8 bit vs 16 bit or JPG vs Tiff prints

Mar 112011
 

One of the things that you end up doing, if you are having stuff printed by someone else, and you are going to be uploading it to them, is to take your nice big juicy 16 bit file, whether it’s a Photoshop or a Tiff and after you’ve done all your tinkering, go to 8 bit and save it, let’s say with level 10 as a jpg.

Now it’s true, I’ve seen the results of this method many times as I’ve done huge prints at West Coast Imaging, and uploaded them jpgs, and I’ve seen the results of work that I’ve done when I was testing this with Fotomoto – and frankly – it all looked fine to me.

One thing lead to another and I can’t really talk about it yet, with FM, but the upshot is that they are going to do prints for me on all the fine art papers they offer, and some they are considering, and send them to me.  So I figured that before I gave them a file for this, I’d do one from the original tiff and then do a print from the jpg version (workflow as described above) and place them side by side (it’s a black and white shot with a very good dynamic range) and just see if I could discern any difference.

I wrote which was which on the back of the Epson Exhibition paper, closed my eyes, and tried to shuffle them around so I wouldn’t know which was which. Sort of a three-card monte thing.  And then put them back under the light and looked at them, and they looked exactly the same.  And that was with my nose almost pressed against each print.

Now, I haven’t done this sort of test with color, which I imagine may need more bits to play with… though I’m sure some of you have.

At any rate – I was just curious about this and whether anyone out there in blog world had a different experience.

I understand that the jpg is a lossy file and that if you keep saving it you’ll eventually get artifacts.  But if saved at level ten, or say 85% and then not touched again – well as I say, I couldn’t see any difference.

So now I’m waiting (with fingers crossed) that a fine art print paper will arrive from Fotomoto that I can offer.

I think tomorrow I’ll try the same thing with color prints.

 Using Your Camera No Responses »

The Tripod and HDR Issue

Mar 032011
 

As anyone that does HDR knows, it is generally useful to have a tripod.  And even if you don’t do HDR, tripods are really a very useful tool to have with you.  Maybe you just want to do long exposures.  So anyhow -

I had gone to B&H a while back and ended up with a small metal tripod that is pretty lame.  It’s lame because even on a flat surface, unless it’s set just right, it has a tendency to slip with a dslr, even with a smallish prime lens.  I won’t go into that.

Now, with all this twittering going on, I have to admit that it is very very rare that I come across something that is directly useful to me, but I did this morning thanks to:

1) Dave Wilson, who wrote a  blog post about the Gorillapods (which I just ordered from Amazon)

but I wouldn’t have seen it except that

2) my old photo pal Paul Lomax tweeted that blog post.

It was the first tweet since I began with twitter that was actually useful.  Thanks Paul and Dave.

 Using Your Camera 6 Responses »

Wide Angle for Cropped Sensor

Dec 082010
 

What are you using for a wide angle for your cropped sensor camera?  I’ve been struggling with my full-frame Canon 20mm f2.8 prime, but of course that’s not a true wide angle for my Canon TI1 (or my older infrared modded camera).

I’m looking for something in the $500 – $750 range.  So far, I see the following possibilities:

SIGMA 10-20MM f4.5/5.6 $479, (16mm – 32mm)

CANON EF-S 10-22 f3.5/4.5 (16mm – 35mm) $720, however there seems to be a discount for this, even a double discount when bought with the Canon 60D which already has a $100 discount.  (They’re making it hard to resist)

SIGMA 17mm – 50mm (APS-C) f2.8 throughout zoom range, with IS as well, and excellent reviews by customers at b&h $669

(I’m leaning towards that 17 – 50mm, just based on specs).

I’d be perfectly happy with a faster prime lens, but I don’t see that many choices and the Canon’s were very fast and very expensive.  Canon has never been that great on the wide side.  The Canon 20mm full frame f2.8 is just fine on a cropped sensor – but it’s not and never has been a stellar lens compared to lenses like the Canon 50 f1.4 or the Sigma 30mm f1.4

Well anyway – I’m just curious to know if I’m overlooking some obvious possibility. (No fish eyes please).

I am making headway with my business and I’m pretty sure that I’ll take the plunge on either the 60D or the T3i at some point, but the wide angle choice is still an issue.

And frankly, I sure would rather have a faster lens – but as I say, I don’t know if I’m ready to pay for it.

 Using Your Camera 19 Responses »

I AM NEW YORK

Oct 012010
 

Music played and recorded by Beckerman, as were the pictures.  Anyway, I’m in the process of creating a category for the movies and this one is still has a certain feeling…

 Using Your Camera 1 Response »

Secret Garden With Canon 40D Infrared

Sep 092010
 

_MG_1902-Editsecret-garden

So, just so you know – it is possible to do infrared digital with an unmodified camera – but you’ll need to use DNG PROFILER (free from Adobe) and it will be a very long exposure, and you’ll have to setup the shot, and then put the filter on (because you can’t see through it if you are using a dslr).

These are appearing now, because I now that I’ve got the movie thing down – I wanted to finally do some of the stuff I had in mind – and one of them was to go through a movie, showing the shot from first capture to final print.  It’s most interesting I think with processes like HDR and Digital Infrared.

 Using Your Camera 2 Responses »
Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8