RAW prints
Juan Moore Beer
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
nospam
<juanmo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
convert the raw files to jpeg and then upload. the advantage of raw is
that *you* get to decide what the best adjustments will be.
Cynicor
> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
I wouldn't recommend that - you won't have your adjustments to the
photo. (Things like sharpening and color.)
Jim
"Juan Moore Beer" <juanmo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8u5r85x...@recgroups.com...
> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>
strange? For example, 1/4 of the
print would show the image in various shades of blue, 1/4 of the printer
would show the image in various
shades of read, while the rest would be various shades of green.
Jim
John Navas
<juanmo...@yahoo.com> wrote in <8u5r85x...@recgroups.com>:
>Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
As others have written, use high-quality JPEG, or better yet, use a
lossless format like TIFF or PNG if the service supports that.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
Floyd L. Davidson
By that way of thinking, if you print JPEG images...
they would be 1/3rd blue, 1/3rd red and 1/3rd green.
Rest assured they are *not* printed that way; and there
is no reason to assume that a RAW data set could not be
manipulated by a printer just as well as is a JPEG
image. Indeed, the RAW data would simply be converted
to JPEG and then fed to the raster image to printer
image process that any JPEG image would be subject to.
In any case, what goes to the print heads is *not* a
simple RGB data set such exists in the JPEG file.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
John Navas
wrote in <8763wkn...@apaflo.com>:
>"Jim" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Don't you think that a straight printer from RAW would look a little
>>strange? For example, 1/4 of the
>>print would show the image in various shades of blue, 1/4 of the printer
>>would show the image in various
>>shades of read, while the rest would be various shades of green.
>
>By that way of thinking, if you print JPEG images...
>they would be 1/3rd blue, 1/3rd red and 1/3rd green.
>Rest assured they are *not* printed that way; ...
Depending on the printer it actually may well be printed that way.
You just can't distinguish the very tiny colored dots.
ray
One reason they are not is that it would require a lot of smarts in the
printer. For one thing, RAW files are generally 'mosaic' in form -
essentially, the printer would have to do a RAW to something printable
conversion before it could even start - many printers do not have that
much memory available and the processors are much slower than your
typical desktop computer, so even for a best case, it would take a LONG
time simply to prepare an image, let alone do the printing.
John Navas
<620pnmF...@mid.individual.net>:
>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:33:13 -0800, Juan Moore Beer wrote:
>
>> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>One reason they are not is that it would require a lot of smarts in the
>printer. For one thing, RAW files are generally 'mosaic' in form -
>essentially, the printer would have to do a RAW to something printable
>conversion before it could even start - many printers do not have that
>much memory available and the processors are much slower than your
>typical desktop computer, so even for a best case, it would take a LONG
>time simply to prepare an image, let alone do the printing.
The comparatively wimpy low-power digital camera processor can do it in
a fraction of a second, so there really shouldn't be any processing
issue on a decent digital printer. The bigger problem is that there
isn't just one RAW format, so the digital printer would have to know how
to convert many different formats.
Ali
sRGB colour profile at a res of around 300PPI. Personally, I would go for
TIFF everytime and burn the photos to a CD/DVD and post it.
By submitting a RAW file, you would need to trust the person who is making
the adjustments for you. However, I think that there would be a market for
skilled processors to print photos from RAW, although you will be paying for
each photo to be individually assessed and processed. Not a bad thing, but
you will pay more for this service.
"Juan Moore Beer" <juanmo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8u5r85x...@recgroups.com...
Floyd L. Davidson
Same bullshit that you write in other threads.
Jim
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:8763wkn...@apaflo.com...
etc.). You first load the RAW file into a photo editor program. This
program converts the RAW format into an internal representation. Now, when
you tell the program to print the image, the editor program prepares a spool
file of raster data from the existing internal representation. When done,
the program sends the spool file to the printer for printing.
You also cannot print jpeg files directly because the data must be
decompressed first.
Jim
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >>>Don't you think that a straight printer from RAW would look a little
> >>>strange? For example, 1/4 of the
> >>>print would show the image in various shades of blue, 1/4 of the printer
> >>>would show the image in various
> >>>shades of read, while the rest would be various shades of green.
> >>
> >>By that way of thinking, if you print JPEG images...
> >>they would be 1/3rd blue, 1/3rd red and 1/3rd green.
> >>Rest assured they are *not* printed that way; ...
> >
> >Depending on the printer it actually may well be printed that way.
> >You just can't distinguish the very tiny colored dots.
>
> Same bullshit that you write in other threads.
even getting beyond his twisting it, printers don't use red, green and
blue inks. plus, the original claim was referring to the bayer grid
being overlaid, before it was demosaiced into an image.
Mark B.
>
I'd be surprised if any online printers are willing to accept raw format.
As you know, there's no standard raw - each OEM has their own raw file
format which means the printer is going to have to be capable of converting
from numerous standards as well as assume how you would want it converted.
Do as has already been suggested, do the conversion yourself to jpg or
tiff - they are standard, and the conversion is exactly what you would want.
Mark
John Navas
in <190220081755391216%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <87ve4kk...@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>Don't you think that a straight printer from RAW would look a little
>> >>>strange? For example, 1/4 of the
>> >>>print would show the image in various shades of blue, 1/4 of the printer
>> >>>would show the image in various
>> >>>shades of read, while the rest would be various shades of green.
>> >>
>> >>By that way of thinking, if you print JPEG images...
>> >>they would be 1/3rd blue, 1/3rd red and 1/3rd green.
>> >>Rest assured they are *not* printed that way; ...
>> >
>> >Depending on the printer it actually may well be printed that way.
>> >You just can't distinguish the very tiny colored dots.
>>
>> Same bullshit that you write in other threads.
>
>even getting beyond his twisting it, printers don't use red, green and
>blue inks.
3 color Ink printers use secondary (complementary) colors yellow,
magenta and cyan, which are easily mapped from primary colors red, green
and blue -- each secondary color is produced by equal amounts of two
primaries. More to the point, light printers do use red, green and
blue, which could be directly mapped to the Bayer sensor pattern.
>plus, the original claim was referring to the bayer grid
>being overlaid, before it was demosaiced into an image.
Sorry, but I can't make sense of that.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >even getting beyond his twisting it, printers don't use red, green and
> >blue inks.
>
> 3 color Ink printers use secondary (complementary) colors yellow,
> magenta and cyan, which are easily mapped from primary colors red, green
> and blue -- each secondary color is produced by equal amounts of two
> primaries. More to the point, light printers do use red, green and
> blue, which could be directly mapped to the Bayer sensor pattern.
inkjet printers use 4 or more inks (5-6 on most photo printers), none
of which are red, green or blue, nor would anyone possibly consider
looking at individual dots. the whole concept is just absurd.
> >plus, the original claim was referring to the bayer grid
> >being overlaid, before it was demosaiced into an image.
>
> Sorry, but I can't make sense of that.
read up on how bayer works. it's actually fairly obvious.
John Navas
in <190220081930352963%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <0n4nr39lqs4k163pp...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >even getting beyond his twisting it, printers don't use red, green and
>> >blue inks.
>>
>> 3 color Ink printers use secondary (complementary) colors yellow,
>> magenta and cyan, which are easily mapped from primary colors red, green
>> and blue -- each secondary color is produced by equal amounts of two
>> primaries. More to the point, light printers do use red, green and
>> blue, which could be directly mapped to the Bayer sensor pattern.
>
>inkjet printers use 4 or more inks (5-6 on most photo printers), none
>of which are red, green or blue, nor would anyone possibly consider
>looking at individual dots. the whole concept is just absurd.
Notwithstanding your confusion, the whole concept of digital printing
and display is in fact made up of dots of particular colors, and there
are in fact printers with just three color inks.
<http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/color_printer.html>:
Some lower-price printers use only three colors -- cyan, magenta, and
yellow...
If a Bayer pattern is reproduced in the same tiny dots (not big dots),
you would see an apparent full color image, just as you do when you look
at a TV screen. Think about that carefully before answering to avoid
further embarrassment.
>> >plus, the original claim was referring to the bayer grid
>> >being overlaid, before it was demosaiced into an image.
>>
>> Sorry, but I can't make sense of that.
>
>read up on how bayer works. it's actually fairly obvious.
Sorry, but it's not. I can only assume you're not only confused about
how it works, but also about whatever you mean by "the original claim".
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >inkjet printers use 4 or more inks (5-6 on most photo printers), none
> >of which are red, green or blue, nor would anyone possibly consider
> >looking at individual dots. the whole concept is just absurd.
>
> Notwithstanding your confusion,
i'm not confused at all, but thanks for the concern.
> the whole concept of digital printing
> and display is in fact made up of dots of particular colors, and there
> are in fact printers with just three color inks.
> <http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/color_printer.html>:
>
> Some lower-price printers use only three colors -- cyan, magenta, and
> yellow...
and the part you snipped:
but these printers cannot print true black and their colors tend to
be a bit faded.
in other words, they're crappy printers.
the original poster wanted to upload images to a printing service and
it is *highly* unlikely (read: guaranteed) that they would be using
'lower-price printers' that are just cmy.
> If a Bayer pattern is reproduced in the same tiny dots (not big dots),
> you would see an apparent full color image, just as you do when you look
> at a TV screen. Think about that carefully before answering to avoid
> further embarrassment.
i have no reason to be emabarassed, as i'm not the one trying to weasel
out of a ridiculous statement. the fact that you need to mention light
printers, cheapo cmy printers and television in an attempt to validate
your comments proves it.
> >> >plus, the original claim was referring to the bayer grid
> >> >being overlaid, before it was demosaiced into an image.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I can't make sense of that.
> >
> >read up on how bayer works. it's actually fairly obvious.
>
> Sorry, but it's not. I can only assume you're not only confused about
> how it works, but also about whatever you mean by "the original claim".
the 'original claim' to which i referred was:
> > Don't you think that a straight printer from RAW would look a little
> > strange? For example, 1/4 of the
> > print would show the image in various shades of blue, 1/4 of the printer
> > would show the image in various
> > shades of read, while the rest would be various shades of green.
with an understanding of how bayer works, it should be obvious what he
meant. perhaps it is you who is confused.
and to quote you:
Alan Meyer
> ...
> As others have written, use high-quality JPEG, or better yet, use a
> lossless format like TIFF or PNG if the service supports that.
I'm not sure that TIFF, PNG, or high quality JPEG would look any
better in the printout than a medium quality JPEG that is good
enough that there are no apparent color changes or compression
artifacts. I would expect a 10:1 JPEG compression would be
just as good as an uncompressed format for printing purposes,
and even 20:1 might work okay, unless there is much fine color
detail in the image.
It may be that my old eyes aren't up to the chore, but I can't
see the difference between a TIFF and a 10:1 JPEG on a
screen unless I blow up the image to look at individual pixels.
Since printers are don't discriminate as well as good monitors,
I'd think that if you can't see it on the screen, you won't see it
in a printout either.
I think of the uncompressed formats as useful for enabling
digital editing without re-compression loss when the edits are
saved. I don't think, unless the compression is too high, they
are actually better for plain old viewing and printing. The JPEGs
will print as well and upload ten times as fast as TIFFs.
But, as I say, maybe a younger person with sharper vision
can see things that I can't.
Alan
John Navas
in <190220082100326782%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <1b8nr3tu66jotuaid...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >inkjet printers use 4 or more inks (5-6 on most photo printers), none
>> >of which are red, green or blue, nor would anyone possibly consider
>> >looking at individual dots. the whole concept is just absurd.
>>
>> Notwithstanding your confusion,
>
>i'm not confused at all, but thanks for the concern.
>
>> the whole concept of digital printing
>> and display is in fact made up of dots of particular colors, and there
>> are in fact printers with just three color inks.
>> <http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/color_printer.html>:
>>
>> Some lower-price printers use only three colors -- cyan, magenta, and
>> yellow...
>
>and the part you snipped:
>
> but these printers cannot print true black and their colors tend to
> be a bit faded.
>
>in other words, they're crappy printers.
Irrelevant. You claimed they didn't exist.
>the original poster wanted to upload images to a printing service and
>it is *highly* unlikely (read: guaranteed) that they would be using
>'lower-price printers' that are just cmy.
They won't be using consumer ink-jets at all.
Apparently you're confused about that too.
>> If a Bayer pattern is reproduced in the same tiny dots (not big dots),
>> you would see an apparent full color image, just as you do when you look
>> at a TV screen. Think about that carefully before answering to avoid
>> further embarrassment.
>
>i have no reason to be emabarassed, as i'm not the one trying to weasel
>out of a ridiculous statement. the fact that you need to mention light
>printers, cheapo cmy printers and television in an attempt to validate
>your comments proves it.
What this proves is that you were confused about digital printing and
display, and apparently still are.
>> >> >plus, the original claim was referring to the bayer grid
>> >> >being overlaid, before it was demosaiced into an image.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, but I can't make sense of that.
>> >
>> >read up on how bayer works. it's actually fairly obvious.
>>
>> Sorry, but it's not. I can only assume you're not only confused about
>> how it works, but also about whatever you mean by "the original claim".
>
>the 'original claim' to which i referred was:
>
>> > Don't you think that a straight printer from RAW would look a little
>> > strange? For example, 1/4 of the
>> > print would show the image in various shades of blue, 1/4 of the printer
>> > would show the image in various
>> > shades of read, while the rest would be various shades of green.
>
>with an understanding of how bayer works, it should be obvious what he
>meant. perhaps it is you who is confused.
What's confused is that statement about Bayer pattern images, which is
no more correct than claiming a TV image looks strange due to being 1/3
red, 1/3 blue, and 1/3 green.
>and to quote you:
>> Think about that carefully before answering to avoid
>> further embarrassment.
Too bad you didn't take that to heart.
John Navas
wrote in
<50e830cb-5568-4df0...@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> As others have written, use high-quality JPEG, or better yet, use a
>> lossless format like TIFF or PNG if the service supports that.
>> ...
>
>I'm not sure that TIFF, PNG, or high quality JPEG would look any
>better in the printout than a medium quality JPEG that is good
>enough that there are no apparent color changes or compression
>artifacts. I would expect a 10:1 JPEG compression would be
>just as good as an uncompressed format for printing purposes,
>and even 20:1 might work okay, unless there is much fine color
>detail in the image.
>
>It may be that my old eyes aren't up to the chore, but I can't
>see the difference between a TIFF and a 10:1 JPEG on a
>screen unless I blow up the image to look at individual pixels.
>Since printers are don't discriminate as well as good monitors,
>I'd think that if you can't see it on the screen, you won't see it
>in a printout either.
They aren't really comparable because the technology is totally
different.
What matters is the quality and resolution of the printer, the quality
and resolution of the image, and the desired result.
Why take a chance on good enough? It's just as easy to produce lossless
images for printing as lossy images, and storage space is a non-issue.
When I'm just going to make small or non-critical prints, I do often use
high-quality JPEG. But when I'm going to make high-quality
enlargements, I tend to upsample with Genuine Fractals and use lossless
format if the service supports it.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >in other words, they're crappy printers.
>
> Irrelevant. You claimed they didn't exist.
their existence doesn't change the fact that inkjet printers don't use
red, green or blue inks. you are grasping at straws.
> >the original poster wanted to upload images to a printing service and
> >it is *highly* unlikely (read: guaranteed) that they would be using
> >'lower-price printers' that are just cmy.
>
> They won't be using consumer ink-jets at all.
they might be using high end inkjet printers.
> >with an understanding of how bayer works, it should be obvious what he
> >meant. perhaps it is you who is confused.
>
> What's confused is that statement about Bayer pattern images, which is
> no more correct than claiming a TV image looks strange due to being 1/3
> red, 1/3 blue, and 1/3 green.
obviously, you still don't get what he meant, and comparing it to a tv
image is evidence of that.
John Navas
in <190220082153538802%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <l4enr3plcba0o31dp...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >in other words, they're crappy printers.
>>
>> Irrelevant. You claimed they didn't exist.
>
>their existence doesn't change the fact that inkjet printers don't use
>red, green or blue inks. you are grasping at straws.
Nope. I've already explained the ink color issue. If you're still
confused about it, go back and reread what I wrote more carefully.
>> >the original poster wanted to upload images to a printing service and
>> >it is *highly* unlikely (read: guaranteed) that they would be using
>> >'lower-price printers' that are just cmy.
>>
>> They won't be using consumer ink-jets at all.
>
>they might be using high end inkjet printers.
They might for posters, but not consumer ink-jets, and not for normal
photo prints.
>> >with an understanding of how bayer works, it should be obvious what he
>> >meant. perhaps it is you who is confused.
>>
>> What's confused is that statement about Bayer pattern images, which is
>> no more correct than claiming a TV image looks strange due to being 1/3
>> red, 1/3 blue, and 1/3 green.
>
>obviously, you still don't get what he meant, and comparing it to a tv
>image is evidence of that.
I get what he wrote, and it's dead wrong, as I explained.
It's not me that's confused.
George Kerby
On 2/20/08 12:19 AM, in article ldhnr35upt8cld5ab...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> It's not me that's confused.
Oh GAWD! The IRONY!!!!