Final raw file conversion

[RonFrank]

He has sold numerous canvas prints of images shot in jpg with a Canon S60.

There are a large number of pretty good cameras that do not shot in raw, so the original file (jpg) would be the best to archive, right?

Not necessarily. The possibility of saving over the jpg exists, and every save is lossy.

The Canon S60 supports RAW. Not sure why anyone shoots in jpg with a camera that supports RAW unless they are running out of card space.

As far as pixels go; what is the difference in pixel count between a jpg that is 12x18 @ 200 dpi and a tif that is 12x18 @ 200 dpi?

Not really sure, I'd have to look, but Tif is not a very efficient format.

I have compared tif prints to jpg prints, on both my own Canon S-900 printer and the local Costco's printers, and I like the look of the jpg prints better.

I have the exact opposite experience, but I've never used Costco, and generally don't use Tif either. I find that when printing anything smaller that 11x14 the file format is not as critical.

Jpg print files require less storage, print faster and look better in the test prints I have made. If you don't do any tests you are left with a belief!

I've done quite a bit of testing/printing over the years, and can not agree with your conclusion.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

I save my RAW conversions as a PSD.

I convert them to other formats as needed. I also have the original fine JPG which is handy for viewing, and to put on the web if I so desire.

I always leave my originals alone.

So your camera records both a raw and a fine jpg? please clarify.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

The Canon S60 supports RAW. Not sure why anyone shoots in jpg with a camera that supports RAW unless they are running out of card space.

As a freedive photographer, raw record times make it hard to get more than one image at depth.

When the S60 came out the largest cards were 512's and were well over $100. The photographer in question was computer illiterate back then; Open file in PS7, auto-levels, auto-color, resize as needed, save to print or web folder. He sold so many that way I still can not convince him to shoot raw.

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

I have the exact opposite experience, but I've never used Costco, and generally don't use Tif either. I find that when printing anything smaller that 11x14 the file format is not as critical.

I've done quite a bit of testing/printing over the years, and can not agree with your conclusion.

So you are saying that you generally don't use tif, but tif is better for printing than jpg in your eyes, even though the file type is not critical smaller than 11x14. We must assume you are printing psd files? What sizes and what printers?

 

[PlanetMarz]

My 5-d will record both raw and jpg files to CF card - My DS will record them to both CF and SD cards.
I do all of my own printing on my epson printers (2400 and 4880).

 

[buleetu]

i have all my originals on my external hard drive, i will put them on disks very soon so i have a blank external again,

i have put all of my photos on photobucket aswell for storage because i have lost pictures in the past by not backing them up right away and then my gf crashed my laptop and i lost everything, so redundancy every where for me

do the pictures get compressed or something when they go on photobucket? they look a little different to my originals ???? is flicker any better?? and is there a place like flicker i can store raw files??

 

[Kim]

So your camera records both a raw and a fine jpg? please clarify.

My Canon 400D does.

I keep my images untouched in RAW - save PSD edited files - upload JPEGS.

 

[alcina]

do the pictures get compressed or something when they go on photobucket? they look a little different to my originals ???? is flicker any better?? and is there a place like flicker i can store raw files??

yes, I think all the free online hosting places do compress the images.

There are many places you can store your RAW images with an upload - a google search for pro storage should help. None of it is free, of course.

 

[Kim]

yes, I think all the free online hosting places do compress the images.

All the ones I know do. However - somewhere like Flickr charges very little for a "pro" account.

 

[BurBunny]

do the pictures get compressed or something when they go on photobucket? they look a little different to my originals ???? is flicker any better?? and is there a place like flicker i can store raw files??

In addition to compression, they may also be appearing different due to colorspace. Be sure to *always* have your web pictures converted to sRGB color space before uploading. In addition, if you're editing on a color calibrated monitor, viewing them online may look a bit different, depending on your browser. IE is not color managed, nor is the current full release of Firefox (though the current beta of FF is). That can make a difference as well.