Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

Hi,
I often save files in PSCS4 as psd or jpg.  I also change the image size for posting on the internet.  Does the type or image size make a difference when printing?  I use the Epson R1900 printer.

Thanks,
Merry Christmas to all.

Uncompressed Tiff 8 bit without layers is what I send to the print server with Qimage installed. They will be destroyed when no longer needed so compression isn't necessary, it would be wasting time. They load without problems. The Photoshop (virtual) size is recognised in Tiffs (and JPG) if needed. There's no risk that a lossy compression destroys information like can happen with JPG. I find it the most reliable format in most cases. PNG would have my preference if it was supported properly by more applications.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

I just thought that part of your question was not addressed yet so I am replying along with Ernst.
The size part of the question where you ask, does the size of the image make a difference when printing.?
That is the most important part of the question and the answer is YES!
The more pixels (as a rule) that you supply for your printing software, the higher the ppi, or pixels per inch.
If you use Qimage you can quickly see the readout on screen where printing an 8 x 10, for example, from my shot using my Canon 20D, Qimage shows me I will have 352 ppi
to offer to the printer. That's a lot...
If I use the 800 x 600 web size or email size copy I made and tried to print from that, well,,,,80 ppi is what Qimage reports. Not really what we would call optimal.
I am explaining this in detail because so many times, I email some pictures to a friend or relative, and I find out they liked it so much they printed it!
What?
Had I known.... I could have sent the full resolution copy.

As to the other part of the question, there are probably 5 otrher answers, but the one from Ernst is excellent.
Hope you have the idea a little better.

Merry!
Fred

Thanks all.  This is a question I should have asked a long time ago.  I had figured that the more information submitted, the better the output. 

Merry Christmas to all!

I realize that there will be no visual difference between 8bit and 16bit tiffs.  That known is there any other negative to using 16bit tiff with qimage if the extra storage and/or computing time is of no issue for me.

There are no negative ramifications to sending a 16 bit image for Qimage to use and print.
You do seem to realize that there is no positive either to create a 16 bit image file either.
Maybe some day in the future, it will be a feature when Windows drivers will print it.
Fred

I am well aware there is no difference when printing 16 vs 8bit, which is why I asked.  My RAW files get developed as 16bit tiff and I further process them this way and don't bother saving as 8bit, just keep them 16bit.  Other than extra computing time (never been an issue) and storage (DVD s are cheap) I wondered if there was any other reason not to use 16bit.

For archiving and the source more than 8 bit I will store them at 16 bit.
Pity though that a compressed 16 bit Tiff file is larger than the uncompressed one.
In that sense PNG does a better job.
For some reason I never archive PSD files.
The scanned format is Tiff, off the camera it is RAW + a JPG.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/