RAW prints

"Jim" <j.n RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>"Juan Moore Beer" <juanmoorebeer RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8u5r85xpaa.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>>
>>
>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; 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) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

Juan Moore Beer wrote:
> 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.)
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

"Juan Moore Beer" <juanmoorebeer DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8u5r85xpaa.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>
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.
Jim
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

John Navas <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:26:44 -0900, floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>wrote in <8763wkn9gr.fld.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com>:
>
>>"Jim" <j.n.TakeThisOut@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.

Same bullshit that you write in other threads.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:33:13 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
<juanmoorebeer RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in <8u5r85xpaa.ln2 RemoveThis @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)
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:26:44 -0900, floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <8763wkn9gr.fld.RemoveThis@apaflo.com>:

>"Jim" <j.n.RemoveThis@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.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:8763wkn9gr.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Jim" <j.n DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote:
>>"Juan Moore Beer" <juanmoorebeer DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:8u5r85xpaa.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>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; 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) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
My point was that you do not print directly RAW files (or JPEG or TIFF,
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
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

In article <87ve4kk73x.fld RemoveThis @apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd RemoveThis @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.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:33:13 -0800, Juan Moore Beer wrote:

> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

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.
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

On 19 Feb 2008 19:41:42 GMT, ray <ray.TakeThisOut@zianet.com> wrote in
<620pnmF2047llU1.TakeThisOut@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.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

Usually, they would want you to supply the image in RGB TIFF or JPEG using
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" <juanmoorebeer.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8u5r85xpaa.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

"Juan Moore Beer" <juanmoorebeer.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8u5r85xpaa.ln2@recgroups.com...
> Can anyone recommend an online service for making prints from RAW?
>

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
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints 

On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, John Navas <spamfilt....DeleteThis@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.

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
 >> Stay informed about: RAW prints