Printing Digital Files: Give Your Vendor TIFFs, not JPGs

[wstotler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, all.

 

Had an experience today that was an eye-opener.

 

I submitted a 9000x6000 (30"x20") .JPG (at 100% quality--equiv 300dpi--with no artifacts) to be printed at a credible local photo store via their Web uploading service.

 

Went to pick up the print and it was *terrible*, huge square green blotches in dark areas, artifact scuzz at object edges, color shifts, etc. It looked like it was blow-up of a crappy original--not the thing I'd sent that was clean (even though uprezzed on my end). I couldn't believe it.

 

Now the staff was quick to blame my file. But I pointed out that the 16"x20" photo (submitted at the same time, using the same process, and from the same shoot) looked just fine. The staff told me that sometimes the Web service (through which they receive images) randomly "does something" to the images which makes them look bad. Maybe like downsampling them? That's my suspicion, anyway. They weren't going to admit to anything because I don't think *they* knew.

 

Really?! Honestly?!

 

At their request, I took back a TIFF and a JPG on a memory stick. I told them they could choose the one they'd like to try. They were kind enough to print *both* at no charge. Because *they* wanted to see a side-by-side comparison.

 

--> The new print from the JPG still had blobs, artifacts, and color shifts--but not as bad as in the original image I'd sent through their Web service.

 

-->The TIFF printed *beautifully*--no artifacts, good areas of solid color, etc. I was knocked out--it was that good.

 

So, maybe this is something to consider:

 

* Think twice before submitting your files through a Web service. I know I won't submit through the Web again for 16"x20" or 30"x20" prints--8"x12" and 5"x7" I'll still probably send via Web. (Maybe.)

 

* For piece of mind, take your large-size image in to your photo location as a full-size, high-meg TIFF on a card or memory stick. The printer's software may handle the TIFF better than a JPG, even a JPG that shows no artifacts or color shifts whatsoever. That's my side-by-side experience from today. Don't know why (the JPG and TIFF should functionally be very similar), but that's how it appears to be.

 

Thanks!

Will

 

P.S. Previous batches of 8" by 12" prints submitted as 100% JPGs via their Web service looked A-OK.

 

P.P.S. Maybe people here already know this. . . . I hadn't seen anything explicitly about this before, so I figured I'd post.

 

P.P.P.S. I'm shoot RAW with the M8, develop in Aperture, and then push to Photoshop for finishing and uprezzing procedures when I'm going to print big.

[Jeff S]

I hit the "print" button on my computer...works every time...very short walk to pick up.

 

Jeff

[Ed_K]

Does it mean that if the final image on our Leica User Forum Book is bigger than 8x12, everyone will be submitting in Tiff in order to justify the quality of our book? This effort might slow down the Leica server to a crawl given the number of response for the past week on this project .... true?

[dave_d]

What color space was your file and what color space does the lab require for printing? If you sent a jpg in an Adobe RGB and they need an sRGB file the problem could have occured when you let the lab convert the color space. I shoot in Adobe RGB RAW but the lab I use for printing needs an sRGB in jpg. The conversions are done by me and I have not had any problems.

[wstotler]

There's no user error here--on my part or theirs. Specs were followed to the letter.

 

It was an in-house system problem. And they've seen the problem before.

 

When a lossless TIFF is provided, apparently, there's less room for interpretation by their system--it just outputs without having to uncompress a JPG and then figure out what to do with it, mid-workflow.

 

I'm bringing this issue to people's attention so they can factor it into their troubleshooting if they see excessive, obvious artifacting in their large prints they don't expect to see. Maybe it *isn't* your file, maybe it *is* the system munging your file.

 

This does raise the question about why one would send the vendor JPGs in the first place if your vendor accepts TIFFs. . . . I didn't know they accepted that format until the problem occurred--they don't advertise they accept TIFFs.

 

Cheers,

Will

[stunsworth]

Does it mean that if the final image on our Leica User Forum Book is bigger than 8x12, everyone will be submitting in Tiff in order to justify the quality of our book? This effort might slow down the Leica server to a crawl given the number of response for the past week on this project .... true?

 

Blurb - assuming that's what's going to be used - prints Jpegs without a problem. I've been involved in a few project printing up to the then maximum size.

 

From speaking to Bill I think the process for the book production will be that everyone will send him internet sized images and the people whose photographs are selected will then be invited to send in full sized images for publication. If I've got that wrong then I'm sure Bill will respond.

[wstotler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hit the "print" button on my computer...works every time...very short walk to pick up. Jeff

 

Hey, Jeff. Not everyone can justify the expense of a printer that can output a 20" by 30" print sitting at the house. For the number of prints I make vs. the cost of the equipment and supplies to make them, taking TIFF files to an outside vendor (even figuring in the cost/time of travel) is the winner, hands down.

[wstotler]

Blurb - assuming that's what's going to be used - prints Jpegs without a problem. I've been involved in a few project printing up to the then maximum size.

 

Thanks for hopping in, S.

 

Blurb does a good job from my experience, also. Looks really credible. Web submission in that case isn't an issue. I'd only have worries if the book was going to be 30" by 20".