Getting files to an offsite printer

[paddler4]

The other issue is that if one intends to modify the file after looking at a test print, 16 bit TIFFs are safer bets for editing.

I'm at the opposite extreme from Bob. If you searched my archives, you would find almost no JPEGs other than files other people have given me. For posting online, I use a Lightroom plugin that creates the JPEG, posts it, and deletes at my end. I can re-create it with a few mouse clicks if I need to. I see no reason to use JPEGs on my own computer. I print from Lightroom, either directly from an edited raw file or from a TIFF saved in Photoshop and imported back into LR. My workflow is entirely 16 bit, ProPhoto in Photoshop and Zerene and Melissa in LR. This gives me maximum flexibility, allows me to take full advantage of the wide gamut of my printer, less often runs into out-of-gamut colors, and avoids the risk of banding and other artifacts. Yes, a substantial percentage of the time, an 8-bit work flow would produce similar results, but not always, and this way, I never worry about it. I print from the US equivalent of A4 to A2, and I want to get the best prints I can. Yes, TIFFs are big, but storage has become so cheap I don't worry about it.

 

[Bobtographer]

I find I can tell the difference if I print A4 or bigger, but only on a side-by-side comparison. However, this is just a hobby, I'm not dealing with thousands of images and I've got plenty of storage so I'm fine with the larger file size. I tend to avoid compressed formats unless I need to email.

Interesting.. which one of these is the Lossless? (100% crops from an A4 sized image)

 

[paddler4]

I don't think detail on an A4 is the issue. At that size, detail in a JPEG without too much compression will look fine, unless the image has other relevant issues. These don't have any of the characteristics where 8 bit is likely to cause problems, such as skies where banding might occur or out of gamut colors. So they probably all into the large set where it doesn't much matter. Also, the biggest value of 16 bit IMHO is in editing headroom, which these prints don't address.

As a counterexample, here's an image where it did matter. The a sizable portion of the reds were out of the sRGB gamut (so if you are viewing this on an sRGB monitor, you wouldn't be able to see them correctly). I worked a long time to try to salvage the reds, and I then sent the result as a JPEG to a good lab (I think Adobe RGB, but it was a long time ago, so I may be wrong) because I wanted it larger than I could print myself. Despite several tries, they simply couldn't get it right. So I printed it myself, smaller, taking advantage of my wide gamut monitor and wide gamut printer and not using a JPEG. Wasn't perfect, but way better.



It depends also on what you do. I do a modest number of events and a lot of candids of kids (I only do them for free), and the people receiving the prints almost never care about that level of detail. I do, both for my own satisfaction and for the occasions when I exhibit.

But to each their own. The OP has worked out a solution that will work for his needs.

 

[Quickben]

Interesting.. which one of these is the Lossless? (100% crops from an A4 sized image)

Ooh ordinarily I love quizes, but as this is a computer screen and not two side by side prints, and also not an image prone to compression banding, it's not really relevant is it ?

Anyway, I've found by workflow (with some welcome help). I've got the faculty to print at the highest quality I can, so why would I bother with any unnecessary compression ?

 

[paddler4]

so why would I bother with any unnecessary compression ?

This is a little off topic, but your last sentence got me thinking.

A lot of people think of this as "why should I bother with a format other than JPEG?" I think of it the other way around: "why should I bother with JPEG?" Storage isn't an issue, so there is rarely a reason to introduce that format into my workflow.

For posting online, I generally upload to my Smugmug account and link from there. Of course, that requires a JPEG, buty as I mentioned, since my repository is Lightroom Classic, I use one of Jeffrey Friedl's plugins that creates a JPEG to my specifications, uploads it to the Smugmug gallery of my choice, and then deletes it from my machine. It can be set to save the JPEG in a location of my choice on my computer, but in many years of using the plugin, I have never once had it save the JPEG. I need JPEGs occasionally for other reasons, e.g., to give to someone or to participate in a projected image competition, but for those purposes, I usually tell LR to export the JPEG to one of two folders on my desktop that I use for temporary storage. From time to time, I simply delete everything in them. There are some print labs that want JPEGs, but I virtually always print myself, and if I need to use a lab, I can always create a JPEG with a few mouse clicks.

 

[Quickben]

I have the same attitude towards jpeg as I do towards mp3.

I don't religiously rip all my music to digital, but if I do I rip it to FLAC to retain as much clarity as possible. Again, storage is cheap, so I don't see a need to use a lossy format.

 

[Wilt]

[withdrawn]...I just read the reason for not triggerming print job remotely, but wanting to see the print coming out of the printer.

 

[Quickben]

I did look into that, but our printer has a habit of dropping it's IP address when goes into standby mode and grabbing a new one when it wakes up again. Quirk of canon printers, I presume.

I'm just going to use PPL on my laptop and do it manually. I'd rather be there as it's printing anyway.