Jpeg vs Print

[davidswiss]

This was new to me, but it's so long since I had, had prints made that I had believed that jpegs were the best images of my photographs. However, after ordering quite a lot of prints from jpegs of pictures taken on Nikons Fm and F2 and a Contax IIa, using a range of lenses and films, in every case the print is clearer and the picture somehow better.
Obviously that is the way the whole thing was designed to work but for me it was a real surprise, it's also seems better to hold the print in the hand and pass it around.

 

[Dogman]

After shooting nothing but Raw for years, I switched to JPEGs. I printed with Epson (I no longer print) pigment printers on matte high rag content art papers. The prints were beautiful.

I'm not clear on the process being used to make your prints. Are they scans from negatives? Are they darkroom prints from negatives? Those and other factors will affect the final image when printing.



......................................................

 

[Pioneer]

I love printing and I agree with you @davidswiss . That is how it was intended to work in the first place so they usually turn out pretty good even if the photo itself didn't seem all that great. In my humble opinion there is nothing quite like passing around prints at a family gathering. People love them and it really doesn't seem to matter if they were done on a digital printer or they were done by enlargement. Most of the time I now print color using my digital printer but I still enlarge my black & white work. It really started several years ago when I would contact print the negatives from my 11x14 and 8x10 but once I got used to doing it I figured out it wasn't too bad so I have just kept doing it. Usually I just use inexpensive (read that "cheap") paper but every now and then I'll find a good one and print it on fiber. I love those.

 

[Godfrey]

I have always (unless the camera didn't support it) shot digital cameras in raw mode. Why? Because I find it much simpler. Just like with film, *I* am the one to apply the rendering as I deem important. I don't have to learn and understand each camera's JPEG settings, happy zone and foibles. All I have to learn is my image processing tool, once, and then I work with the raw files from all my cameras the same way.

And yes: Photographs are intended to be printed. They always look better when printed. Displays are too variable to present photographs consistently across any number of systems greater than one. 😉

G

 

[Rob-F]

And yes: Photographs are intended to be printed. They always look better when printed. Displays are too variable to present photographs consistently across any number of systems greater than one. 😉

G

I think color photos should be viewed on a projection screen. I'm talking color transparencies, of course. Velvia. I like the You Are There realism of my 96" screen. As for JPEGs, those that my D700 and D750 produce, they are often just right, nicer than RAW files, whether viewed on the computer, or as prints; while JPEGs from my M9 generally look worse than even un-corrected RAW files. Actually I like the look of JPEGs on my 27 inch iMac.

 

[Godfrey]

This was new to me, but it's so long since I had, had prints made that I had believed that jpegs were the best images of my photographs. However, after ordering quite a lot of prints from jpegs of pictures taken on Nikons Fm and F2 and a Contax IIa, using a range of lenses and films, in every case the print is clearer and the picture somehow better.
Obviously that is the way the whole thing was designed to work but for me it was a real surprise, it's also seems better to hold the print in the hand and pass it around.

Another thing i neglected to mention: If you are sending your photos out to be printed for you, remember that the person printing them probably has 8 hours a day, seven days a week worth of experience printing photos. Folks like that know how to make photos look great. It's their job... 😉

G

 

[Godfrey]

I think color photos should be viewed on a projection screen. I'm talking color transparencies, of course. Velvia. I like the You Are There realism of my 96" screen. As for JPEGs, those that my D700 and D750 produce, they are often just right, nicer than RAW files, whether viewed on the computer, or as prints; while JPEGs from my M9 generally look worse than even un-corrected RAW files. Actually I like the look of JPEGs on my 27 inch iMac.

This makes sense for transparency film. It was designed to be projected, not printed. Ipso facto, transparencies always look best when projected.

G

 

[olakiril]

We can now have great monitors that are excellent for image presentation. But, photographs viewed on a screen are often experienced quickly and in passing, surrounded by distractions and competing images. A printed photograph, by contrast, occupies physical space and invites a slower, a more sustained engagement, encouraging the viewer to linger, reflect and notice subtleties that might otherwise be overlooked. For me, it's all about the interaction.

 

[davidswiss]

After shooting nothing but Raw for years, I switched to JPEGs. I printed with Epson (I no longer print) pigment printers on matte high rag content art papers. The prints were beautiful.

I'm not clear on the process being used to make your prints. Are they scans from negatives? Are they darkroom prints from negatives? Those and other factors will affect the final image when printing.



......................................................

The original are scans from negatives that one can order prints from. I use an online film seller/processor and print company here in the UK called Analogue Wonderland. I don't know what their particular machinery is.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I went to a photo exhibition at the Yokohama News/Broadcast Museum yesterday. News photos from 2025 were on display. All the images were printed about 1 meter wide and were truly remarkable. As I walked round the exhibition I realized that these large prints were causing me to have an emotional response. Some pictures made me laugh and smile, many made me want to cry. This made me think: when I look at pictures on my PC I have more of a technical experience. I look at the JPEGS and start thinking things like “how could I edit it to make it better” or if it’s someone else's image I may wonder “how did they do that” or I may think “the horizon is not straight” or “it’s a poor composition”.

The point I’m trying to make is that large prints on display are far more impactful, enjoyable, and make more of an emotional connection with the observer than a digital image displayed on a screen (no matter how big the screen is).

All the best,
Mike

 

[Erik van Straten]

Good prints are nice to have and when well kept, they last forever. They are fun for future generations.

 

[boojum]

I went to a photo exhibition at the Yokohama News/Broadcast Museum yesterday. News photos from 2025 were on display. All the images were printed about 1 meter wide and were truly remarkable. As I walked round the exhibition I realized that these large prints were causing me to have an emotional response. Some pictures made me laugh and smile, many made me want to cry. This made me think: when I look at pictures on my PC I have more of a technical experience. I look at the JPEGS and start thinking things like “how could I edit it to make it better” or if it’s someone else's image I may wonder “how did they do that” or I may think “the horizon is not straight” or “it’s a poor composition”.

The point I’m trying to make is that large prints on display are far more impactful, enjoyable, and make more of an emotional connection with the observer than a digital image displayed on a screen (no matter how big the screen is).

All the best,
Mike

All we need is a large room. ;o) Be aware that those displayed prints are culled from thousands. I am sure that when you cull yours down to that level of refinement you can post yours with equal pride.

 

[bjorke]

This was new to me, but it's so long since I had, had prints made that I had believed that jpegs were the best images of my photographs. However, after ordering quite a lot of prints from jpegs of pictures taken on Nikons Fm and F2 and a Contax IIa, using a range of lenses and films, in every case the print is clearer and the picture somehow better.
Obviously that is the way the whole thing was designed to work but for me it was a real surprise, it's also seems better to hold the print in the hand and pass it around.

Prints are The Way. This topic can be a deep wide rabbit warren. Bring a flashlight. There *is* gold somewhere in there. But there's really no way to get it unless you explore everything yourself or find some very trusted people. The guy at the lab might be really great or it's a part time job. Enjoy the spelunking!

 

[boojum]

Good prints are nice to have and when well kept, they last forever. They are fun for future generations.

Be sure to use the right paper.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Be sure to use the right paper.

Ilford MGIV is good, but the question is how long it will be made.


gelatin silver print (LLL35mm f2 prototype) leica mp

Amsterdam, 2020

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Print from expirenced person if exposure, developing and scan is correct might look more attractive than just JPEG1 on the screen.

 

[boojum]

Ilford MGIV is good, but the question is how long it will be made.


gelatin silver print (LLL35mm f2 prototype) leica mp

Amsterdam, 2020
View attachment 4888165

Here Haloid used to make museum grade (century plus) photographic papers up in Rochester. Then they invented a copier and changed their name to Xerox. I do not believe they make paper anymore.

 

[qqphotos]

I've found that there can be a big difference between what works as a print and what works for online viewing. And that goes all the way back to the original photographing.

I guess because most of what I do now ends up being shown online, it seems that i've gravitated toward producing stuff that works better in that medium and it's hard to find work I've done recently that I think would even look good as prints. In the past I was only printing, and much more of my work from that time works well as prints.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Well, I'm hoping that silvergelatine paper will be made forever. There are in the world still about 10 billion beautiful negatives to be printed.

 

[Leon C]

Actually I like the look of JPEGs on my 27 inch iMac.

Me too but then I sent one to my phone, had it printed at a photobooth in a high street retailer for 30p and the 7x5 print still looks better.