burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You can make a 16-bits per color channel TIFF in the ProPhoto RGB color space. Converting that to an inkjet print on a high end, relatively new Epson or Canon pigment ink printer will give you the best results.

JPEGs are limited to 8-bits per color channel and either sRGB or Adobe RGB. Converting that to an inkjet print on a high end, relatively new Epson or Canon pigment ink printer will give you good, but not optimal results.

Due to the color gamut limitations of traditional silver halide wet process papers, I doubt you will see many differences between the two files when using a lab or your own darkroom.

You're working from raw. Raw files contain FAR more tonal range than can be reflected from any paper, regardless of process or quality materials. So tonal range and color gamut compression (not to be confused with JPEG compression) come into play. The tools you have for post-processing can reduce dynamic range to that which appears best in your target process.

Use a printer simulation profile or proofing profile during final image adjustment. That makes use of the exact printer/paper/process or ink profile to be used at the printer. It provides a preview of what you can expect. Although not perfect, it allows finer adjustments. It also lets you see which colors are out of gamut and will not reproduce accurately.

I've made many large prints from JPEGs in sRGB. At normal viewing distances (diagonal dimension of the print, up to 1.5 times that distance), differences are negligible.

If you expect pixel peeping of your prints, use the highest end inkjet service bureau you can afford, and follow their detailed recommendations.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Probably unlikely... Is the printer connected directly to your post-processing software? If so, AND if the printer driver software supports 16-bit printing, you might see a marginal difference. The very wide gamut color profile used in, say, Adobe Lightroom Classic, is going to be converted directly to the printer profile of any attached printer. THAT can improve print quality by taking maximum advantage of the printer's capability.

If you tell Lightroom to print in 16 bits and it yields a flat, lifeless print, well, you know that setup needs 8-bit files!

xposure

When you save and print from a JPG instead of a Tiff you lose a Little (very Little) quality particularly in the shadow and highlight detail. Most photographers can't see the difference unless they are picky and it is a great image with a large tonal range.

DICK32

I'm a bit off topic. I get stunning prints from Costco. 8 X 12" color prints Luster not Gloss finish. Jpegs with 300 dpi resolution (that is their highest print resolution and they print only from jpeg). $1.67. I can't turn on my Epson color printer for that price. You have to make sure that their settings are adjusted so the pics aren't too dark and the colors are true. I have used their larger print size prints for trade show display photos that looked good.

It sounds like the printers have to catch up to the camera resolutions.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You would probably not see any difference at normal viewing distances. Maybe not even when viewed close up.

Both images should be set to 300 ppi (pixels per inch) resolution, unless your printer says otherwise.

Most inkjet printers print at least 720 dpi (dots per inch) resolution, at a minimum. It's a very different thing. Output versus input.

While they may have many additional colors of ink, most inkjet are basically "Cyan, Magenta, Yellow... plus Black" or "CMYK". This means they use three basic color channels and "mix" the inks to produce a wide range of colors. Three colors are used "paint" each pixel as a single dot. Divide 720 dpi by three and you get 240.... Which is why 240 ppi is often the recommended resolution for images that will be printed with an inkjet. 300 ppi gives a bit "extra"... and it's easier to do the math without a calculator!

Some years ago I experimented with printing 16-bit TIFFs at up to 720 ppi... versus 8-bit JPEGs at 300 ppi. All I ever noticed was that....

1. The TIFF files were MUCH larger than 8-bit JPEGs at 300 ppi... the TIFFs will fill up your hard drives a lot faster!
2. The TIFF files took longer to print and seemed to consume more ink.
3. I couldn't see any difference in the finished prints. However, the max size I experimented with was 11x14 or 12x18.

Usually, the larger the print, the LESS image resolution that's needed. That's because the image will be viewed from a much greater distance. You can view an 8x10 or an 11x14 while holding it... maybe 18 or 20" away. But to view a 24x36" print I bet you'll be at least three to four feet away.....maybe more. If you ever got up close to a 40 foot wide billboard, I bet it's printed at something like 10 or 20 dpi! So a full color digital file prepared to make that billboard might only need to be 30 to 60 ppi. But you're viewing a billboard from dozens or even hundreds of feet away, so you'll never notice the low resolution.

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

Your really shouldn't see any difference. Although the jpeg is compressed, it won't lose any quality until you save it after opening. They best thing to do is after printing in jpeg, quit the file if you did not make any changes.

rebride

Canon does supply a XPS (Windows 16bit) printer driver for the Pro 100.
"XPS printer drivers support 16-bpc printing, which enables more smooth gradation printing than the current drivers (8-bpc printing)." From Canon website.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Costco will print from tiff also. The only difference will be that they take longer to upload.