Digital BW, The Print

Dear Paul,

"pglombick" glombick@...   pglombick wrote:
<<<....The only real restriction is that assuming you do want to save  
your edited
image, you can't save it as a raw file, that being a read-only file  
format;
you have to choose some other format like TIFF, JPEG or PSD. But  
again, how
you save it has nothing to do with printing it.>>>

Actually, in the last few days you wrote quite a bit more, but I  
think your last sentence
above, is a good encapsulation.

First, assuming  your premise of not saving an edited RAW image is  
correct, then one would
ask what you think a DNG image is? ACR, which improves quite a bit  
with each new iteration,
has opened the possibility of doing an overall edit of any RAW image.  
When saved as DNG, or
for that matter, simply clicking "done" in ACR will save the changes  
to the original raw file, and it shows
up in Bridge with a small symbol indicating that it's been edited.   
One can go back to the original
raw image anytime they wish, simply by opening the image from the  
folder in which they are
stored -- in Bridge, then clicking, which opens it again in ACR. This  
is more than likely true for Light Room as well
(I don't use it, so I'm not sure). If the image is saved as DNG, a  
simple double click will directly open in ACR, where you
can change the RAW settings at will, and clicking "done" saves the  
changes - period. That's because, in simple terms,
the DNG saves the instructions one has adjusted, in what is becoming  
a universal format, and it opens showing
those instructions (read: editing)!  How does that translate, in your  
words, to RAW files being read-only?

I'm sure you know - at this point no information or image quality has  
been destroyed. Of course if the ACR information is
not used correctly (poor use of curves, for example), then converting  
the file to .psd, tiff,  will certainly yield an inferior
file, whether for print output, projection, for the web.... whatever!

To tie this together: Printing -- Many people can obtain their  
maximum needed quality just from RAW adjustments of their
files. I suppose going straight to print, without assigning a format  
other than RAW or DNG to the file would work for them --
I don't know much about printing that way - I'd guess there is some  
sort of automatic conversion to a printer-recognizable
format (jpg, I'd imagine), because to my knowledge, and I'm no  
beginner, printers need pixels to print an image. The better
the pixel quality, the better the prints, which is why a 300 ppi   
files will print better than a 120 ppi file, and some of us use
a 720 ppi image to maximize carbon pigment prints.

That said, I would venture to suggest that for most people on this  
list, printing images straight from RAW, as opposed to the opportunity
to make the myriad of subtle adjustments and changes permitted with  
adjustment layers to 16 bit psd files, not to mention sending
those files into the printer via RIP software such as Quadtone RIP  
and others, make a tremendous difference in control of the
final print quality.  In my opinion the only exception might be  
images shot in carefully lighted studio situations, where one can
obtain  perfect tonal, color and contrast values,  directly  into the  
RAW image exposure. And even then, I can think of
more than one reason that one may want to make some post-RAW  
processing changes.

So this brings us to the crux of the situation:  WHY would you want  
to print directly from RAW if your purpose as a photographer
is to produce the best possible quality?  And while we're at it,  
could you let us know from where you obtained what seems to
be, at best, theoretical information on RAW files, how they work,  
what they won't do, because IMHO, even if most of what you
wrote is provable, in practical use, little of it holds water.

Sincerely,
Clayton Price



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]