Where to print my Canon RAW files...
November 6, 2009 2:43 PM Subscribe
Where can I find a service to print my Canon RAW files?
I have a canon 20D. I shoot in RAW mode and would like to find a service that I can upload the RAW files and have them printed and shipped. Who do you use for this service? I don't want to convert the files to jpg or tiffs.
I have a canon 20D. I shoot in RAW mode and would like to find a service that I can upload the RAW files and have them printed and shipped. Who do you use for this service? I don't want to convert the files to jpg or tiffs.
There are numerous creative choices you need to make when developing raw files, starting with which software you want to use and going on through white balance, exposure, brightness/contrast, noise reduction, sharpening, highlight/shadow recovery, and more. Without knowing your intent for each of these choices, there is no way to produce an image.
You could simply accept the defaults in (say) Canon's raw converter, which will get you reasonably close to what you would have got if you'd shot JPG (since the software is designed to match the camera as closely as possible), but if you're going to do that, why shoot raw? To get the most out of a raw file, someone with a good knowledge of photography is going to have to sit down with the file and find the best settings. This kind of expert labor is expensive, and they may still miss what you intended to do.
Now, telling you not to shoot raw doesn't help much when you have a bunch of raw images you need printed. Fortunately, the Canon software has a batch mode and can take care of your current crop (using default settings) without any intervention from you. Canon cameras do store a JPEG in their raw files, to be used when previewing the image. You could in theory extract that and have it printed. Unfortunately, the one in the 20D is low-resolution and not really suitable for printing. (Later models include a full-resolution JPEG in the raw file. I have a 5D Mark II and am pretty sure it does that.)
Your camera does have a raw+JPEG shooting mode, and I would recommend this. This lets you print the JPEGs under normal circumstances, but if one of them is screwed up for some reason (wrong white balance, a stop or so over/underexposed, or lacking in critical sharpness due to compression) you still have the raw file to process and try to correct the problem. This will work much better than trying to adjust the JPEG. It will use a bit more memory, but memory is cheap, and the 20D files are not that large by current standards.
posted by kindall at 3:14 PM on November 6, 2009
You could simply accept the defaults in (say) Canon's raw converter, which will get you reasonably close to what you would have got if you'd shot JPG (since the software is designed to match the camera as closely as possible), but if you're going to do that, why shoot raw? To get the most out of a raw file, someone with a good knowledge of photography is going to have to sit down with the file and find the best settings. This kind of expert labor is expensive, and they may still miss what you intended to do.
Now, telling you not to shoot raw doesn't help much when you have a bunch of raw images you need printed. Fortunately, the Canon software has a batch mode and can take care of your current crop (using default settings) without any intervention from you. Canon cameras do store a JPEG in their raw files, to be used when previewing the image. You could in theory extract that and have it printed. Unfortunately, the one in the 20D is low-resolution and not really suitable for printing. (Later models include a full-resolution JPEG in the raw file. I have a 5D Mark II and am pretty sure it does that.)
Your camera does have a raw+JPEG shooting mode, and I would recommend this. This lets you print the JPEGs under normal circumstances, but if one of them is screwed up for some reason (wrong white balance, a stop or so over/underexposed, or lacking in critical sharpness due to compression) you still have the raw file to process and try to correct the problem. This will work much better than trying to adjust the JPEG. It will use a bit more memory, but memory is cheap, and the 20D files are not that large by current standards.
posted by kindall at 3:14 PM on November 6, 2009
What notsnot said. It's like printing from undeveloped film. If quality loss is what you are worried about, TIFF is lossless.
posted by starman at 3:17 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by starman at 3:17 PM on November 6, 2009
Shoot in RAW, convert to JPEG and then upload it to your favourite printing service. I don't believe RAW was intended to be used for sharing, more a high quality canvas to do photo manipulation and archiving.
posted by mr_silver at 3:45 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by mr_silver at 3:45 PM on November 6, 2009
OP, it might be helpful if you explain what you're trying to achieve. But I'm with the above--do you editing in your preferred program (Lightroom, e.g.) and export to TIFF to have the image printed. A number of higher-end shops online will print from a TIFF--though to be honest, on the rare occasions when I want a print, I just have it printed off of a JPG at 100% quality from my RAW original. It's fine, honestly.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 3:46 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by Admiral Haddock at 3:46 PM on November 6, 2009
Look into the various photo hosting/ecommerce providers (Photoshelter, smugmug, etc.). I know photoshelter allows uploads of RAW files. From those sites, you can usually pretty easily get prints from their partners. It's a bit of a runaround, though, and you'll probably have to pay for the photo hosting.
If the reason you're wary of converting to jpg or tiff is concerns about quality, you'll be getting much worse quality by not correcting contrast and colors of the raw files than what you'd lose from conversion. If you're worried about time, I'm sure a photoshop or lightroom action (if lightroom allows automation) could mitigate those concerns.
posted by msbrauer at 4:12 PM on November 6, 2009
If the reason you're wary of converting to jpg or tiff is concerns about quality, you'll be getting much worse quality by not correcting contrast and colors of the raw files than what you'd lose from conversion. If you're worried about time, I'm sure a photoshop or lightroom action (if lightroom allows automation) could mitigate those concerns.
posted by msbrauer at 4:12 PM on November 6, 2009
Best answer: This article lists several labs that take your raw files and return prints.
posted by gyusan at 6:15 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by gyusan at 6:15 PM on November 6, 2009
Response by poster: I use Lightroom 2.0 now. Once I adjust the white balance and tone, I convert them to jpg's. I do set them to 100%.
It goes to reason that the file has to be converted, so you lose some quality. If I can keep that out of the equation, the filan result should be even better than a jpg file.
posted by Climber at 6:51 PM on November 6, 2009
It goes to reason that the file has to be converted, so you lose some quality. If I can keep that out of the equation, the filan result should be even better than a jpg file.
posted by Climber at 6:51 PM on November 6, 2009
It goes to reason that the file has to be converted, so you lose some quality. If I can keep that out of the equation, the filan result should be even better than a jpg file.
That's what TIFF is for, it won't lose any quality, and will allow you to set white balance, sharpening etc the way you want it instead of however the lab wants it.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 8:16 PM on November 6, 2009
That's what TIFF is for, it won't lose any quality, and will allow you to set white balance, sharpening etc the way you want it instead of however the lab wants it.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 8:16 PM on November 6, 2009
I think RAW files are probably too big to upload anywhere. You'll have to send them via a CD.
posted by xammerboy at 8:53 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by xammerboy at 8:53 PM on November 6, 2009
Yes, in case you didn't know, TIFF typically uses lossless compression, or no compression at all.
posted by teraflop at 9:30 PM on November 6, 2009
posted by teraflop at 9:30 PM on November 6, 2009
For all intents and purposes a print from a 100% quality jpg is indistinguishable from a print from a tiff. Source: working in a pro photo lab.
Do your own side by side to see for yourself.
And nthing the about regarding raw files - they need some sort of processing. I go raw-tiff, do my magic (photoshopping) and then save as a 12/12 jpg (standard) to print so the files aren't so huge to pass on to the printer. Some photo printers choke on big files and it's likely if you send raw files the lab is converting them anyhow, so you might as well have the control over how that is being done by sending them a print ready jpg or tiff.
posted by smartypantz at 3:11 AM on November 7, 2009
Do your own side by side to see for yourself.
And nthing the about regarding raw files - they need some sort of processing. I go raw-tiff, do my magic (photoshopping) and then save as a 12/12 jpg (standard) to print so the files aren't so huge to pass on to the printer. Some photo printers choke on big files and it's likely if you send raw files the lab is converting them anyhow, so you might as well have the control over how that is being done by sending them a print ready jpg or tiff.
posted by smartypantz at 3:11 AM on November 7, 2009
>It goes to reason that the file has to be converted, so you lose some quality. If I can keep that out of the equation, the filan result should be even better than a jpg file.
Forget theory* - trust your eyes.
Choose an example file. In LR export that photo as a lossless TIFF, a 100% JPEG, an 80% JPEG and a 50% JPEG. Give them (short) different file names, so that when you look at the back of the print you'll be able to identify them (and trust me - you will need to look). And then send them away to your printer of choice.
When you get them back shuffle them and study them as intently as you like in good light. Can you tell them apart, let alone work out which is which?
If you can't tell the difference between some (or all) of them now, then you never will. So pick the jpeg compression of the one with the smallest file size which looks exactly the same to your eyes as the TIFF and use that setting to export your photos for printing in future.
You'll have a lot more printers you can choose from, will almost certainly get cheaper prints, and will be able to upload a lot quicker. And should you choose to get the files reprinted in the future you'll stand a far better chance of getting a matching print back next time.
______
*The overwhelming advantage of using RAW - and I shoot with it exclusively - is the flexibility it allows to change the exposure, white balance, contrast, etc of a file without encountering the clipping and artefacts that a heavily processed JPEG file will typically exhibit. But once you've settled on your preferred settings for a particular shot a JPEG - and often even a heavily compressed JPEG - will do just fine.
posted by puffmoike at 7:41 AM on November 7, 2009
Forget theory* - trust your eyes.
Choose an example file. In LR export that photo as a lossless TIFF, a 100% JPEG, an 80% JPEG and a 50% JPEG. Give them (short) different file names, so that when you look at the back of the print you'll be able to identify them (and trust me - you will need to look). And then send them away to your printer of choice.
When you get them back shuffle them and study them as intently as you like in good light. Can you tell them apart, let alone work out which is which?
If you can't tell the difference between some (or all) of them now, then you never will. So pick the jpeg compression of the one with the smallest file size which looks exactly the same to your eyes as the TIFF and use that setting to export your photos for printing in future.
You'll have a lot more printers you can choose from, will almost certainly get cheaper prints, and will be able to upload a lot quicker. And should you choose to get the files reprinted in the future you'll stand a far better chance of getting a matching print back next time.
______
*The overwhelming advantage of using RAW - and I shoot with it exclusively - is the flexibility it allows to change the exposure, white balance, contrast, etc of a file without encountering the clipping and artefacts that a heavily processed JPEG file will typically exhibit. But once you've settled on your preferred settings for a particular shot a JPEG - and often even a heavily compressed JPEG - will do just fine.
posted by puffmoike at 7:41 AM on November 7, 2009
I just read the article linked to by gsuyan that the OP marked.
What stood out for me was:
The differences among labs' versions of these images were substantial.
In printing RAW files a lab can either:
* make an automated print using settings designed to replicate the JPEG the camera would have produced;
* make an automated print designed to 'maximise' the image quality according to some algorithms; or,
* have a particular lab operator attempt to create an image pleasing to their eye at the time (presumably in a pretty short amount of time, or at pretty high expense)
If the lab uses either of the first two methods then it is only offering functionality which already exists in Lightroom. If the lab uses the third method then prints made from the same RAW file by the same lab from one day to the next will likely substantially vary too.
By contrast I'd expect prints from a JPEG file sent to the various labs with the instruction to "print 'as-is'" to exhibit much less variation.
If the OP has a decent calibrated monitor, a basic understanding of how the inputs in Lightroom's Develop module work and any sort of artistic bent I know which route I'd rather take...
posted by puffmoike at 8:19 AM on November 7, 2009
What stood out for me was:
The differences among labs' versions of these images were substantial.
In printing RAW files a lab can either:
* make an automated print using settings designed to replicate the JPEG the camera would have produced;
* make an automated print designed to 'maximise' the image quality according to some algorithms; or,
* have a particular lab operator attempt to create an image pleasing to their eye at the time (presumably in a pretty short amount of time, or at pretty high expense)
If the lab uses either of the first two methods then it is only offering functionality which already exists in Lightroom. If the lab uses the third method then prints made from the same RAW file by the same lab from one day to the next will likely substantially vary too.
By contrast I'd expect prints from a JPEG file sent to the various labs with the instruction to "print 'as-is'" to exhibit much less variation.
If the OP has a decent calibrated monitor, a basic understanding of how the inputs in Lightroom's Develop module work and any sort of artistic bent I know which route I'd rather take...
posted by puffmoike at 8:19 AM on November 7, 2009
A friend of mine owns a digital lab, where I worked at one time. There's really no reason to send anything other than a jpeg to be printed, unless you want the lab tech to adjust it. I always shoot jpeg+raw on my 5D, and 99% of the time, the jpegs are good enough to print with very little intervention.
posted by klanawa at 10:47 AM on November 7, 2009
posted by klanawa at 10:47 AM on November 7, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by notsnot at 2:58 PM on November 6, 2009