 bit JPEGs before printing. If that's the case, I'd rather do it myself than leave it to who-knows-who at the printer to do it!

more-or-less

Thanks for the explanation