large prints, which combo would yield better results..

[jlm]

I usually send tif files to Imageprint (my printer RIP) and print on the 4880. typically i have already sized the images in CS4 for 300dpi at the print size i will be using.
so my question is: any reason not to save these print-ready files as jpg, aRGB, rather than tif, using highest level quality? just to reduce file sizes.

 

[Jack]

John,

I save all my print files as tiffs even though I pay a size penalty. My thinking is drive space is cheap, and tiff is such an entrenched standard it's likely to be supported for many years.

 

[Don Libby]

John,

I save all my print files as tiffs even though I pay a size penalty. My thinking is drive space is cheap, and tiff is such an entrenched standard it's likely to be supported for many years.

Same here - tiff. The only time I do anything in Jpeg is for the web

Don

Just thinking outloud here but this might be a good poll question....

 

[DonWeston]

Is there anything wrong with saving them as .psd files, as I do all my own printing on either a 7600 or 3800? .psd files seem to open easier or quicker then .tiffs. I know they are proprietary for PS, but they save layers I think the same as .tiffs.

 

[cmb_]

typically i have already sized the images in CS4 for 300dpi at the print size i will be using.

John - you may want to consider sizing the images at 360dpi (or 240) given that the Epson's native resolution is 2880 (720, 1440, 2880). Again, another one of those "can you really see a difference" and the answer is probably yes sometimes.

I will defer to Jack for the explanation.

 

[Jack]

Yes, use 360 or 240 or if printing very large, even 180 PPI as base file resolutions if you print with Epson printers; 300, 200 and 150 if you print on HP or Canon. These resolutions divide more evenly into those printer's native output resolutions, making the math the print driver has to handle easier . And you can see differences in many prints, especially in areas of high frequency detail. The differences we are talking are very slight, so not worth going back and reprinting something differently, but nonetheless it's there often enough to make doing it that way worthwhile.

Re PSD. Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with saving a file as a PSD -- as long as you plan to keep using CS as your main photo editor... PSD is not really standardized and Adobe alters it with subsequent versions of CS pretty regularly, so it is not as universal as tiff as third-party vendors may not keep up with future Adobe changes. But PSD is more efficient and usually means a smaller footprint, especially if you have a bunch of adjustment layers. By contrast, tiff is standard and can be read by many different programs, but the files are usually significantly larger.

 

[plupcoutrielo]

large prints which combo would yield better results

FURTHER EXPLANATION TO MY INITIAL THREAD QUESTION...

Here is where I am at...with thinking...

I regularly visit Northern California for vacation, in particular the Napa Valley Region. Each visit, I like to take photos, as a general hobby. Currently, I have been using my Canon 5D and Canon 24-70mm.

Trip A: When traveling solo on these trips, I typically bring the Feisol Tripod...because I can take my time to set-up the shot and enjoy my photography.

Trip B: When traveling with a companion, sometimes their patience runs thin, with my set-up and carrying of the Tripod. Thus, I have been thinking of purchasing the Canon 24-105mm IS. On these trips, I can now "hand-hold" the majority of shots.

My question is which set-up will yield better image quality?

Make a little more sense I hope...


Thanks to all those sharing their thoughts...

 

[DonWeston]

Sorry but haven't been back to this thread in awhile, but if you still need an answer, I would suggest the old tried and true, when in doubt use a good solid tripod, first and foremost. If not available then I find I like my 24-105L IS more and more, with the IS and that hand held I get far better results with IS on a lens then without, for me it is not a question. Guess I am just not so stable on my own anymore. The only time that the 24-70L on its own would be good if you needed to use it at F2.8, at least that is for me currently, YMMV...best and again sorry for the delay..Don

 

[dseelig]

The new 70 200 vr 2 is so good and sharp even with a 2x it is amazingly sharp. Look at my post about it. David