That's because the dynamic range of a print (any print) is a couple of
stops below a JPEG.
Chuck Norcutt
ScottGee1 wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing.
>
> A couple years ago the guy who ran a local lab and I decided to test
> his Fuji Frontier printer. We made a series of 12x18" prints from the
> same file, using TIFs and JPGs with and without USM and RIP
> sharpening.
>
> Try as we might, we could NOT see a difference between the TIFs and
> JPGs. The file to which I applied PS USM appeared a bit more clear
> than a version w/o that was auto-sharpened by the RIP.
>
> Since then, I apply USM to my files and give the lab JPGs with
> instructions to NOT modify them in any way.
>
> YMMV/ScottGee1
>
> On 12/13/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Why would you use JPEG for display and the uncompressed TIFF for print
>>when any display device technology has a far greater dynamic range than
>>any print technology. Doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|