I've always wondered why you loose so much in going from NEF to jpeg. I can take a given photo, do nothing to it, and save as a jpeg file and it goes from 15.6mb to about 4.8mb or less-depending on the photo. That seems like a lot of loss to me. If I do any type of pp, there seems to be more loss.

Is this the nature of the beast? I've had messages from Walgreen's that a certain photo I wanted enlarged to 11x14 wasn't suitable for that size because of this sort of thing. the one that comes to mind was one that started out as NEF, did a bit of pp and resized to 11x14 and sent the file to them. Something seems wrong here. I know the D200 is capable of larger even than 11x14.




My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.

Children are for people who can't have dogs. ~Author Unknown

Do you understand that JPEG is a "lossy compression" format? That means that information is lost when converting RAW to JPEG.

Do a google search on JPEG to get a full description. I tried to provide a link but it would not work.

Scott

The important thing is never to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein

It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -Thomas Paine

I understand that. My point was why so much...something like 8.5 instead of 4.5mb.


My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.

Children are for people who can't have dogs. ~Author Unknown

Well lets look at what is going on. First a NEF is 12 to 14 bit and a JPEG unless it is JPEG 2000 is an 8 bit file. That alone throws away a great deal of color depth and graduations in gradients. Then because the formats main use it to reduce the size of files, algotithms are used to find repeating sequences in a file and replace them with code that says thing like take this bit value and repeat it 200 times, then all those 200 individual pixels are killed. You now are relying on the file to be recreated by reading the code and creating those pixels again. Every time you resave a file, it goes through this process all over again, especially if you make a change. TIFF's and NEF's don't do this, they save the original pixels. NEF's keep the RAW file and save edit steps to apply to the file when rendered, adding size to the file. Tiff's save all the data if you do not use compression, but not the RAW file, but a rendered version.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Bob's got it right on, and I'll add a bit more trivia:

- NEFs have a lot of redundant or repetitive information so it is not surprising that any form of compression (e.g., saving as a JPG)results in a much smaller file
- NEFs have 2 JPGs embedded in the file as well as the raw data (a thumbnail, and a full size preview)
- Contrary to popular belief NEFs from many Nikon cameras do have a light form of compression of the raw data
- JPGs get a bad rap but they are not that bad provided the quality of the compression is kept reasonably high (e.g., 80%). They are not good for many iterations of edits and saves, but not bad at all for final files for sharing, printing, and web postings.
- Be aware that some compression techniques result in image quality loss (it could be a lot or a little) and some compression techniques result in no loss whatsoever but still achieve large file size reductions

Cheers,
Peter

>- Contrary to popular belief NEFs from many Nikon cameras do have a light form of compression of the raw data

Yes, but they use a lossless compression scheme and not a lossy compression scheme like JPEG.

JPEG deserves the bad rap. Losing 4 to 6 bits of data is huge. And no matter what compression level you select, you lose even more data.

Scott

The important thing is never to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein

It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -Thomas Paine

Technically, the raw compression scheme in older bodies, up to about the D200, is "visually lossless", per Nikon's terms, but is "lossy". Nikon just indicates a "compressed" option on the menus of those bodies, but describes it as "visually lossless" in other documentation. As I understand it, low order bits of high luminosity pixels are thrown out. Those low order bits make very little difference compared to the low order bits of low luminosity pixels because the human eye is not sensitive to such small differences in luminosity at the high end of the luminosity scale. Nor is rounding error noise - which can cause posterization - an issue with high luminosity data, as it is with deep shadow detail.

Newer bodies such as D300, D700 and the D3 series provide the option of lossless compression or "visually lossless" compression. On the menu it is represented as "Compressed" or "Lossless Compressed".

None of this has anything to do with the issues raised here. I only add it for technical accuracy.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>>Contrary to popular belief NEFs from many Nikon cameras
>>do have a light form of compression of the raw data

>Yes, but they use a lossless compression scheme and not a
>lossy compression scheme like JPEG.

Hello. Thanks for the reply. Not from my reading. High luminosity data is compressed in a lossy fashion in some cameras at some settings as this reduces file space while not affecting the perceivable image quality (because our eyes are less sensitive to gradients at high luminosity). Scroll down to "An aside on "lossy" NEF compression" for a technical explanation at this web site:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth


>JPEG deserves the bad rap. Losing 4 to 6 bits of data is huge.

Agreed the loss of these bits reduces the granularity of available tonal steps (it does not reduce available dynamic range) however on many everyday output devices (print and monitors), the precision achievable with all those bits is beyond the gamut of the equipment. So one would be wise to process images in a wide bit space to be able to reach into the shadows and highlights to pull in data and then convert that image to usual everyday output device ranges. I think we are both thinking the same here and in agreement

Cheers,
Peter

>>Yes, but they use a lossless compression scheme and not a
>>lossy compression scheme like JPEG.
>
>Hello. Thanks for the reply. Not from my reading. High
>luminosity data is compressed in a lossy fashion in some
>cameras at some settings as this reduces file space while not
>affecting the perceivable image quality (because our eyes are
>less sensitive to gradients at high luminosity).

Peter,

I am referring to the lossless NEF compression in the current higher end Nikon dSLR cameras. It is indeed lossless. There is still a "lossy" option but I suspect it is not used by many people. If you are going to shoot RAW, why would want to lose data to lossy compression.

Scott

The important thing is never to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein

It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -Thomas Paine

>I am referring to the lossless NEF compression in the current
>higher end Nikon dSLR cameras. It is indeed lossless. There is
>still a "lossy" option but I suspect it is not used
>by many people. If you are going to shoot RAW, why would want
>to lose data to lossy compression.
>Scott

Hi Scott,

OK, I see, thanks for the reply. I was just reacting to the general statement that NEF compression is non-lossy. Moreover, there is often a misperception that viewable NEF data is unprocessed pixel data. Not true. It is heavily processed data, with losses and engineering trade-offs built into the lengthy signal processing pathway, and this is true for all cameras at all settings.

Regarding your question, the answer is a matter of trade-off: is the perceivable image quality degradation, if any, worth the benefits of lossy compression? It depends on the shooting situation. An example: I want NEF quality but also a smaller file size so I can shoot higher count FPS sequences before the buffer fills up. Perhaps lossy compression provides the right balance.

Cheers,
Peter

I think we also need to remember the context of this thread, which is a D200 body, which only supports lossy NEF compression.

I've also gravitated between lossless and lossy compression with my D300 and D700. Like you, Peter, I have concerns about file size because the gigabytes mount up quickly at 8fps . I've never seen a difference between lossy and lossless NEFs with my own images, and I have looked for it in comparative images, nor have I seen them in any real world comparative images posted to the net. Except those with contrived unrealistic post processing to try to wring out the minute differences, which does not interest me. I've tended toward lossless compression but really just for the far future when I might possibly regret anything but the best image. But that's a hope and a prayer.

I'm very open to illustrations of real world images showing where I'm wrong on that.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

None of the discussion so far has addressed what I assume is your primary concern- why Walgreen's print service gave you a warning. I've never used Walgreen's but I've used similar services, which compute a true effective DPI for the image and compare it to some recommended minimum. As far as I know, that computation does not know about nor care about the quality of the JPG compression, it only cares about pixel dimensions relative to the print size.

We don't know what cropping you may have done, what re-sampling you may have done or Walgreen's recommendations (which are probably in the FAQs on their web site). We would have to know more about the image(s) that generated the warnings, in particular the pixel dimensions of the submitted files.

You say you "resized" the image to 11x14. There is a difference between resizing and re-sampling. Re-sizing without re-sampling simply changes the image tags indicating the print size and resulting DPI. Some print services (maybe most or all similar to Walgreen's) ignore those tags. If you re-sized without re-sampling then you did not change the pixels. This is a completely different issue than JPG quality.

Although you are concerned about the amount of compression (about 8:1 or greater) in even the highest quality JPGs, you would be hard pressed to see the artifacts at 100% view on screen or in an actual print that was re-sampled to a reasonable print size. This assumes you did not subsequently edit the JPG but since you are rendering from a raw file there is no reason to do so.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

"You say you "resized" the image to 11x14. There is a difference between resizing and re-sampling. Re-sizing without re-sampling simply changes the image tags indicating the print size and resulting DPI. Some print services (maybe most or all similar to Walgreen's) ignore those tags. If you re-sized without re-sampling then you did not change the pixels. This is a completely different issue than JPG quality."

I did no resampling-just sized it to 11x14 so I'd get that size without them further cropping the image as sometimes they deem necessary. The botom line is thins. Before I got into DSLR cameras, I had a Canon S5 IS at 8mp. I have an 16x20 hanging on my living room wall that is a superb rendering of my dog and this was also sent to Walgreens who really farm it out to someone else as currently they can only do 8x10 and smaller in house. I was pleased with the result. The size of that file was 4.70mb and 2448x3264 pixels. If a cheap(in comparison) PowerShot Canon can give files that size and that sharp, I expect nothing less from the D200. I see no point in shooting RAW files if, after pp in that format and changing to jpeg in order to use them for prints, I get small files and a warning the image isn't sharp enough for them to print. Something's not kosher somewhere.

I always pp the NEF file and do all I intend to that image before saving as a jpeg. As for the other image in question, I unfortunately can't recall the pixel size but do recall it was around 3.5-4mb (down from the original 15.6mb NEF file). I know you loose some quality but, no commercial printer that I know can print a NEF file or I'd send that out to print.


My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.

Children are for people who can't have dogs. ~Author Unknown

I think you should read and consider Pete's reply #14.

I also think you should consider that you are alone on this forum in believing that a 4.x mpx JPG isn't good enough, or as good quality as what you got from your Canon. You will be hard pressed to find similar concerns in the archives.

You keep talking about an ambiguous warning from Walgreen's (but not the exact text nor the nature of it- from man or machine) but you have not presented any indication that the JPG rendered images from your D200 are actually low quality or lower than your Canon P&S, or not as sharp. There is much more involved in sharpness than JPG quality, of course.

I would suggest you render a TIF and a highest quality JPG from a NEF. Compare the two. If you can see an appreciable difference without pixel peeping it to death, post some crops here so we can evaluate it. Short of that I think you will have trouble getting anyone here to agree with your assessment of the D200 and NX's JPG output.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

>I think you should read and consider Pete's reply #14.
>
>I also think you should consider that you are alone on this
>forum in believing that a 4.x mpx JPG isn't good enough, or as
>good quality as what you got from your Canon. You will be
>hard pressed to find similar concerns in the archives.
>

It's not that I think that, Neil-it's obviously what Walgreen's must think.



> Short of that I think you will
>have trouble getting anyone here to agree with your assessment
>of the D200 and NX's JPG output.

My assessment of the D200 is nothing but good-didn't want to imply otherwise as I have two of them. Something in the process is apparently awry, however; or there should have been no problem with images being enlarged to 11x14 or 16x20 for that matter going directly from NEF to jpeg. What I did with with the Canon point and shoot was to pp using Corel's software at the time. It started out as jpeg and the final product was the same. You would think there would have been more degradation of quality with that process than with the D200/NX2.

I never got a print of that photo in 11x14 so can't attest to what it may have looked like. I was only able to get an 8x10. I believe the message I received while trying to upload and send the images to Walgreens comes up automatically. It's not a determination some employee makes. Apparently, there was some criteria that was set by someone and if it wasn't met they warned you of the image quality with a given size you wanted to order. I tried ignoring it at first and just made a vain attempt in ordering again but the message came up again so, I abandoned the idea.

>So in the end Colcolt, knowing that they only accept JPEG’s, unless you are cropping the snot out of your D200 image they should print just fine. And you should not have received any warning from Walgreens judging by their minimum standard for quality images.

I try not to crop anymore than necessary, preferring to do that in camera when possible and I don't remember how much I cropped that particular image but I'd say not much. I removed some stray hair, a stick from the foreground and probably sharpened a bit, maybe lightened a touch and that was probably all I did. I then saved as a jpeg and renamed the file, keeping the original NEF.


My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.

Children are for people who can't have dogs. ~Author Unknown

I'm unclear- do you still have the actual image file you tried to upload?

Have you tried another print service?

Have you tried to contact Walgreen's support to find out what did not meet their criteria?

Have you tried regenerating the JPG from the NEF and resubmitting it, being careful to save the actual JPG you submit so that we or someone else, such as Walgreen's, can help you diagnose the problem?

You are assuming that you did not make some mistake with this file, that it was nto somehow corrupted in the process, or that Walgreen's software did not make a mistake, etc. If the D200 and NX2 cannot generate a sufficient quality file to print an 11x14 then there would be thousands of people here complaining, but there are none. I think you have to take on a problem solving approach that does not assume it's the D200 or NX2.

As was mentioned in reply# 14, the native size of the file at 11x14 is about 235 PPI. That is far more than sufficient for quality prints, as can be attested to by many here. I've printed very nice 11x14's from my 4mpx D2h files, although I uprezzed the files.

We can go round and round here, but I don't think you will get any help or sympathy here, or anywhere else, without producing the file, or uploadable crops of it.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

From Walgreen's Help page:

Print Size/Product Minimum image resolution required
4 x 6 540x360 pixels
5 x 7 630x450 pixels
8 x 10 900x720 pixels
11 x 14 Posters 1260x990 pixels
...etc....

The formatting is not good but it says they want 1260x990 pixels for an 11x14. That's 1,247,400 bytes or about 1.2 mpx.

Maybe that helps explain why something is wrong here, but not with the D200, or NX2, or the JPG you say you rendered in full resolution (if that were actually the case).

If it were me, I would carefully check the upload page to see if there is some (maybe well hidden) option that automatically downsizes the images you send. I've seen that on other online services (Winkflash a few years ago, later abandoned, I think), which is a very bad idea, since it can result in the confusion we have here, but just to say that strange things can happen with these online print services. They have an economic reason to limit image sizes on their databases whenever possible. Some don't want to upload and store 5mb images for every 10 cent 4x6 they print. (I don't even know how they make money doing this) But without the actual file in hand, you or we cannot prove or disprove that possibility, among others. My guess, though, is that Walgreen's either had a bug in their software or you accidentally downsized the image at some point. That's why the original JPG is so important and why I keep repeating myself .

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

While I was waiting for Comcast to never show up for an appointment, just for fun I went into Walgreen's, set up an account, and uploaded a D200 image, untouched except for cropping the long side enough to accomodate the 11x14 aspect ratio. I placed an 11x14 "poster" in my cart; I found no provision for regular prints of that size.

I did this because a few things you said did not square with my experiences with online print services and my test here confirmed that...

1. The app puts a triangle icon next to poster print sizes that are too large for their "recommended size". My D200 image, untouched except to slightly crop to the 11x14 aspect ratio, indicated a triangle only next to the 20x30 size. I retained a print screen illustrating that; I can share it with you if necessary.

2. I also placed a 20x30 poster size in my cart. The app gave me a warning and provided a button for me to override that. The warning suggested they would accept the order but they could not guarantee satisfaction because the print size was below their minimum recommendation. However, it did accept the order. I have a print screen of that too.

As you can see, very little of my test squares with your description of what transpired. And nothing was said about "quality", i.e. the quality of the JPG itself. As I suspected, it is all about print sizes, but it is only a recommended size, not a mandatory size.

Back to you

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

One more thing.... I hate to keep spamming this thread but this gets curiouser and curiouser and may be at the heart of your problem.

I uploaded an image sized at 3289x2584 pixels, the original image with the long side slightly cropped to conform to an 11x14 aspect ratio.

I wanted to verify that the actual image in Walgreen's folder was the same size as the file I uploaded. I could not find anything like a "Properties" option to verify the size. So...

I clicked the "Get High Res Image" link and downloaded my image. The download page indicated the image size as 2000x1572. The image I actually downloaded was the same size- 2000x1572.

When I saw that I could not be sure if they were limiting the size of the image I could download or if their image on file was actually that size (quite a bit smaller than the file I uploaded).

The recommended size for 20x30 (per the help link I supplied above) is 2700x1800. That is smaller than the file I uploaded, but larger than the file I downloaded.

That suggests that my prior speculation that they are downsizing large images on the upload, was indeed correct. Now, that begs the question of how you are supposed to upload an adequate image size for a 20x30 poster size, but that is a question to be thrown at Walgreen's tech support or customer support department.

It is possible that the file you uploaded was downsized even smaller, such that it did not meet the recommended 11x14 size. I know nothing about Walgreen's except what I found in my quick test. That does not explain your claim that you were unable to even order the 11x14 unless you misunderstood the warning screen I saw. You might not have been happy with the results anyway.

One other factoid. Just to test your claim that NX2 makes "low quality JPGs" due to the ~5mb file size of the highest quality setting for 10mpx images, I saved my own D200 NEF as a highest quality JPG in NX2 and also saved it as a TIF. I opened the TIF in Photoshop CS and saved it as the highest quality JPG. The NX2 jpg is 4.9mb, the Photoshop JPG is 4.8mb. That should convince you that NX does not make particularly small or low quality JPGS at the highest settings. The file is about the same size as the Photoshop version (actually a bit larger but immaterial). Many consider Adobe and Photoshop to be the final word in image processing.

I sincerely hope all this makes it crystal clear that your problems are with either Walgreen's web app and/or your own post processing. If not, I give up


Edit: Go into your Walgreen's account, click Upload Preferences and change your preference to "Large Print Upload". The default is "fast" and this most likely is at least part of your problem. Most likely all online print services do this now, as the googlebytes of photo data they store steadily increases.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

>Go into your Walgreen's account, click Upload Preferences and change your preference to "Large Print Upload". The default is "fast" and this most likely is at least part of your problem. Most likely all online print services do this now, as the googlebytes of photo data they store steadily increases.

That's one area I failed to check. I hadn't chose the large print upload and perhaps that could have make some difference.

One thing requires explanation. The lab I had hoped to use, since they were great when I did film, wasn't so good with digital files. Even after several times of sending them evaluation prints, as they call it, they still for the most part were coming back too dark despite the fact that I had uploaded their icc profile sent and had previously calibrated my monitor with Spyder 3 Elite. No amount of correction on my part was rectifying the situation and Ernesto helped me greatly with this to even going there himself and talking with them. they didn't want to send him their printer(s) profile but rather wanted him to look at the print and adjust his monitor accordingly, best I remember. I abandoned that lab and decided to go with Walgreens since they had always given good prints up to 8x10. Hence, this was my reasoning for choosing them.

I have some 500+ files of my dog and can't recall the exact image file I sent them but this weekend I'm going to send in another and change some settings around in my account and perhaps see if that, along with other suggestions so graciously added here, and see if all that makes a difference.

Again, Neil-I'm not making any claim and didn't think I suggested I had, that NX2 gives lousy jpegs nor does the D200 but apparently something seems odd and that could be me. I aim to find out.


My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.

Children are for people who can't have dogs. ~Author Unknown

Not to muddy the waters any more... but a couple of points I feel were not covered.
a) the MB size of the file has little to do with the quality of the final image.
b) it's the DPI that impact the printing, anything over 300 dpi for the final print size is wasted 90% of the time
c) most of the consumer print facilities use either Fuji Frontier printers or Kodak, in my experience the consumer version of Kodak printing doesn't produce acceptable results for anything above an 8x10. Anyway both of these don't use the extra pixels over 300 dpi
that I know of.
d) resize (as mentioned) changes the exif size extents not the actual pixels unless you resample. The stongest recommendation is to do this in steps (I use 10 or 15 % at a time in photoshop, storing in a psd until final output)instead of a
single whack. The algorithms work better on small chunks. If you only
resize you are in effect reducing the PPI or DPI (same thing) on the
output image.
e) when you output the JPG file you should set the image quality to the highest level (10) and the files size to LARGE to prevent the compression from throwing out information, non-compress is better but can lead to large file sizes for download.

Hope that helps,

Greg oWo
Just Watchin the world go by,
trying to get a good picture.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Good luck and let us know how it works.

I uploaded a somewhat smaller file, with the fast upload option checked, to see if that mode had a single max value or if it downsized all images. The smaller image was apparently uploaded as 2000x1572, same size as the larger file. That suggests even with the fast option they will not downsize below the 11x14 recommended size. IOW, you likely had some other issue. You should still change that option, of course, because regardless of their minimums you want all your pixels used in the print process.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

Is it possible that you inadvertently selected a lower quality JPEG than you intended? I always produce my JPEG's at the highest quality I can while still staying in a 60 sec upload/download time, but if I was sending them out to be printed I would use the highest quality JPEG I could produce. Let's say for a moment that is what happened. Then you went ahead and re sized to 11 x 14. What was the PPI result when you did this was it 300 PPI or less?

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

>
>I always pp the NEF file and do all I intend to that image
>before saving as a jpeg. As for the other image in question, I
>unfortunately can't recall the pixel size but do recall it was
>around 3.5-4mb (down from the original 15.6mb NEF file). I
>know you loose some quality but, no commercial printer that I
>know can print a NEF file or I'd send that out to print.
>

OK I feel it is time for the minor clarification. You really cannot compare the NEF file size to a JPEG file size; they are two totally different animals.

Bob’s earlier statement “a NEF is 12 to 14 bit and a JPEG unless it is JPEG 2000 is an 8 bit file” is misleading. A JPEG would be 8-bit per channel or a 24-bit file. So you see the compression is far greater than you think, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. As stated you would be hard pressed to notice a difference between an image printed from an 8-bit TIFF versus an 8-bit JPEG. The greater loss is going from 16-bit to 8-bit, but even then you would be hard pressed to tell the difference in a side by side print comparison.

Your D200 NEF file size is reported as 15.8 MB in the manual. So analyzing this from a strict mathematical perspective your image dimensions of 3872x2592 works out roughly to 10.04 MP. The 10.04 MP at 12-bit would work out to about 14.7 MB. Add the 1.2 MB for the basic JPEG and EXIF data and you get 15.9 (about what is reported for an uncompressed NEF in the manual). Also NEF’s are not very compressible with Nikon stating an approximate 40 to 50 percent reduction depending on the scene. A quick check of my D80 NEF’s indicates files from 6.7 to 11 MB. Now that is the lossey compression unlike your D200 lossless compressed. But with the same pixel count you can see that a complex image stored as an NEF is not very compressible when you calculate in the loss from the visually lossless compression in comparison to your D200 uncompressed 15.8 MB (which is what I assume the D80 is starting with before compression).

JPEG’s (unless JPEG 2000) are 8-bit per channel or 24-bit per pixel. The 10.04 MB image as reported in PS is 28.7 MB. Again from a strict mathematical perspective the 10.04 image at 24 bit would calculate out to 29.4 MB which is close to what PS reports (I could never understand the disparity between the strict math and what PS reports, if someone can offer a reason I would be open to hearing it). But the JPEG image, as I understand it, lends itself much better to compression then an NEF does. So at maximum image quality with compression you wind up with about a 4 MB file. But as stated in this thread, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a print made from a 28.7 MB TIFF file versus one made from a 4 MB JPEG file.

Of course any corrections to a possible misunderstanding on my part would be greatly appreciated.

Hope this helps.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I've had messages from
>Walgreen's that a certain photo I wanted enlarged to 11x14
>wasn't suitable for that size

Did the printed images look OK? DPI is an attribute embedded in the JPG file header and not in any way a reliable indication of how large a particular image file can be printed. I have ignored such warnings in the past and instead worried about how many pixels per printed inch I am sending toa printer. 200 is fine for many applications. 300 is better. It depends a lot on how far the viewer will be from the print. Peter

This thread has received a lot of good information and interesting discussion(athough there is some info I think should be clarified). But there is one thing that has not been mentioned. As mentioned you cannot really tell image quality form file size alone. And Walgreens only accepts JPEG’s so you cannot send a lossless file such as TIFF anyway.

What you are probably dealing with is a Walgreens employee that has no prior experience or knowledge of digital imaging (not even a good working one). Worse yet they were probably trained by some who, like them, had no knowledge but thought they did.

A quick check of Walgreens Photo web site’s page on image resolution shows that there minimum resolution for what they consider a quality print hovers around 100 PPI (give or take 10 PPI). A D200 full size image cropped to the 11x14 aspect would be about 235 PPI. Perhaps the employee learned somewhere along the way that 300 PPI is need for maximum quality and that anything under that will print poorly.

So in the end Colcolt, knowing that they only accept JPEG’s, unless you are cropping the snot out of your D200 image they should print just fine. And you should not have received any warning from Walgreens judging by their minimum standard for quality images.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yikes!

Neil, that was a great read and exercise of your digits, with cherries on top.

My brain hurts, but thanks for the seminar to all.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Sorry about getting back late with this but, I was on the mend and my dog fell up, not down, the steps to the deck and hurt himself so vet time and I had to take care of him picking him up and setting him on the ouch, bring his food and water to him, etc. Whew!

At any rate, I always make sure after I do any pp that I save or save as with the highest quality and that I have the 300 dpi setting. I've discovered, and this is what my original post was all about, after pp that the file is no longer a 15.8mb NEF file but something greater-much greater most of the time.This is if I want to save as a NEF file to work on later and maybe eventually go to jpeg. Some 15.8 files have ended up being 30-50mb after saving as NEF(temporary cache, that is).The actual file may have only changed to 17-20mb. However, when renaming to a jpeg file is when I get the loss-hence my topic. That 17-20mb file now becomes something like 2-4mb.

I think I must have used the wrong terminology early on when I said they wouldn't/couldn't print my choice of photo due to the "quality". that was my term-not Walgreen's but it meant the same to me. What they indicted was basically what Neil indicated..."the print size was below their minimum recommendation." I assumed they wouldn't print it at that point and backed out as I didn't want to pay for an 11x14 that was blurred or over grainy(noisy). I may very well have misunderstood the warning I received but do plan on going through this process again once things settle here.

>Is it possible that you inadvertently selected a lower quality JPEG than you intended? I always produce my JPEG's at the highest quality I can while still staying in a 60 sec upload/download time, but if I was sending them out to be printed I would use the highest quality JPEG I could produce. Let's say for a moment that is what happened. Then you went ahead and re sized to 11 x 14. What was the PPI result when you did this was it 300 PPI or less?

Possible but I don't think so.When saving as, I always choose that highest quality setting of 100.When checking the size/resolution it's always 300 dpi.


My goal in life is to be the person my dog already thinks I am.

Children are for people who can't have dogs. ~Author Unknown

Hi David,

I understand doggie problems, having a 13 year old at home

The reason your NEF grows after post processing is that the original NEF out of camera contains a full resolution Basic quality JPG embedded in the file. If you used an app like PhotoMechanic (PM) to extract that JPG it would be about 0.5MB. I do this all the time with PM. NX embeds a very high quality JPG image on the order of about 4MB, probably about comparable to a Fine quality out of camera. I once estimated that the NX embedded JPG is about equivalent to a 95% quality level- extremely high quality. I extract those NX embedded JPGs from PM and use them as if they were saved as JPG from NX. I would not do that with the original out of camera embedded JPGs.

Whatever is going on with the the image's cache size is likely a technical issue in NX and I don't think it concerns us here.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery