Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Newbie Question: Processing RAWs (.NEFs) - Image Size Redu..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 14, 2005 5:47:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Newbie Question: Processing RAWs (.NEFs) - Image Size Reduction Necessary?
I intend to edit my RAW (.NEF) files from my Nikon D70 in Nikon
Capture and/or Adobe Photoshop and rendering the final shots as JPEGs at
300dpi for printing at a commercial printer (mostly for 4X6 prints). When I
printed samples out on my cheap bubblejet printer, I had to of course
include the step of reducing the image size in PhotoShop to 4X6 for printing
purposes. It's my understanding that commercial printers use software to
automatically reduce the image size for printing. (I assume this because in
the past when I had shot 5 megapixel JPEGs in my cheap digital pocket
camera, I never reduced the image size before I dropped off the JPEGs for
commercial printing).
MY QUESTIONS: 1) Is it recommended that I reduce the image size of
the JPEGs I create from the RAWs to 4X6 or should I just skip that step and
let the commercial printers software do it for me? 2) If I don't reduce the
image size myself, am I reducing the quality of the JPEGs I render by in
essence having the JPEGs being compressed twice....once when I make the
JPEGs and once by the commercial printer's software? Hard drive space is
not an issue and I'd rather skip reducing the image size if it really
doesn't matter. Thanks in advance for you input.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:02:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:47:15 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "anonymous1"
<anonymous@anon.com> wrote:

>Newbie Question: Processing RAWs (.NEFs) - Image Size Reduction Necessary?
> I intend to edit my RAW (.NEF) files from my Nikon D70 in Nikon
>Capture and/or Adobe Photoshop and rendering the final shots as JPEGs at
>300dpi for printing at a commercial printer (mostly for 4X6 prints). When I
>printed samples out on my cheap bubblejet printer, I had to of course
>include the step of reducing the image size in PhotoShop to 4X6 for printing
>purposes. It's my understanding that commercial printers use software to
>automatically reduce the image size for printing. (I assume this because in
>the past when I had shot 5 megapixel JPEGs in my cheap digital pocket
>camera, I never reduced the image size before I dropped off the JPEGs for
>commercial printing).
> MY QUESTIONS: 1) Is it recommended that I reduce the image size of
>the JPEGs I create from the RAWs to 4X6 or should I just skip that step and
>let the commercial printers software do it for me? 2) If I don't reduce the
>image size myself, am I reducing the quality of the JPEGs I render by in
>essence having the JPEGs being compressed twice....once when I make the
>JPEGs and once by the commercial printer's software? Hard drive space is
>not an issue and I'd rather skip reducing the image size if it really
>doesn't matter. Thanks in advance for you input.

You need to start with a basic understanding of image PPI and printer dpi.
A good place to start is at Wayne Fulton's Scantips site
http://www.scantips.com/basics01.html

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
May 15, 2005 1:34:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I guess I do not understand why you would bother with a D70 if all you want
are drugstore/P&S quality 4x6 prints. You could save time, aggravation and
money with fixed lens camera and get results that are indistinguishable from
what the D70 will produce.

Several free tutorials of excellent quality about how to use the Adobe raw
converter are available on the web. Today the site seems to be down but
www.russellbrown.com has several video tutorials for download on the raw
converter and other Photoshop topics. To get the most out of the raw
converter however requires understanding the alternative tools that are
available for image manipulation in Photoshop which may be a better choice
than the raw converter for a particular purpose.

Again if jpeg snapshots are your goal, which is a legitimate goal, the
D70/Adobe raw converter is very much overkill.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 1:34:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> writes:
> I guess I do not understand why you would bother with a D70 if all
> you want are drugstore/P&S quality 4x6 prints. You could save time,
> aggravation and money with fixed lens camera and get results that
> are indistinguishable from what the D70 will produce.

Huh? The D70 gives you far more control over lighting (wireless
flash automation), cleaner images at high ISO, interchangeable lenses
including monster telephotos, freedom from shutter lag, etc. All
of those things are relevant regardless of the print size.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 1:34:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I certainly don't understand this comment at all.... I moved from an $800
Olympus C8080 to the D70, and NO MATTER what size prints I want, the image
quality from the D70 blows the doors off every P&S camera I have owned. There
is REAL depth of field, REAL lighting accuracy, REAL color accuracy. The
advantages go on and on... "drugstore quality 4x6 prints" is NOT the issue.

Tim




"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:_9uhe.3273$3%4.2174@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
I guess I do not understand why you would bother with a D70 if all you want
are drugstore/P&S quality 4x6 prints. You could save time, aggravation and
money with fixed lens camera and get results that are indistinguishable from
what the D70 will produce.
May 15, 2005 4:19:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"anonymous1" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message
news:4e36e$428639a5$d1cc59a3$31444@snip.allthenewsgroups.com...
> Newbie Question: Processing RAWs (.NEFs) - Image Size Reduction Necessary?
> I intend to edit my RAW (.NEF) files from my Nikon D70 in Nikon
> Capture and/or Adobe Photoshop and rendering the final shots as JPEGs at
> 300dpi for printing at a commercial printer (mostly for 4X6 prints). When
> I
> printed samples out on my cheap bubblejet printer, I had to of course
> include the step of reducing the image size in PhotoShop to 4X6 for
> printing
> purposes. It's my understanding that commercial printers use software to
> automatically reduce the image size for printing. (I assume this because
> in
> the past when I had shot 5 megapixel JPEGs in my cheap digital pocket
> camera, I never reduced the image size before I dropped off the JPEGs for
> commercial printing).
> MY QUESTIONS: 1) Is it recommended that I reduce the image size of
> the JPEGs I create from the RAWs to 4X6 or should I just skip that step
> and
> let the commercial printers software do it for me? 2) If I don't reduce
> the
> image size myself, am I reducing the quality of the JPEGs I render by in
> essence having the JPEGs being compressed twice....once when I make the
> JPEGs and once by the commercial printer's software? Hard drive space is
> not an issue and I'd rather skip reducing the image size if it really
> doesn't matter. Thanks in advance for you input.
>
>
I use a D70, and find the quality very good, much better, but not mind
blowingly vastly better than my wife's Fuji S5500.

If you only ever look at 6 x 4 prints, I do not understand your assertion
about the vast difference in quality. From my years of Photographic
printing experience, (a first Salon acceptance in 1963), I would say that it
is very difficult to judge print quality, or original image quality, in such
a small print.

I can remember in those days thinking I was quite good, until I tried making
my first big Prints (20 x 16). Only then did I see that, not only was the
negative exposure and contrast well out, but my focussing left a lot to be
desired. (overall grey, grainy and woolly images)

I can understand anyone wanting to own a really nice Camera, because, even
if you never take any photos, it is a nice thing to own and handle and an
intellectual challenge to find out what everything does.

But you are not going to see the benefits of a D70 , or any similar camera,
until you start making big prints.

Jpeg. You are concerned about losing quality at the photo printers.

If you resize downward yourself, before sending off, that will be the 2nd
time you have saved as a Jpeg, so you will have reduced the quality.

If you import from the Camera as a Nef and convert to and save as Tiff. You
should then be able to downsize and save as Jpeg for the print shop without
losing much quality. There is not much point in using a high quality camera
and then only saving your pictures in a Lossy format like Jpeg.

Roy G
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:16:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <4e36e$428639a5$d1cc59a3$31444@snip.allthenewsgroups.com>,
"anonymous1" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote:

>Newbie Question: Processing RAWs (.NEFs) - Image Size Reduction Necessary?
> I intend to edit my RAW (.NEF) files from my Nikon D70 in Nikon
>Capture and/or Adobe Photoshop and rendering the final shots as JPEGs at
>300dpi for printing at a commercial printer (mostly for 4X6 prints). When I
>printed samples out on my cheap bubblejet printer, I had to of course
>include the step of reducing the image size in PhotoShop to 4X6 for printing
>purposes. It's my understanding that commercial printers use software to
>automatically reduce the image size for printing. (I assume this because in
>the past when I had shot 5 megapixel JPEGs in my cheap digital pocket
>camera, I never reduced the image size before I dropped off the JPEGs for
>commercial printing).
> MY QUESTIONS: 1) Is it recommended that I reduce the image size of
>the JPEGs I create from the RAWs to 4X6 or should I just skip that step and
>let the commercial printers software do it for me? 2) If I don't reduce the
>image size myself, am I reducing the quality of the JPEGs I render by in
>essence having the JPEGs being compressed twice....once when I make the
>JPEGs and once by the commercial printer's software? Hard drive space is
>not an issue and I'd rather skip reducing the image size if it really
>doesn't matter. Thanks in advance for you input.

It is safest to simply leave the image at its native pixel resolution
and tell the print dialogue to print it at the size you want. It is
very easy to totally destroy the image in an attempt to change the print
size of the image. It's one of those pitfalls that thousands run to
like lemmings into the sea. Forget about DPI; forget about print size,
until the driver asks you what size you want to print at. Don't change
anything in the program before printing, regarding print size, except to
crop the image as you want it printed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:21:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <_9uhe.3273$3%4.2174@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

>I guess I do not understand why you would bother with a D70 if all you want
>are drugstore/P&S quality 4x6 prints. You could save time, aggravation and
>money with fixed lens camera and get results that are indistinguishable from
>what the D70 will produce.

Wow. That's a lot of assuming.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!