Thanks for a great informative video. I came across your channel while looking for info on my new ET-8550. I have learned a tremendous amount info about printing in general and will be reviewing some videos before printing for competitions.
Thank you Mr. Cooper, I believe that I may have been one of those who asked a similar question. This is great and I can always refer back to it when required. Happy Holidays!
Honestly, storage can not be an argument for 8bit. If you take 50000 raw pictures each year with a high resolution camera such as Canon Eos R you need 2TB each year. It is a cost about €60 for a traditional external harddisk each year or €5 each month. Compare to the cost of camera and lenses it is nothing. Why buy an expensive camera and not use its full potential because you save €60 a year? For me, taken about 50000 over a period of 10 years storage is not a problem. And, if you take 50000 a year most must be almost the same and you May delete lot of hhe dublicates. But that is how I see it.
Hi Kieth, appreciate your technical knowledge and clear professionalism. I’m very inspired by Nick Carver in California, who emphasises the print as the finished item, but he’s in large format. Just ordered your book on Tilt-Shift lenses, as I’m very much 35mm 😂
Thanks - If you've not seen it, all my tilt/shift stuff is indexed at www.northlight-images.co.uk/photography-articles-and-reviews/tilt-and-shift-lens-articles-and-reviews/
Concerning the choice of camera relative to their color bit rate, are you considering relevant the hype from a 10 bit to a 14 bit considering the heavy post processing of the images? Since most of the colors are changed, is it in your experience causing more posterization with the 10 bit? And is it perceivable? Is the gain in colors at 14 bit appreciable?
I only ever shoot cameras at their highest settings, so I'll take what's available ;-) The bit depth does matter, but it varies between camera models and companies. I'd say there is no simple answer other than any savings in size/speed do come at a price - whether noticeable or not will vary.
Hi Keith Happy Holidays , At some point could you go over what is the minumum PPI you need for large prints fom the actual photo. I use a Canon pro 200 based on your reveiw and print at 13x19 with a program called Qimage and amazed at the results. Doe the printer upscale or is it the software? Thanks Mac
Thanks - there is no minimum really. It depends on the image and the print size [and viewing distance] For the PRO-200 see this article www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-200-driver-settings/
Hi Keith, thanks for a fascinating presentation. May I ask you a quick Q? I initially process my Canon FF raw files in DPP4, as it gives to my eyes the best results (for those Canon colours and lens corrections etc). I then export these basic edits as a 16 bit TIF. I can then use this TIF in LrC (or indeed PS, which I have yet to master, so not using layers yet). Would there be any advantage at all to converting the 16 bit TIF to PSD? Or even DNG?Or shall I just continue to process (and then archive) my fully processed images as 16 bit TIF files? Thanks a lot.
TIFF format is a somewhat generic 'container' for image data - indeed [IIRC] PSD is a type of TIFF, with specific stuff inside. For basic images TIFF is pretty safe. I use PSD since I may include Photoshop layers/adjustments in the file. I also use PSB for very large files which go beyond the size limits of PSD/TIFF/JPEG [huge panoramics]
You answered my one question near the very end there, although i pretty much knew it or suspected it, but i wanted your 2 cents/pence anyway. And it was whether if you're starting out with an 8 bit file from either a high quality Jpeg or Tiff and convert to 16 bit in post is it really worth it? Including for printing & namely in Photoshop. My answer would be probably not, because if you're starting out at only 8 bit and trying to upconvert with data that wasn't there originally, then you're not likely gaining anything. Could you do that to fool your printer(any brand)into "thinking" there's more color and DR data than there really is?
ah - the 8>16 bit at the end of this video is more specifically referring to B&W from colour. - In general a move from 8>16 [for colour images] is unlikely to be of any noticeable use but I've not tested this in detail.
High Keith, great content as usual, What about a PNG file for printing ? i have heard this a none compress file or would this be of too great size for printing ?.
I don't know if this is a question you've covered elsewhere, so I'll ask it here. I've not had a (let's use these words) 'good' or 'pricey' printer before, and all the printers I have had became useless because I didn't use them for several months, so the ink jets became blocked. I'm the sort of person who will think of a big hobby project, print lots of images for several weeks, and then print nothing for months, after which time I come back and find my printer is a dried up piece of junk. Is there a way to use a printer in this way (I am looking at the ET-8550 after your excellent reviews of it)? I'm looking for some way to put the printer into a 'factory fresh' setting, maybe empty out the ink jets, and flush the whole system - clearing out anything that could possibly dry up hard, etc. I realise I am not a standard user, but I'd love to buy a 'good' or 'pricey' printer (a step up from the cheap consumer printers), while knowing I may sometimes not use it for an extended period of time, but wanting not to kill it by not using it for so long.
No printer likes being left... There is no printer I've ever tested which I'd want to use that infrequently - months means increased likelihood of failure - it's a random thing - like smoking... The only way to effectively deal with this [I've found] is to set a diary reminder and print a nozzle check on plain paper - I have this set weekly for a P5000, but that's a commercial printer designed to be used every day. Some printers might be OK with 3 weeks. I do this because just deciding I should do test prints doesn't guarantee them regularly happening... ;-) If you don't think you'll actually follow such reminders, then the printer will increase its chances of becoming faulty. Flushing is problematic and expensive in wasted ink Thanks for asking - time for a new video I think ;-)
@@KeithCooper Thanks Keith, that is what I expected. I'm not known for taking heed of my own reminders. For example, I don't drive much, and regularly kill my car's battery by leaving it for weeks at a time, rather than driving a few miles every week to top it up, so I'm not overly confident I could do what you suggest. However, car batteries can be easily replaced, rather than the whole car, so perhaps the thought that 'you will destroy your expensive printer if you just leave it' would motivate me a little more. I wouldn't mind leaving the printer switched on permanently if there was some kind of mode where it flushed itself out, but I'm writing that knowing I'm just an outlier with unusual needs for whom no printer company would need to cater! Perhaps the best idea would be for me to simply use a print service, and factor in the extra cost-per-print versus not having to buy a printer at all!
Actually the diary reminder only started working really well when the printer was moved to my office and I could switch it on just by leaning over to it ;-)
Keith, great video as usual. Now I understand that any printer today supports 16 bits, so why save at 16 bits? I don't really understand and is a fuzzy area for me. I Have a Canon Pro-300, does this printer support 16 bits? Thanks again
Thanks For working, 16 bit for the file, is important to me for keeping maximum information in the file - flexibility in editing and future use of the file. As to whether a printer/driver can make use of this, that's another matter - it's different on Macs/PCs too. I've tried a few tests with some printers, but don't have an image/printer/paper combination which I can definitely go - here, look at the 16/8 bit difference. Even so I've worked in 16 bit for 20 years now - but I also keep all my raw camera files too.
You mentioned profiling. Could you make a comparison between profiles with different patch numbers e.g. 46, 328, IT8.4 or 10.000 patches. THAT would be a nice video.
It would not be nearly as illuminating as you might think. I'm afraid I doubt you would see much difference on a video. An effective number of patches depends on the very much on the profiling software as well as the printer and the paper. Patch count on its own is a poor indicator of profile quality. However, I will return to profiling when I next test a new printer [likely the P5300]
Unfortunately, some people overestimate this, whether they have 918 or 10,000 batches; in my opinion, the effort is not worth it for a “normal” photographer. That's just more scientific and maybe an improvement of maybe 1% or less and these fluctuations exist anyway. Maybe it's important when working in color binding and in pre-press, but in photography it's much more important to look at the photo...all the best!
I want to thank you Keith, I've had so much help from your deep knowledge in printing, made the jump and bought a sc-p900 18 month ago. The prints are amazing and I still think it's hard and a lot of trial and error, but your videos have been crucial to me. I work with 16 bit files and also print those. One issue I come to sometimes though is that that printing big tiff files with a paper profile selected, in Epsons software, can halt the whole process. I don't see this when I choose argb e G. Maybe it's all the calculations on these (big) tiff files? Better to print via photoshop? Anyway, thank you for the great channel and all the helpful content you provide us with ❤
Thanks for that. I've not come across that with Epson software, but did a while ago when printing a very large panoramic print [~47 feet long] Both Canon an Epson tried printing it and ran into the same issues, but the file was huge [several gigabytes]
@@KeithCooper 47 feet!? That's kind of crazy. Anyhow, I forgot to ask about wifi VS RJ45 cable. I send my files wireless, via the router, may that is an issue/the culprit?
I'd not have thought wireless would be an issue? I've used it for most of my more recent testing. BTW ... For that print, see: www.northlight-images.co.uk/making-a-14-metre-photographic-print/
You're taking about using as large colour space as possible - Now I have a question :) I have calibrated myLG-something-38" using a SpyderX - As I understand it covers the whole colour space Adobe Srgb provide, but not the whole colour space of Adobe rbg. Will I still gain an advantage using a colour space my screen can not show, or should I stick with lesser colour space my screen can show?
Depends on what you are doing with the images - for commercial images I often supply them in sRGB. I worked [including prints] for many years with sRGB monitors - quite happily with a bigger [working] colour space. You just need to appreciate where a bigger space may cause some issues. This article I wrote may explain it better... www.northlight-images.co.uk/a-photo-print-of-some-bright-red-flowers/ However, do note that in the context of this particular video, the working space I mention is entirely related to B&W image creation.
Hello, what I know, at least with the Epson driver, they only work internally with 8-bit. With MAC you can send 16 bit, but internally in the driver it continues to work with 8 bit. (You can ask Epson directly...) That's why renowned printer software such as Print Mirage only works with 8 bit data. However, I would carry out the workflow beforehand in 16 bit
Yes - I forgot that particular win limitation. I'll use 16 when available [I've not used a win PC for a long long time] but images which show any difference are uncommon
Thank you for the video. I’ve wondered if you have an old digital photo that you only have a jpeg of, which you then Process edit etc, is their any advantage in saving as a tif, psd or dng? In other words did you create new color data that would be best served by now saving at 16 bit when original file was 8. Thanks again
Depends what I want o do with the image - If I'm editing it beyond any basic adjustments, I'll likely switch to16 bit mode in Photoshop, the save as a psd [with layers etc] All depends on what I want to do with the image - DNG though has no use whatsoever AFAIK
@@KeithCooper sounds like your saying that editing an 8 bit jpg in 16 bit mode can create a wider gamut than the original jpg and is worth doing and could have the theoretical benefits in printing that you discussed in this video.
Hi Keith I am hoping that now 32-bit jpgXL file format is available camera companies will pick it up and make it an in camera option. Wondering if you are thinking the same? And if so I'm wondering if you could help promote the cause, so to speak. I'm not part of the jpegXL team, just somebody who would really like to see it used in cameras as the default jpg option.
Not something on my radar if I'm honest - I only ever have JPEGs out of the camera as a backup for my raw files. However - that's just me. The specs are a welcome improvement and look forward, but of course I remember all the promises for jpeg2000, some 20+ years ago Unfortunately the camera companies are deeply proprietary at heart and very conservative in their nature, so don't hold your breath. Then of course there's Google and those annoying webp files which won't open on some of my browsers...
Yes, hard to get a new format accepted. I am thinking how wonderful it would be to pull a 16+bit jpegXL straight out of camera. It has the potential for long-term compatibility if it can get off the ground. My hope is it will eventually replace jpg entirely. I have been saving edited files to PNG, but now saving to jpegXL in gimp. Fingers crossed! P.S. saw you on Tin House the other week. A good talk. All the best from New Zealand.
@@RogerBays Thanks - I perhaps care more for a good raw format, I can get those out of the camera as it is ;-) JpegXL could indeed hold 'better' results of processing the raw data, but it offers me nothing much in any camera I'd use for my work. Then again I've used Photoshop for editing for 25+ years. All edited files [with layers] are .psd or .psb for the very big ones - but of course, they are TIFF based formats so can fit into the jpgxl framework... I'll have to have a word with Scott and see if he fancies doing another chat some time!
I process all my RAW to 16 bit Prophoto, all B&W converts from 16 bit Prophoto and to 16 BIT, print for me depends on the RIP being used. If the RIP supports 16 bit I use it if not then I don't. As far as JPG goes many vendors only accept JPG files for expedience. They are smaller and transmit quicker. I never use JPG in editing, I'll convert the JPG to the native application format and edit so there is no loos of quality by resaving a JPG format.
Yes - we supply most of our commercial images in sRGB as JPEGs - entirely for simplicity and convenience. The number of clients wanting more than this is relatively few. BTW - In general I assume that most people watching this stuff won't be using a RIP ;-) I will address this to some extent when I next get a higher end printer to test.
@@KeithCooper I edit files and prepare them for output for my clients, they output them all over the world, in many formats. I spend quite a bit of time getting to production managers so the prep is correct. Unfortunately the support is getting worse.
I export all my files to both 16bit tiffs and jpg for web, but some (very few) jpgs ends up having banding. Do you experience banding issues with jpg/8bit files?
Not a problem I've come across for many years. I've heard it discussed on occasions, with various fixes suggested, including adding a percent or so of Gaussian noise before saving as jpeg.
Similar, but different. The question of sensor bit depths, when coupled with how a camera processes sensor data to create a raw file is quite a complex one. It does mean that if you take you raw file and convert it [another complex area] then an 8 bit file does not represent the best you can get out of it. Putting into a 16 bit file gives 'space' for the data. Working at 16 bit just gives you the most flexibility in retaining information from your original.
Whether the printer specifically uses 16 bit data doesn't matter if the driver can use 16 bit data [assuming you are not using a RIP] Unfortunately these details are simply not published
Yes, and? ... I'll keep my master files in 16 bit even if it makes them a bit bigger. I still can't see differences in actual prints though - just gives more flexibility down the line
Windows will only print in 8 bit, but Qimage Ultimate will simulate 16 bit printing. Qimage Ultimate is available as a 14 day free trial. I do all my editing in 16 bit and export to a 16 bit tiff file which I print using Qimage Ultimate. (I do not use Adobe products). Adobe products will print using Qimage. The programme Qimage One is written for the Mac.
Yes - for win it's worth a look, but the Mac version does nothing I find particularly useful [last time I looked] and not something I'd pay for. Adobe [just PS, not LR] works from our business POV, not sure if they would get my personal money though... ;-)
![3 steps when printing your photos. What's so difficult? Really - I'd like to know [AMA request]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UgCn63JZK7Y/mqdefault.jpg)
What a nice good explanation! Yhank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for a great informative video. I came across your channel while looking for info on my new ET-8550. I have learned a tremendous amount info about printing in general and will be reviewing some videos before printing for competitions.
Glad it was helpful!
If you've not seen it, the main [written] 8550 review has more detail
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/
Thanks a lot Keith. Factual information as always!
Thanks!
Thank you Keith, I had already decided to work in 16 Bit.
Yes - my own choice too. I still get people asking about it, since there's lots of old info out there on forums etc ;-)
Thank you Mr. Cooper, I believe that I may have been one of those who asked a similar question. This is great and I can always refer back to it when required. Happy Holidays!
Glad it was helpful! - this is indeed why I ask people to ask me stuff ;-)
I've printed many 8 bit images and the quality is quite good. It's' a matter of storage space for me. Enjoy your matter of fact tutorials Keith!
Thanks - still quite valid if storage is an issue
Honestly, storage can not be an argument for 8bit. If you take 50000 raw pictures each year with a high resolution camera such as Canon Eos R you need 2TB each year. It is a cost about €60 for a traditional external harddisk each year or €5 each month. Compare to the cost of camera and lenses it is nothing. Why buy an expensive camera and not use its full potential because you save €60 a year? For me, taken about 50000 over a period of 10 years storage is not a problem. And, if you take 50000 a year most must be almost the same and you May delete lot of hhe dublicates. But that is how I see it.
Hi Kieth, appreciate your technical knowledge and clear professionalism. I’m very inspired by Nick Carver in California, who emphasises the print as the finished item, but he’s in large format. Just ordered your book on Tilt-Shift lenses, as I’m very much 35mm 😂
Thanks - If you've not seen it, all my tilt/shift stuff is indexed at
www.northlight-images.co.uk/photography-articles-and-reviews/tilt-and-shift-lens-articles-and-reviews/
Another very informative and useful video, Keith. Thank you!
Thanks!
Always informative and a pleasure Keith. Thanks.
Thanks
Thanks Keith! Very useful information😊
Thanks
Thank you Keith.
Thanks
Excellent information. Thanks.
Thanks
Thank you.
You're welcome!
Genuine information. THANKS :)
Thanks - glad it was of interest
Concerning the choice of camera relative to their color bit rate, are you considering relevant the hype from a 10 bit to a 14 bit considering the heavy post processing of the images? Since most of the colors are changed, is it in your experience causing more posterization with the 10 bit? And is it perceivable? Is the gain in colors at 14 bit appreciable?
I only ever shoot cameras at their highest settings, so I'll take what's available ;-)
The bit depth does matter, but it varies between camera models and companies. I'd say there is no simple answer other than any savings in size/speed do come at a price - whether noticeable or not will vary.
Hi Keith Happy Holidays , At some point could you go over what is the minumum PPI you need for large prints fom the actual photo. I use a Canon pro 200 based on your reveiw and print at 13x19 with a program called Qimage and amazed at the results. Doe the printer upscale or is it the software? Thanks Mac
Thanks - there is no minimum really. It depends on the image and the print size [and viewing distance]
For the PRO-200 see this article
www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-200-driver-settings/
Thanks@@KeithCooper
What a Great article I have to binge read your Site Thanks.@@KeithCooper
Take care - I've been writing stuff there for ~20 years - I've only been doing the videos for just over 3...
Hi Keith, thanks for a fascinating presentation. May I ask you a quick Q?
I initially process my Canon FF raw files in DPP4, as it gives to my eyes the best results (for those Canon colours and lens corrections etc). I then export these basic edits as a 16 bit TIF. I can then use this TIF in LrC (or indeed PS, which I have yet to master, so not using layers yet). Would there be any advantage at all to converting the 16 bit TIF to PSD? Or even DNG?Or shall I just continue to process (and then archive) my fully processed images as 16 bit TIF files? Thanks a lot.
TIFF format is a somewhat generic 'container' for image data - indeed [IIRC] PSD is a type of TIFF, with specific stuff inside.
For basic images TIFF is pretty safe.
I use PSD since I may include Photoshop layers/adjustments in the file. I also use PSB for very large files which go beyond the size limits of PSD/TIFF/JPEG [huge panoramics]
@@KeithCooper Great, got it. Many thanks Keith, much appreciated, you are a gentleman and a scholar 👍
Excellent
Thanks
You answered my one question near the very end there, although i pretty much knew it or suspected it, but i wanted your 2 cents/pence anyway. And it was whether if you're starting out with an 8 bit file from either a high quality Jpeg or Tiff and convert to 16 bit in post is it really worth it? Including for printing & namely in Photoshop.
My answer would be probably not, because if you're starting out at only 8 bit and trying to upconvert with data that wasn't there originally, then you're not likely gaining anything. Could you do that to fool your printer(any brand)into "thinking" there's more color and DR data than there really is?
ah - the 8>16 bit at the end of this video is more specifically referring to B&W from colour. -
In general a move from 8>16 [for colour images] is unlikely to be of any noticeable use but I've not tested this in detail.
High Keith, great content as usual, What about a PNG file for printing ? i have heard this a none compress file or would this be of too great size for printing ?.
From my own POV, .png is a format for graphics.
JPEG compression is not an issue with printing unless it is very strong
Thank you Keith, much appreciated.@@KeithCooper
I don't know if this is a question you've covered elsewhere, so I'll ask it here. I've not had a (let's use these words) 'good' or 'pricey' printer before, and all the printers I have had became useless because I didn't use them for several months, so the ink jets became blocked. I'm the sort of person who will think of a big hobby project, print lots of images for several weeks, and then print nothing for months, after which time I come back and find my printer is a dried up piece of junk. Is there a way to use a printer in this way (I am looking at the ET-8550 after your excellent reviews of it)? I'm looking for some way to put the printer into a 'factory fresh' setting, maybe empty out the ink jets, and flush the whole system - clearing out anything that could possibly dry up hard, etc. I realise I am not a standard user, but I'd love to buy a 'good' or 'pricey' printer (a step up from the cheap consumer printers), while knowing I may sometimes not use it for an extended period of time, but wanting not to kill it by not using it for so long.
No printer likes being left...
There is no printer I've ever tested which I'd want to use that infrequently - months means increased likelihood of failure - it's a random thing - like smoking...
The only way to effectively deal with this [I've found] is to set a diary reminder and print a nozzle check on plain paper - I have this set weekly for a P5000, but that's a commercial printer designed to be used every day. Some printers might be OK with 3 weeks. I do this because just deciding I should do test prints doesn't guarantee them regularly happening... ;-)
If you don't think you'll actually follow such reminders, then the printer will increase its chances of becoming faulty.
Flushing is problematic and expensive in wasted ink
Thanks for asking - time for a new video I think ;-)
@@KeithCooper Thanks Keith, that is what I expected. I'm not known for taking heed of my own reminders. For example, I don't drive much, and regularly kill my car's battery by leaving it for weeks at a time, rather than driving a few miles every week to top it up, so I'm not overly confident I could do what you suggest. However, car batteries can be easily replaced, rather than the whole car, so perhaps the thought that 'you will destroy your expensive printer if you just leave it' would motivate me a little more. I wouldn't mind leaving the printer switched on permanently if there was some kind of mode where it flushed itself out, but I'm writing that knowing I'm just an outlier with unusual needs for whom no printer company would need to cater! Perhaps the best idea would be for me to simply use a print service, and factor in the extra cost-per-print versus not having to buy a printer at all!
Actually the diary reminder only started working really well when the printer was moved to my office and I could switch it on just by leaning over to it ;-)
Keith, great video as usual. Now I understand that any printer today supports 16 bits, so why save at 16 bits? I don't really understand and is a fuzzy area for me. I Have a Canon Pro-300, does this printer support 16 bits? Thanks again
Thanks
For working, 16 bit for the file, is important to me for keeping maximum information in the file - flexibility in editing and future use of the file.
As to whether a printer/driver can make use of this, that's another matter - it's different on Macs/PCs too. I've tried a few tests with some printers, but don't have an image/printer/paper combination which I can definitely go - here, look at the 16/8 bit difference.
Even so I've worked in 16 bit for 20 years now - but I also keep all my raw camera files too.
@@KeithCooper thanks for your kindness and quick response. It is helpful. Cheers
You mentioned profiling. Could you make a comparison between profiles with different patch numbers e.g. 46, 328, IT8.4 or 10.000 patches. THAT would be a nice video.
It would not be nearly as illuminating as you might think. I'm afraid I doubt you would see much difference on a video. An effective number of patches depends on the very much on the profiling software as well as the printer and the paper. Patch count on its own is a poor indicator of profile quality.
However, I will return to profiling when I next test a new printer [likely the P5300]
Unfortunately, some people overestimate this, whether they have 918 or 10,000 batches; in my opinion, the effort is not worth it for a “normal” photographer. That's just more scientific and maybe an improvement of maybe 1% or less and these fluctuations exist anyway. Maybe it's important when working in color binding and in pre-press, but in photography it's much more important to look at the photo...all the best!
I want to thank you Keith, I've had so much help from your deep knowledge in printing, made the jump and bought a sc-p900 18 month ago. The prints are amazing and I still think it's hard and a lot of trial and error, but your videos have been crucial to me. I work with 16 bit files and also print those. One issue I come to sometimes though is that that printing big tiff files with a paper profile selected, in Epsons software, can halt the whole process. I don't see this when I choose argb e G. Maybe it's all the calculations on these (big) tiff files? Better to print via photoshop? Anyway, thank you for the great channel and all the helpful content you provide us with ❤
Thanks for that.
I've not come across that with Epson software, but did a while ago when printing a very large panoramic print [~47 feet long] Both Canon an Epson tried printing it and ran into the same issues, but the file was huge [several gigabytes]
@@KeithCooper 47 feet!? That's kind of crazy. Anyhow, I forgot to ask about wifi VS RJ45 cable. I send my files wireless, via the router, may that is an issue/the culprit?
I'd not have thought wireless would be an issue? I've used it for most of my more recent testing.
BTW ... For that print, see:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/making-a-14-metre-photographic-print/
You're taking about using as large colour space as possible - Now I have a question :)
I have calibrated myLG-something-38" using a SpyderX - As I understand it covers the whole colour space Adobe Srgb provide, but not the whole colour space of Adobe rbg.
Will I still gain an advantage using a colour space my screen can not show, or should I stick with lesser colour space my screen can show?
Depends on what you are doing with the images - for commercial images I often supply them in sRGB. I worked [including prints] for many years with sRGB monitors - quite happily with a bigger [working] colour space. You just need to appreciate where a bigger space may cause some issues.
This article I wrote may explain it better...
www.northlight-images.co.uk/a-photo-print-of-some-bright-red-flowers/
However, do note that in the context of this particular video, the working space I mention is entirely related to B&W image creation.
@@KeithCooper, it's for printing on my Pro-1000 and jpg's for SoMe :)
Thanks for the link, I'll read tomorrow - It's time for watching football 🥳🤣
@@hansholck5982read it, it's brilliant, helped me a lot
Hello, what I know, at least with the Epson driver, they only work internally with 8-bit. With MAC you can send 16 bit, but internally in the driver it continues to work with 8 bit. (You can ask Epson directly...) That's why renowned printer software such as Print Mirage only works with 8 bit data. However, I would carry out the workflow beforehand in 16 bit
Yes - I forgot that particular win limitation.
I'll use 16 when available [I've not used a win PC for a long long time] but images which show any difference are uncommon
Thank you for the video. I’ve wondered if you have an old digital photo that you only have a jpeg of, which you then Process edit etc, is their any advantage in saving as a tif, psd or dng? In other words did you create new color data that would be best served by now saving at 16 bit when original file was 8. Thanks again
Depends what I want o do with the image - If I'm editing it beyond any basic adjustments, I'll likely switch to16 bit mode in Photoshop, the save as a psd [with layers etc]
All depends on what I want to do with the image - DNG though has no use whatsoever AFAIK
@@KeithCooper sounds like your saying that editing an 8 bit jpg in 16 bit mode can create a wider gamut than the original jpg and is worth doing and could have the theoretical benefits in printing that you discussed in this video.
No - nothing whatsoever to do with gamut.
Going from 8bit to 16 bit just changes the potential resolution of the data
Hi Keith I am hoping that now 32-bit jpgXL file format is available camera companies will pick it up and make it an in camera option. Wondering if you are thinking the same? And if so I'm wondering if you could help promote the cause, so to speak. I'm not part of the jpegXL team, just somebody who would really like to see it used in cameras as the default jpg option.
Not something on my radar if I'm honest - I only ever have JPEGs out of the camera as a backup for my raw files. However - that's just me.
The specs are a welcome improvement and look forward, but of course I remember all the promises for jpeg2000, some 20+ years ago
Unfortunately the camera companies are deeply proprietary at heart and very conservative in their nature, so don't hold your breath. Then of course there's Google and those annoying webp files which won't open on some of my browsers...
Yes, hard to get a new format accepted. I am thinking how wonderful it would be to pull a 16+bit jpegXL straight out of camera. It has the potential for long-term compatibility if it can get off the ground. My hope is it will eventually replace jpg entirely. I have been saving edited files to PNG, but now saving to jpegXL in gimp. Fingers crossed!
P.S. saw you on Tin House the other week. A good talk.
All the best from New Zealand.
@@RogerBays Thanks - I perhaps care more for a good raw format, I can get those out of the camera as it is ;-)
JpegXL could indeed hold 'better' results of processing the raw data, but it offers me nothing much in any camera I'd use for my work.
Then again I've used Photoshop for editing for 25+ years. All edited files [with layers] are .psd or .psb for the very big ones - but of course, they are TIFF based formats so can fit into the jpgxl framework...
I'll have to have a word with Scott and see if he fancies doing another chat some time!
I process all my RAW to 16 bit Prophoto, all B&W converts from 16 bit Prophoto and to 16 BIT, print for me depends on the RIP being used. If the RIP supports 16 bit I use it if not then I don't.
As far as JPG goes many vendors only accept JPG files for expedience. They are smaller and transmit quicker. I never use JPG in editing, I'll convert the JPG to the native application format and edit so there is no loos of quality by resaving a JPG format.
Yes - we supply most of our commercial images in sRGB as JPEGs - entirely for simplicity and convenience. The number of clients wanting more than this is relatively few.
BTW - In general I assume that most people watching this stuff won't be using a RIP ;-) I will address this to some extent when I next get a higher end printer to test.
@@KeithCooper I edit files and prepare them for output for my clients, they output them all over the world, in many formats. I spend quite a bit of time getting to production managers so the prep is correct. Unfortunately the support is getting worse.
I export all my files to both 16bit tiffs and jpg for web, but some (very few) jpgs ends up having banding. Do you experience banding issues with jpg/8bit files?
Not a problem I've come across for many years. I've heard it discussed on occasions, with various fixes suggested, including adding a percent or so of Gaussian noise before saving as jpeg.
Is this the same as the 14 bit my Canon 5D Mk ii raw shoots or am I missing something?
Similar, but different. The question of sensor bit depths, when coupled with how a camera processes sensor data to create a raw file is quite a complex one.
It does mean that if you take you raw file and convert it [another complex area] then an 8 bit file does not represent the best you can get out of it. Putting into a 16 bit file gives 'space' for the data. Working at 16 bit just gives you the most flexibility in retaining information from your original.
@@KeithCooper thank you for the response.
can printer print 16bit files?
Whether the printer specifically uses 16 bit data doesn't matter if the driver can use 16 bit data [assuming you are not using a RIP]
Unfortunately these details are simply not published
Printing 16x20 with canon pro 1000
Yes, and? ...
I'll keep my master files in 16 bit even if it makes them a bit bigger.
I still can't see differences in actual prints though - just gives more flexibility down the line
Windows will only print in 8 bit, but Qimage Ultimate will simulate 16 bit printing. Qimage Ultimate is available as a 14 day free trial.
I do all my editing in 16 bit and export to a 16 bit tiff file which I print using Qimage Ultimate. (I do not use Adobe products). Adobe products will print using Qimage. The programme Qimage One is written for the Mac.
Yes - for win it's worth a look, but the Mac version does nothing I find particularly useful [last time I looked] and not something I'd pay for.
Adobe [just PS, not LR] works from our business POV, not sure if they would get my personal money though... ;-)
With all the good formats out there, what's the use fot this annoying, shitty Webp format ????
Indeed - not one I make any use of.