Alex Peyzner [Zenfolio]:

For the highest print quality and online presentation, a JPEG file saved with compression level 10+ (as Adobe Photoshop defines it) is as good as any TIFF file. The Premium account supports file uploads up to 24MB in size. that's one very large JPEG file.

I frequently make large 30" or larger prints through custom labs such as A&I, Icon, or West Coast Imaging.  All of which suggest for the highest quality to use 16-bit tiff images (I would actually prefer to use EXR or Cineon images due to white point issues and gamma, but we're just not there yet) @ 360 or 300 dpi.  And printers today are certainly able to cover a larger color range than just 8bits per channel.  Even in Black and White.

This often involves enlarging the image, enhancing it, adding grain or reducing noise, a fair amount of work.  I will create a separate file for each print size being created. 

As an example:

For a  30"x30" print @ 360dpi that comes out to a file with a resolution of 10800x10800 pixels.  A tiff image at 16bits/channel of that size can easily reach around 700MB

So for a truly museum quality print I don't feel a 24MB JPEG is really an option.  I'm still in the trial period with ZF, and so far I love it.  Allowing people to print images from a 24MB jpeg is a nice option to offer but for now, it seems, that for me to provide a genuinely professional print I will need to setup a custom order and fill it myself.  It's great that ZF allows for this, but I would love to see them provide for a higher premium product in the future.

yOOrek:

Hi Marc,

I am a Lightroom user, as well as RAW shooter. It always amazes me how people are determined on saving photos in JPG or TIFF after processing them. Personally I do not care about these formats for long term storage. Especially with Lightroom.

Previews in Lightroom are fast enough to enable me to browse through my photos. Virtual copies allow me to have multiple versions of the same image without storage overhead. Whenever I need to supply an image to an external client/application (like on-line gallery), I will export to jpg from LR. But I do not keep those jpgs locally on my computer.

So in other words I have just a single 'master' copy of my image (the RAW file in LR) with all the processing steps retained in LR.

Hi yOOrek, 

This is an old post, but I just found this thread and was wondering about the above workflow.  Please excuse my ignorance concerning LR, but do you use it for image editing and are you editing your RAWs directly?  And do you not use PS for final image editing and manipulation?

I currently use Canon's Digital Photo Professional to preview my RAWs, crop if needed, and then convert to JPG.  I then use PS to tweak sharpness, contrast, shadow/highlight, levels and color.  The JPG from PS is what I upload to web galleries.  I never edit the RAWs.  Perhaps this is not such a good flow.

Thx,

Doug 

Hi Doug,

Yes, I use Lightroom for image editing. It is non-destructive editing (for both RAW and JPG btw.) where your steps are saved and re-played on the RAW file whenever required. I find that I do not need to use PhotoShop that often. All the adjustments that you mention (sharpness, contrast, shadow/highlight, levels and color) can be performed in Lightroom. When I have to use PhotoShop, Lightroom will create a copy of the original RAW file in PSD format and stack it with the original file. This way I maintain the link between the original and heavily modified PSD version. I would really recommend that you have a closer look at Lightroom. You do not have to commit any money up-front as Adobe has 30 days trial available. Give it a go and keep an open mind. You'll be amazed. Just think about multiple crops from what is effectively a single copy of a RAW file, multiple renditions (B&W, Sepia, Color, Cross Process),, and all that within one environment that allows you to import, catalog, edit and export to various destinations (local drive, Flickr, Zenfolio etc. etc.)

And in case the question comes to your mind - No I'm not working for Adobe. It's just that I had 'The Moment it Clicks' with Lightroom pretty early on.

Hope this helps,

This is a confusing subject for me, too. I just got Lightroom 2 several months back, and I love it. I always shoot Raw with my Nikon D70 now. I open and do most adjustments in LR first. Then, I edit a copy of the LR file in Photoshop Elements 5.0. Usually, the reason I do that is because PSE does a better job at cloning out dust spots or other things than LR. My final step is to save as a .tiff AND a .jpg for uploading. I use the .tiff for further adjustments, if needed, because it retains my PSE layers.

I do not use LRs cataloging because I am so used to the Windows Explorer format that I get lost with LRs. I'm terrified I'll lose something in the transfer so I stick with what I am familiar. When I first signed up for my trial here (btw ... I just jumped onboard as paid pro member a few nights ago - whooo-whoooooooo!), I expressed my concerns to Alex about file sizes. It was always my understanding that a .tiff file at 24mb would render a much better print than a .jpg at under 5mb saved from the .tiff (or PSD, etc.). Alex assured me that the print quality from the .jpg would be just as good if saved at 10+ quality. I save all my .jpgs at the highest (12) quality in PSE.

I just had my first client here on ZF print one of my images at 30x20. It was from a 3008x2000, 300dpi file. I just saw the print Christmas, and it was really good. That being said, I did not have a comparison of a .tiff print from the same image, so I can't say whether it would have been better or not. Regardless, the client was pleased with the final result.

Regarding keeping only Raw in LR and saving as .jpg and uploading from there, I must be losing a step somewhere. I understood that when I do my editing in LR it would save all steps and stack all versions (I do have options set to stack with original when exported). However, when I try to open the file again in LR, there are no previous steps there. All settings for exposure, clarity, etc., are all back at the default settings when file is re-opened. I guess I'm going to have to take some sort of class to get the most use out of LR because there is so much conflicting info online as to which way is best it is too confusing.

I would recommend LR to anyone even just for the editing because it is an awesome program.

 Thanks, yOOrek, for the quick and thoughtful reply.  When editing your RAW images in Lightroom, do you find the performance acceptable?  When I edit my RAW files (12mb) or even original size JPGs (10mb) in Photoshop, it is really slow when applying edits such as Unsharp Mask.  Maybe my desktop PC is underpowered.

 Thanks for the pointer to the 30 day trial.  That's great info.  

I love photography but sometimes the workflow/file management stuff makes me want to take up knitting!  I want simplicity but it's hard to come by in the digital age.

 Thx,

Doug 

@March - For files that large, I recommend paying for your own host.  I host with Yahoo for my .com site but in hindsight, FatCow offers a better package.