Printing to TIFF?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In the Print module, there are two options for printing: to a printer and to a file. When printing to a file, there seems to be only one choice: JPEG. What if I want to send a file to a lab as TIFF?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In the Print module, there are two options for printing: to a printer and to a file. When printing to a file, there seems to be only one choice: JPEG. What if I want to send a file to a lab as TIFF?

Hi Slobodan,

While not an exact answer to your question, there should not be much of a difference between a highest quality JPEG and an 8 bit/channel TIFF. Layering them in Photoshop with Difference layer blending mode will confirm that.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Slobodan,

You could check Publish Services->Publish To Harddrive and use Edit Settings. I have not really tried this, yet, but it may achieve what you want to do.

Best regards
Erik

[RFPhotography]

Why not just use the Export command and export the file as a TIFF to send to the lab?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Thanks guys, that was educational! I guess I was fixated on the upresing and sharpening features of the Print module, and completely forgot that the same engine (I hope) exists in the Export function.

Bart, thanks for the Difference tip. It was amazing to discover there is no difference between jpeg and tiff files whatsoever, in spite of the fact that one is 6-7 times larger in Mb than the other. How is that even possible? Could it be because of the screen resolution (94 ppi in my case), i.e., the screen not having enough resolution to show the difference, but the print at 300 ppi would?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, thanks for the Difference tip. It was amazing to discover there is no difference between jpeg and till files whatsoever, in spite of the fact that one is 6-7 times larger in Mb than the other. How is that even possible? Could it be because of the screen resolution (94 ppi in my case), i.e., the screen not having enough resolution to show the difference, but the print at 300 ppi would?

The best way to see differences is by looking at the histogram of two layers with the top one difference mode. With an absolutely identical image in each layer, all pixels will have a zero value (bin 0 has an equal number of pixels as the total image). There usually are some small differences, in particular around high detail areas. One can also add a threshold layer to the differenced layers which makes the exact locations of the differences clear. The small differences that can exist in the JPEG representation will be next to impossible to find in the printed output of an 8-bit/channel pipeline.

The JPEG version can be smaller due to a different arrangement of the brightness and color data (RGB -> YCbCr) which compresses more efficiently and encoding it as data in the frequency domain instead of the spatial domain which also has its benefits for compact representation of data, but requires a bit of extra time when opening the file to convert it back to  RGB data in the spatial domain (AKA pixels). For lower than maximum quality JPEGs there is also additional loss of actual data which makes it even more effective to compress the remaining data.

Cheers,
Bart

[Schewe]

Bart, thanks for the Difference tip. It was amazing to discover there is no difference between jpeg and till files whatsoever, in spite of the fact that one is 6-7 times larger in Mb than the other. How is that even possible? Could it be because of the screen resolution (94 ppi in my case), i.e., the screen not having enough resolution to show the difference, but the print at 300 ppi would?

Oh, there's a difference but the differences are so small (depending on the compression level) as to make little practical difference for a final output only file. As long as the JPEG will not be further edited, JPEG makes for a reasonable output file for printing–which is why Lightroom only offers JPEG and not TIFF for print to file.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Oh, there's a difference but the differences are so small (depending on the compression level) as to make little practical difference for a final output only file. As long as the JPEG will not be further edited, JPEG makes for a reasonable output file for printing–which is why Lightroom only offers JPEG and not TIFF for print to file.

If you are going to outsource a print job (you really got me intrigued on the Gallery/Canvas tutorial and discussion with Andrew Collett that was just released!!!) for something that my printer (3880) cannot handle what is the best format to send an image, TIFF or JPEG?  Andrew's website will accept both.

[Schewe]

...what is the best format to send an image, TIFF or JPEG?  Andrew's website will accept both.

If there's ANY chance there may need to be an edit I would use TIFF. As long as there are ZERO edits done after supplying the file I would say either although I personally would be inclined to use ProPhoto, 16 bit TIFFs.

[Hening Bettermann]

> The small differences that can exist in the JPEG representation will be next to impossible to find in the printed output of an 8-bit/channel pipeline.

What about a 16 bit pipeline - if you can find one (as a print service)?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

But would you use any colorspace wider than sRGB or AdobeRGB in JPEG or 8-bit TIFF?

Best regards
Erik

Oh, there's a difference but the differences are so small (depending on the compression level) as to make little practical difference for a final output only file. As long as the JPEG will not be further edited, JPEG makes for a reasonable output file for printing–which is why Lightroom only offers JPEG and not TIFF for print to file.

[Schewe]

But would you use any colorspace wider than sRGB or AdobeRGB in JPEG or 8-bit TIFF?

Nope...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

> The small differences that can exist in the JPEG representation will be next to impossible to find in the printed output of an 8-bit/channel pipeline.

What about a 16 bit pipeline - if you can find one (as a print service)?

Hi Hening,

Due to the higher precision, the errors will be bigger. However, it depends on the image content, the output magnification, the viewing distance, and the print technology, whether you'll be able to see them.

Cheers,
Bart

[Hening Bettermann]

Thank you, Bart.

[mac_paolo]

I agree on the fact that printing straight from a JPEG or a TIFF, withous any further retouch is almost identical, however TIFF opens for a 16bit pipeline, which could be almost useless for high detail images, but still offers a small improvement.
I'm talking about printing on a Mac platform, of course