Camera to Photoshop to Smugmug Process [Sitemap] - Digital Grin Photography Forum

jh4wvu

May-04-2005, 06:19 AM

Baldy

May-04-2005, 06:54 AM

Sharpening depends on the subject, with most people preferring shots of cars and buildings to be sharp, and portraits softer. I always sharpen my 10 or 20D shots, but less than the photoshop default for people (say, 35%) and maybe 60% for cars, etc. But your tastes may vary.

We notice from the prints we ship and the feedback we receive, consumers like their prints sharper than pros do. Consumers judge the quality of prints and the printers they were made on by their sharpness. We had someone post on dpreview the other day that our prints were awful, and when I followed up to see what was happening, it was that his local photo store was applying additional sharpening, which we don't do with the true color option, which he chose. Since ours were fuzzier, his conclusion was our printers were pretty bad.

Just about every good print lab I know says what we say about compression: no one can tell a JPEG 10 from a JPEG 12, but they're 1/3 the size.

Thanks,
Baldy

Mitch

May-04-2005, 07:18 AM

I am just getting started with Smugmug and will have to do my processing a little different from what I am currently doing. I wanted to start this discussion to get an idea of how other get there images ready for SM.

Options that I thought about doing....

A. Upload original image directly from the camera - no post-processing.
B. Open images up in Photoshop CS with batch processing to Sharpen then Save as...jpeg 10/12 and then upload to Smugmug.

Note: For most of my galleries -- the largest photo I will be selling is an 8 x 12. Anything larger will be in a seperate gallery and will be processed in PS before uploading.

I would like to get your opinions on what you do to get you images ready for posting. I am using a Canon 10D which create excellant photos but on the soft side which is why I thought about sharpening before uploading.

I appreciate your feedback and comments.

Thanks,
Chris Chris,

I'll wade in on this one, but first. Why will you have to change your processing? How are you doing it now?

As with anything my processing method is evolving, for the better I hope. First I only shoot raw. The raw image is processed normally. In PS Color balance tweak, Shadow/Highlight, and what ever else. Image saved as .psd or .tif. Then crop and use the FM plugin for the 10D to upres to to 300 ppi. Save that to .psd. I've started using the LAB sharpening, see ruff's two threads on the subject. I save that as .psd and as .jpg (from now on at 10:D). Up load the .jpg to SM.

I don't reopen a jpg file to work on it, I have psd or tif for that.

Hope this helps

Mitch

jh4wvu

May-04-2005, 07:47 AM

Chris,

I'll wade in on this one, but first. Why will you have to change your processing? How are you doing it now?

As with anything my processing method is evolving, for the better I hope. First I only shoot raw. The raw image is processed normally. In PS Color balance tweak, Shadow/Highlight, and what ever else. Image saved as .psd or .tif. Then crop and use the FM plugin for the 10D to upres to to 300 ppi. Save that to .psd. I've started using the LAB sharpening, see ruff's two threads on the subject. I save that as .psd and as .jpg (from now on at 10:D). Up load the .jpg to SM.

I don't reopen a jpg file to work on it, I have psd or tif for that.

Hope this helps

MitchIt may be that I have to do more than I do now...(sorry for this being lengthy)

Basically, I am currently using Imagefolio to run my gallery and have the ordering setup so it uses Paypal to process the payment. Then when an order comes in I actually process each photo according to the size ordered -- make color changes, contast, etc - if needed and sharpen using FM tools.

Prior to posting on the web I batch process the images in PS to reduce the resolution to 72 dpi. Then I use Digital Dutch's Arles Image Web Page Creator to only reduce the images to 400 pixels. As it reduces the images, sharpens and adds a copyright statement to the photos all at the same time and is faster than doing it in PS. It doesn't open each photo like PS does.

I then upload them via FTP to a folder on my server for my customers to view. I would upload the full images and tie them to a photo ordering page (like EZprints) but I don't have the space to upload the full size images.

Question --- so the images you upload to SM are already 300 dpi?

onethumb

May-04-2005, 08:11 AM

Chris,

I'll wade in on this one, but first. Why will you have to change your processing? How are you doing it now?

As with anything my processing method is evolving, for the better I hope. First I only shoot raw. The raw image is processed normally. In PS Color balance tweak, Shadow/Highlight, and what ever else. Image saved as .psd or .tif. Then crop and use the FM plugin for the 10D to upres to to 300 ppi. Save that to .psd. I've started using the LAB sharpening, see ruff's two threads on the subject. I save that as .psd and as .jpg (from now on at 10:D). Up load the .jpg to SM.

I don't reopen a jpg file to work on it, I have psd or tif for that.

Hope this helps

Mitch

FYI, up-rezing the photo to 300 dpi isn't necessary. EZ Prints will up-rez your photos for you, and they do so with an algorithm that's designed for use with their printers. Further, depending on the item, 300 dpi isn't exactly correct since there are printers doing 302, 254, and 200 dpi. That results in more image quality loss that wouldn't have had to occur as they have to up-rez or down-rez. It'll result in a better photo if you just let them do it.

Up-rezing in general isn't something you want to do since you're really inventing new data, and the data isn't really that "intelligent" anyway. It should only be done as a last step by a printer who knows what they're doing. Almost never for display.

(I wouldn't shoot in RAW, either, but that's another subject entirely).

Don

onethumb

May-04-2005, 08:14 AM

It may be that I have to do more than I do now...(sorry for this being lengthy)

Basically, I am currently using Imagefolio to run my gallery and have the ordering setup so it uses Paypal to process the payment. Then when an order comes in I actually process each photo according to the size ordered -- make color changes, contast, etc - if needed and sharpen using FM tools.

Prior to posting on the web I batch process the images in PS to reduce the resolution to 72 dpi. Then I use Digital Dutch's Arles Image Web Page Creator to only reduce the images to 400 pixels. As it reduces the images, sharpens and adds a copyright statement to the photos all at the same time and is faster than doing it in PS. It doesn't open each photo like PS does.

I then upload them via FTP to a folder on my server for my customers to view. I would upload the full images and tie them to a photo ordering page (like EZprints) but I don't have the space to upload the full size images.

Question --- so the images you upload to SM are already 300 dpi?

Again, not to beat a dead horse, but I wouldn't resize/uprez/downrez your photos *AT ALL* if you can help it. Each operation destroys data in your photo, FAR more than saving at a lower JPEG setting or not shooting in RAW.

Upload your original resolution (cropped, yes, but not resampled) to smugmug and enjoy knowing your prints will come out gorgeous.

Don

Mitch

May-04-2005, 08:23 AM

See I told you ever evolving:rofl.

Mitch

BenA2

May-04-2005, 10:57 AM

FYI, up-rezing the photo to 300 dpi isn't necessary. EZ Prints will up-rez your photos for you, and they do so with an algorithm that's designed for use with their printers. Further, depending on the item, 300 dpi isn't exactly correct since there are printers doing 302, 254, and 200 dpi. That results in more image quality loss that wouldn't have had to occur as they have to up-rez or down-rez. It'll result in a better photo if you just let them do it.

Up-rezing in general isn't something you want to do since you're really inventing new data, and the data isn't really that "intelligent" anyway. It should only be done as a last step by a printer who knows what they're doing. Almost never for display.

(I wouldn't shoot in RAW, either, but that's another subject entirely).

Don OK Don, I'll bite. Why would you not shoot in RAW? I assume for some work-flow related reason? Or perhaps you see it as a crutch for those not shooting with proper settings? Your post implies for some image quality reason, and I have a hard time accepting that.

Also, I have a question for you about re-rezing. Since joining smugmug, I have adopted the practice of re-rezing my 4×6 print images to 302 dpi because I understood EZ-prints wouldn't resample these--giving me the best representation of the image I uploaded. It seems to me, to have the best control over sharpening, one should re-rez, then sharpen. Would your contention be that I should perform final sharpening on the original image size and accept that when EZ-prints re-rezes and re-sharpens, I'll get the same or better results compared to re-rezing and sharpening at 302 ppi?

Thanks,
Ben

winnjewett

May-04-2005, 11:46 AM

colourbox

May-04-2005, 12:39 PM

I want to emphasize how nice it can be to shoot in RAW and use a good workflow software package such as bibble (http://bibblelabs.com) or capture one (http://phaseone.com/Content/Software/LESoftware.aspx). Once you get into the swing of things, you can take 200 shots, weed out the bad ones, color correct the good ones, exposure compensate those that need it, and create jpegs to upload in about 20 minutes.

I find this essential, but if you don't shoot a lot or often, then photoshop might work well.

-winn

Actually, I just did such a thing in Photoshop CS2 and Adobe Bridge, in my first try at a CS2-to-Web workflow. In Bridge, select 18 raws, open them all in Camera Raw. Determine initial good settings, work out noise reduction settings, sync to other 17 open raw frames, blam. Oh, wait, client wanted black and white. Set saturation to zero, sync ONLY Saturation to other 17 open raw frames, blam. Make individual exposure/tone tweaks, crop any frames as needed (we're still in Camera Raw CS2 at this point), now ready for the mass raw conversion, go. Walk away for a couple minutes. Come back, they're all open in Photoshop now. Run batch action to fit to web size, run batch action to run Smart Sharpen (a godsend), done and done. Now I run a batch of Save for Web, and I have a folder full of Web-ready JPGs. Anything left to do? Oh yeah, drag 'em all to Smugmug uploader. Wow! I like CS2.

jh4wvu

May-04-2005, 12:56 PM

Tell me if this sounds right...

Method 1:

If I shoot jpg then I could bring it into PS make corrections if needed and sharpen the image and save it as a jpg 10 then upload to SM.

Method 2:

If I shoot in RAW -- bring it into PS, make necessary corrections/sharpen -- save as jpg 10 then upload to SM. Now in PS when a RAW image is first opened there is an area to change the Size (Pixels) and the resolution. Should I have these set as if I were shooting in jpg (3072x2048 and 180 dpi) or something different?

Usually I am fine with just uploading the original however I wish the sharpening that EZprints does is a little heavier.

Thanks for all the feedback especially with a newbie.
Chris

colourbox

May-04-2005, 01:11 PM

Now in PS when a RAW image is first opened there is an area to change the Size (Pixels) and the resolution. Should I have these set as if I were shooting in jpg (3072x2048 and 180 dpi) or something different?

In Photoshop there are 4 places to change the pixel count. Camera Raw, the Image Size command, the Fit Image command, and Save for Web command. It doesn't matter that much where you change it. If you are aiming for a maximum quality upload, don't change it at all - just set it to the same as the camera's native image size, which would normally be whatever the RAW default size is, which should be the same as the maximum quality JPEG size. Sounds like in your case that's 3072x2048.

onethumb

May-04-2005, 01:55 PM

OK Don, I'll bite. Why would you not shoot in RAW? I assume for some work-flow related reason? Or perhaps you see it as a crutch for those not shooting with proper settings? Your post implies for some image quality reason, and I have a hard time accepting that.

What to shoot in is definitely a personal preference, which is why I didn't go into detail before. But I'm happy to now. :)

High level details:

- RAW sounds like an image format, but it's really not. Canon and Nikon's RAW images are very different. As a result, software can't reliably read them, and when you switch cameras or software or other parts of your workflow, you might be stuck. You're using something that's proprietary to store your precious photos. Want to read that RAW image in 10 years? Good luck.

- RAW is big, cumbersome, and "expensive". It takes your camera and your PC a *long time* to open, process, store, and use RAW images. Time is money. Time waiting for your camera to write the image also means you lose precious shots. I'd much rather have 2-3X as many photos of my subject and get the best shot than have mediocre shots that are imperceptibly different.

- RAW vs JPEG12 vs JPEG10. No-one can tell the difference. Look at them at 4X zoom or printed out with a loupe. Do your own side-by-side comparison, don't take my word for it. But there have been contests online for people to pick which is which - no-one has been able to do it. Pixel for pixel, to humans, they're identical. Yet JPEG10 is much smaller, and thus, faster to work with in your workflow, easier to backup, easier to move, etc.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. :) If you must use something "lossless", use BMP, TIFF, PNG, or lossless JPG (yes, it exists). At least your formats can be read by everything, you won't lose your photos, and they're fast.

Don

onethumb

May-04-2005, 01:59 PM

Also, I have a question for you about re-rezing. Since joining smugmug, I have adopted the practice of re-rezing my 4×6 print images to 302 dpi because I understood EZ-prints wouldn't resample these--giving me the best representation of the image I uploaded. It seems to me, to have the best control over sharpening, one should re-rez, then sharpen. Would your contention be that I should perform final sharpening on the original image size and accept that when EZ-prints re-rezes and re-sharpens, I'll get the same or better results compared to re-rezing and sharpening at 302 ppi?

I think the easy answer is to do what I would do in your case: Do it both ways, get prints, and compare them yourself.

If you're not wanting to go through the effort, I'd let EZPrints do it. They're the experts and they consistently deliver amazing quality. We've got a 20x30 that was made from 100dpi hanging on our wall. It's *gorgeous*. We took it to COBA (a local pro/geek camera club) and showed it off, people couldn't believe how nice it looked. They'd never seen up-rezing like it.

Don

onethumb

May-04-2005, 02:04 PM

Oh, and it bears repeating over and over and over again. Pixel count and compression levels rarely mean anything in terms of print quality.

We've printed more than 1,000,000 (!!) prints. Straight from the horse's mouth, here's what we've learned:

I know I'm a terrible broken record, but forum posts and Photoshop books are stuck on the 3 factors that are almost never an issue: pixels, jpeg compression, and how broad the color space is.

By 1,000,000:1, it's color fidelity, brightness, contrast, sharpness, and pollution from UV and infrared light that matter more than those other three issues.

Since # of pixels and compression are never (way way less than 0.1% of our complaints from 1M prints) an issue, why use RAW? Why bother upsampling and downsampling and stuff? Focus on your color correction.

Don

winnjewett

May-04-2005, 03:26 PM

- RAW vs JPEG12 vs JPEG10. No-one can tell the difference. Look at them at 4X zoom or printed out with a loupe. Do your own side-by-side comparison, don't take my word for it. Alright, I will do my own side-by-side comarison. Here's the setup:

Camera: Olympus E-1, 54mm f/18 1/160s ISO 100
File: Camera is set to RAW + JPEG (highest quality)
Lighting: AB 800 set 1 stop too dark
Color: Camera's Auto White Balance

The original in-camera jpeg, scaled down:

http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/onion-original-web.jpg

Note the brightness, which was intentionally set 1 stop too low, and the white balance, which is less-than-perfect.

I brought the RAW into Bibble, slid the brightness slider to +1 stop, and
clicked on the background to set whitebalance. Here's the result:

http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/onion-full-bibble-web.jpg

Then I opened the jpg up in PS. I added a curves adjustment layer, and
moved the upper right point to half-way (half the light = 1 stop), and
tweaked it very slightly to try to match the brightness of the raw file. I
then clicked with the gray selector on the background to set the white
balance. Here is a 100% comparison:

http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/onion-full-web.jpg

RAW file, brightness, WB................................................ In Camera JPEG, curves, wb

I'll leave the conclusion up to interperation.
-winn

BenA2

May-04-2005, 03:51 PM

Since # of pixels and compression are never (way way less than 0.1% of our complaints from 1M prints) an issue, why use RAW? Why bother upsampling and downsampling and stuff? Focus on your color correction.

Don I really don't think there are a lot of people out there shooting in RAW because of pixel count and compression issues. Most people, I hope, are shooting RAW because it provides the greatest latitude in color correction (and exposure)--exactly what you suggest people focus on. I know I am.

You may have a point about upsampling and downsampling. While the arguement that to get exactly what you want, you should resample and sharpen at the print resolution makes logical snese, the proof is really in the pudding. I think I'll run some tests as you suggest, and see if the extra effort is worth it.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Ben

BenA2

May-04-2005, 03:57 PM

Alright, I will do my own
I'll leave the conclusion up to interperation.
-winn
Hmmm. Well, I'll take the RAW.

Look at the posterization in the lower left highlight of the JPEG--not good.

Also, the JPEG obviously received some in-camera sharpening the RAW file did not. Again, I favor the RAW in this respect, because you can sharpen the final impage yourself.

Ben

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 06:02 PM

What to shoot in is definitely a personal preference, which is why I didn't go into detail before. But I'm happy to now. :)

High level details:

- RAW sounds like an image format, but it's really not. Canon and Nikon's RAW images are very different. As a result, software can't reliably read them, and when you switch cameras or software or other parts of your workflow, you might be stuck. You're using something that's proprietary to store your precious photos. Want to read that RAW image in 10 years? Good luck.

- RAW is big, cumbersome, and "expensive". It takes your camera and your PC a *long time* to open, process, store, and use RAW images. Time is money. Time waiting for your camera to write the image also means you lose precious shots. I'd much rather have 2-3X as many photos of my subject and get the best shot than have mediocre shots that are imperceptibly different.

- RAW vs JPEG12 vs JPEG10. No-one can tell the difference. Look at them at 4X zoom or printed out with a loupe. Do your own side-by-side comparison, don't take my word for it. But there have been contests online for people to pick which is which - no-one has been able to do it. Pixel for pixel, to humans, they're identical. Yet JPEG10 is much smaller, and thus, faster to work with in your workflow, easier to backup, easier to move, etc.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. :) If you must use something "lossless", use BMP, TIFF, PNG, or lossless JPG (yes, it exists). At least your formats can be read by everything, you won't lose your photos, and they're fast.

Don

As has been the case lately here, ol' onethummb is almost completely off his rocker here! As was mentioned before, no one shoots raw for file size or compression reasons! Geeesh, man.

We shoot raw to get the extra dynamic range raw provides with many cameras, and the after the fact exposure adjustments, color temperature, and whitebalance adjustments. Nothing beats a raw file on an image shot with improper white balance. Nothing beats raw period.

You might have a point using third party raw software, but not a very big one. Raw is the number one tool for correcting a poorly color balanced shot and that is the bottom line. It is also the standard file used on tough exposures because of it's originality and versatility!

Also good points were made that the photographer can make some adjustments better than the camera, after the fact, like sharpness for sure!

Geesh, please at least find out the advantages of using a raw file before you try to say a jpg10 is the same thing as my raw to 16bit tiff!!! So stop the bs now. If you have the time, shoot the raw file, otherwise, you are cheating yourself if you don't!

When you print large prints jpg10 is no where near the same as a raw to 16bit tiff. That's the facts jack!! I'm not saying you can't get somethig good from jpg10's but you wony get the same thing in almost all cases as you would if you would have shot raw. Now, a perfectly exposed and balanced jpg is tough to beat with raw to the nakid eye at most sizes, but how many of you shoot everything perfectly? Yup, thats why you shoot raw when you have the time.

My preferred raw file is the .mrw

Get raw or get lost! hahahah

winnjewett

May-04-2005, 06:58 PM

As has been the case lately here, ol' onethummb is almost completely off his rocker here!...Get raw or get lost! hahahah
MinoltaMan, I thought you had left for good. Things around here had settled down to a bearable level of civility. Go bother some other forum.
-winn

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 07:37 PM

Rather grouchy are we, w? Nothing better than watching a ceo of a *major* company talk spit in forums. When an unbelievable amount of bs is being spewed about, don't you think someone will notice?? Ok, take the bill clinton route, lie your way through anything for the betterment of yourself. That's the *smugmug* way! Or, just look the other way...I get it...

Raw can blow jpg10 away in many instances, and almost everyone that knows anything knows that.

rawk on and peace out ;)

jh4wvu

May-04-2005, 07:52 PM

How's this....lets bring this back home.

Please post how you prepare your images before uploading them to Smugmug. I think this was what I was wanting to know in the beginning. It is nice to see what others are doing which may help me as well as other newbies.

Chris

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 08:16 PM

raw (if time permits and job calls for it)

work image over with raw ps plugin built by a third party programmer that designed the software for the specific raw file

convert to 16bit tiff adobeRGB file

set softproof to smugmug proofing profile (or cymk in some cases, according to some-particularlily facework)

work image over to make it look real gooood

check out of gamut warning and make adj as needed

make sure crop is proper

flatten and convert to 8 bits when called for

convert to srgb

upoload to the smug

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 09:02 PM

Sharpen (if needed) at the very end of the process, before the upload.

onethumb

May-04-2005, 09:06 PM

I brought the RAW into Bibble, slid the brightness slider to +1 stop, and clicked on the background to set whitebalance. Here's the result:

But as a result, this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Bibble apparently makes it easy to set the whitebalance and brightness, but that's merely a tools thing - not a format limitation. There's no reason you can't, using other software, do the same thing to the JPG or a BMP or TIFF.

I can take a photo and edit it in Photoshop and then edit a copy in Microsoft Paint and guess which one will look better? :)

Try doing an apples-to-apples comparison using only the same tool that reads RAW (say, Photoshop CS/CS2) for both and compare.

Don

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 09:14 PM

But as a result, this isn\'t an apples-to-apples comparison. Bibble apparently makes it easy to set the whitebalance and brightness, but that\'s merely a tools thing - not a format limitation. There\'s no reason you can\'t, using other software, do the same thing to the JPG or a BMP or TIFF.

I can take a photo and edit it in Photoshop and then edit a copy in Microsoft Paint and guess which one will look better? :)

Try doing an apples-to-apples comparison using only the same tool that reads RAW (say, Photoshop CS/CS2) for both and compare.

Don

You don\\\'t seem to understand the raw format, onethumb. A raw file and a processed jpg are two different things. One lets you recreate camera settings, photoshopping or painting a jpg is nothing more than \\\"guessing\\\" at what you should have. You give up a ton of what you gain in raw by even shooting jpg in the first place. You can not do the same thing with jpgs that you can do with raw files. Don\\\'t even try to think you can.

That is a fact.

Btw, if you want a free paint program that works well, try fantastic machines paint engine, couple that with buzz pro and a few nik filters and you won\\\'t have to lean painter or spend a bundle....but it won\\\'t get that dynamic range and exposure lattitude back without shooting the original in raw.

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 09:46 PM

How about a little from dpr...

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_01.htm ("")

winnjewett

May-04-2005, 10:29 PM

But as a result, this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Bibble apparently makes it easy to set the whitebalance and brightness, but that's merely a tools thing - not a format limitation. There's no reason you can't, using other software, do the same thing to the JPG or a BMP or TIFF.

I can take a photo and edit it in Photoshop and then edit a copy in Microsoft Paint and guess which one will look better? :)

Try doing an apples-to-apples comparison using only the same tool that reads RAW (say, Photoshop CS/CS2) for both and compare.

Don I actually thought that the last one was a better comparison. If I wern't doing a test, and had a jpeg to work with, I would open it in photoshop, because, I think it does a better job. That said, I have done about as pure an apples-to-apples comparison as I can mustre.

In bibble, I set the RAW file's white balance by clicking on the white background. I adjusted the brightness slider +1 stop. I then copied these settings, and applied them to the in-camera jpeg. Here are the results:
http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/onion-bibble-output-web.jpg

I encourage anyone who cares to download both files and post your own results. You can download them here: http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/onion.zip

-Winn

Mitch

May-04-2005, 10:45 PM

My 20 inch NEC crt just faded to black for the last time. I just replaced it with a brandy new LCD. First thing I did was process and upload to SM.

I beleive I followed the suggestions of Baldy and Onethumb (sort of at least). Processed the image and sharpened in PS. No uprez, but did crop to 11x14. Now on my epson 2200 I can make 13X19's no problem, but I do uprez. Then made a second with 16x20 crop, did not recrop 11x14.

Here are the numbers:

11X14 @ 186.37 DPI
12 compress 3.65 MB
10 compress 1.46 MB

16X20 @ 128 DPI
12 compress 3.40 MB
10 compress 1.35 MB

Ok...Baldy and Onethumb.

I am shooting with a 10D in RAW.

1. When I order an 11X14 from the 11X14 crop at "compress 10" I will get as good a print as when I uprez and print to my 2200, right?

2. When setting custom prices for either the 11X14 or 16X20 I get the message "Some products not listed due to small image size. Try uploading a larger image." HUH? Larger how?

3. If I were to order a 16X20 from the "compress 10" would I be happy? with it.

Mitch

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 10:51 PM

The RAW conclusion at DPReview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=13296843 ("]http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_01.htm[/url]

Some banter on Raw and dynamic range from the *famed* Petteri:

[url=")

Some more unscientific examples and banter in a current 96 post thread on this subject.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=13351398 ("")

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 11:00 PM

My 20 inch NEC crt just faded to black for the last time. I just replaced it with a brandy new LCD. First thing I did was process and upload to SM.

I beleive I followed the suggestions of Baldy and Onethumb (sort of at least). Processed the image and sharpened in PS. No uprez, but did crop to 11x14. Now on my epson 2200 I can make 13X19\\\\\\\'s no problem, but I do uprez. Then made a second with 16x20 crop, did not recrop 11x14. Maybe onethumb can post a link to the minum pixel counts needed for ezprints to go ahead and upsize the image.

Here are the numbers:

11X14 @ 186.37 DPI

12 compress 3.65 MB

10 compress 1.46 MB

16X20 @ 128 DPI

12 compress 3.40 MB

10 compress 1.35 MB

2. When setting custom prices for either the 11X14 or 16X20 I get the message \\\\\\\"Some products not listed due to small image size. Try uploading a larger image.\\\\\\\" HUH? Larger how?

Mitch

What are the image diminsions in pixels you are trying to upload? If what you are saying is correct, it looks to me like the system is telling you you need more pixels, not megabytes. Pixels and megs are two different things. It sounds like you are using too small of pixel counts for the print sizes. (You need larger real image diminsions) Maybe onethumb can post a link to the minimum pixel counts needed for the various larger print sizes.

Mitch

May-04-2005, 11:07 PM

Ok..

11X14

2050 X 2609 Pixel

16X20

2048 X 2560 pixel

Mitch

winnjewett

May-04-2005, 11:12 PM

In my last test, I was really pushing the limits of the jpeg, forcing it to do slight color correction on top of being underexposed by an entire stop. I thought I would do a test that would tip the scales a little towards the jpeg.

Here's the shot:
http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/pepper-original.jpg

Again, the camera was set to take a RAW and JPEG simultaneously. This time, the scene was properly exposed both for color balance and exposure. The only hitch is that I shot the scene at ISO 400. (not typical for a studio shot, but I shoot mostly outdoors, so it's more pertinant to me.)

Raw conversion was done by Bibble, with no modifications.
The output of this conversion and the in-camera jpeg were brought into photoshop and saved with a setting of 80. Essentially these two images are as straight from the camera as possible.

The RAW is on top; in-camera on bottom.
http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/pepper-output.jpg
Again, the two files are available for download:
http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/pepper.zip (11,203 KB)
-Winn

ImageMan

May-04-2005, 11:52 PM

Ok..

11X14

2050 X 2609 Pixel

16X20

2048 X 2560 pixel

Mitch

Strange...it looks like those are printable to me.

http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality ("]http://www.ezprints.com/help/ResolutionGuide.asp[/url]

[url=")

I assume you have given it a couple goes?

It is starting to looky like a blown setting or some sort of something.
Might be the dreaded jpg10 monster. Too many artifacts...
hahaha ooops, just kidding...

ImageMan

May-05-2005, 12:22 AM

Mitch, I do not use jpg10 to print larger prints with a lot of detail. If you don\\\'t have fine details and textures etc. in your image, you can get away with it though. If your originals are perfect, and don\\\'t contain much detail, you can get away with a lot of stuff. Why use more compression when you don\\\'t need to? That\\\'s the million dollar question. Onethumb likes jpg10 because it saves a lot him of diskspace and bandwidth here at smugmug.

ImageMan

May-05-2005, 07:21 AM

With a \"raw\" file the process of applying the required algorithms is now given to your computer rather than to your camera. This means that the conversion process can take advantage of the more powerful processor in your computer as opposed to the processor in your camera. And, because your computer\'s more powerful processor is being used, camera manufacturers have the option of using more powerful algorithms to process your photograph than could be used in the camera. This can have the effect of giving you richer, sharper pictures. Each camera manufacturer\'s strategy for deploying the \"raw\" conversion algorithms is different but you can easily see that using your computer rather than your camera to create your photo is an advantage.

There is an even more powerful reason for shooting your photographs in the \"raw\" format and that is the ability to make exposure, white balance and other edits to your photo before you even create the photo. Photo editing applications such as Photoshop handle most exposure and white balance editing on jpeg, tiff and Photoshop files by actually removing data from the photo. To test this out just launch a photo in Photoshop, open the Levels panel (Image>Adjustments>Levels) where you\'ll see a histogram for your photo. At the bottom of the histogram are three diamond shaped sliders. Move in the left and right sliders toward the center. In most photos this action will have the effect of increasing the contrast of your photo. Click on the \"OK\" button, which accepts your levels changes. Then reopen the Levels panel and you\'ll most likely see the histogram with open vertical lines. These open vertical lines indicate missing information or data that has been removed from the photo in order to achieve the effect you saw on your monitor.

With a \"raw\" photo you can make these levels and other adjustments before you use the conversion algorithms. In Photoshop CS this is done when you double click on a \"raw\" photo. Photoshop will present you with a panel with various exposure, white balance, contrast, saturation, shadow and other adjustment options in addition to a very large thumbnail of your photo. You can play with these adjustments and Photoshop will adjust the thumbnail photo to give you a very good representation of what the final photo will look like if you accept these settings. When you click \"OK\" your editing adjustments are made to the algorithms that convert your \"raw\" data to reflect the changes you want to make in the photo. The most important thing to remember here is that your adjustments are being applied while your photo is being created. This means that no data is lost and your photo will have all the tonal characteristics that are possible with that file. Because no data is lost when you adjust a \"raw\" file this gives you the ability to make exposure changes to your photo that are as wide as two f-stops or more. This is the reason many commercial photographers shoot in \"raw\" and it is the reason many photojournalists use the \"Raw + jpeg\" setting on newer pro-level digital cameras.

Once your \"raw\" file is converted to a photograph in Photoshop CS, the raw conversion software for your camera or another application you will be able to save the photo as a Photoshop, tiff, jpeg or other common file format. Some programs like Nikon Capture have a batch conversion function that allows you to convert an entire folder of photos with one setting.

All you really need to remember about \"raw\" file formats is that they allow you to produce the best photos with the data that was captured at the time you clicked the shutter.

Copyright John Santaro-Lexar

ImageMan

May-05-2005, 07:38 AM

Mitch, a fairly readable, not so technical article on why it is not best to use jpg10 for printing those size prints.

http://www.scantips.com/basics9j.html ("")

onethumb

May-05-2005, 07:48 AM

The RAW is on top; in-camera on bottom.
http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/pepper-output.jpg
Again, the two files are available for download:
http://brilliantphoton.com/forums/pepper.zip (11,203 KB)
-Winn

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but surprisingly, I prefer the bottom one here (and of the onion, previously). I'm biased towards mildly prefering RAW as a superior "format", pixel-for-pixel, so I'm a little surprised that I'm prefering the JPEG. (I just hate RAW for workflow and wasted time in-camera during a shoot, and the barely-seen pixel benefit is less useful than getting the right shot).

Incidentally, I dream of the days when we have 16bit floating-point per color component (or better!). That'll be incredible.

Don

ImageMan

May-05-2005, 07:53 AM

\"As far as quality and versatility goes, nothing beats a RAW file. RAW files contain the most information (like capturing 4096 shades of gray instead of only 256) and allow for the most versatility when it comes time to open your image in Photoshop.\"

-Excerpted from Ben Willmore\'s BetterPhoto.com on-line course called Photoshop Mastery: The Essentials

ImageMan

May-05-2005, 08:13 AM

W, what demosaicing algorithm did you use when you converted that raw file? Different algorithms can produce a better result than others on different images, that is another advantage of raw. The ability (in some cases) to choose what algorithm is best for that image before converting. BTW, what processes did you use on that image? It looks quite a bit softer than it could be, obscuring some details. I\'m not sure if you applied enough sharpening, or something else.

Anyway, you just can\'t argue that gaining up to 2 stops of dynamic range is not worth it. Even if you don\'t see the advantage on one shot, you may on the next 15-20 in a row. Plus all of the other advantages of raw, like avoiding toothcombing, and after the fact camera setting adjustments, make it a no-brainer if you have the time or ability to shoot in raw or jpg/raw.

BTW, if you suck at editing in general, raw files are probably not for you. The camera can do things better than rookies can almost every time.

Baldy

May-05-2005, 08:16 AM

1. When I order an 11X14 from the 11X14 crop at "compress 10" I will get as good a print as when I uprez and print to my 2200, right?

2. When setting custom prices for either the 11X14 or 16X20 I get the message "Some products not listed due to small image size. Try uploading a larger image." HUH? Larger how?

3. If I were to order a 16X20 from the "compress 10" would I be happy? with it.

MitchHey onethumb, I think he's getting this in custom prices because when EZ Prints discontinued Youth Sweatshirts, desk clocks, and XXL adult sweatshirts, I made them go away by setting the res requirements at 9999 pixels?

Mitch, yes and no: our claim is that a JPEG 10 image cannot be distinguished from a JPEG 12 image at the same resolution on the same printer.

Your upsampling versus EZ Prints' upsampling presents a small and probably insignificant differenence.

But inkjet versus continuous-tone laser is significant because one is dithered and the way they render colors, retain shadow detail, etc., is quite different.

ImageMan

May-05-2005, 08:30 AM

\"Mitch, yes and no: our claim is that a JPEG 10 image cannot be distinguished from a JPEG 12 image at the same resolution on the same printer.\"

Baldy, want to make a monetary commitment on your claims? I mean a bet?

I will provide you with the same images with the minimum pixels required, in both jpg10 and jpg12 compression factors. (A few different sets of images if if you like) We will blow those up to 20x30 or similar, and I will bet 3$ to every one of your $ that you will see more blotching or jaggies etc on the jpg10\'s.

Mitch

May-05-2005, 09:05 AM

Baldy,

Thanks for th reply. That would explain why I got that message.

Now as I see it this thread was started with jh4wvu asking, in so many words, how do I upload my file so that I can get the best possible picture when a print is ordered. Simple question but not so simple an answer, it seems.

I am begining to think that onethumb's reply to BenA2 is the only answer, but not one that I like.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by BenA2
Also, I have a question for you about re-rezing. Since joining smugmug, I have adopted the practice of re-rezing my 4×6 print images to 302 dpi because I understood EZ-prints wouldn't resample these--giving me the best representation of the image I uploaded. It seems to me, to have the best control over sharpening, one should re-rez, then sharpen. Would your contention be that I should perform final sharpening on the original image size and accept that when EZ-prints re-rezes and re-sharpens, I'll get the same or better results compared to re-rezing and sharpening at 302 ppi?

I think the easy answer is to do what I would do in your case: Do it both ways, get prints, and compare them yourself."

Again in so many words. Order prints until you get it the way you like it. That works for the event photog. at less than a buck a pop could upload half dozen different files (uprez, no uprez, jpg10, sharpen, no sharpen, whatever) pick the one that is best and adjust work flow. If I am able to get everything working as I would like, for the most part, the smallest prints I will offer will be 11X14. I could crop a 4x6 out of the 11x14 and have that printed, but as baldy pointed out printers are different. So my only real option is to order prints for the size I will offer which is $$$.

So back to jh4wvu, for his 8x12's what is the best starting point. I think he was looking for input from those who are currently uploading. How are they doing it and is it working?

Any way I'm late for my real job, have to go.

Just my 2 cents

Mitch