JPEG vs RAW

>>i wonder what the labs printer up-rezzing process knows that i do not<<

To be completely honest, I still wonder the exact same thing.

We use Burrell Color (www.burrellprolabs.com), and I can't even tell you exactly which printers they are using. But, my Burrell rep tells me that the interpolation (uprezzing) software in their printers is the key, because it is much more sophisticated than Photoshop's or programs like Genuine Fractals. He's right, because after doing some tests uprezzing the same image in Photoshop (even in 10% increments), in Genuine Fractals and then just letting Burrell do the uprezzing (all on the same test images), their software gave me MUCH better results than Photoshop or GF did.

When we prepare files to be printed by Burrell, we just crop them to the desired print size (in Photoshop CS), but we leave the Resolution (Pixels/Inch) box blank (we even let them do the sharpening).

Now here's the bizarre part--if I send them a 6MP file to be printed to 20x24, the resolution at that size is only about 102 pixels per inch. Even worse, if I send them a 6MP file to be printed to 24x30, the resolution is only about 85 ppi!! I know--the math just doesn't work but despite this, the prints I'm getting back are outstanding up to 24x30, and it's completely beyond me how that's possible. (I've done a few and I'm definately not thrilled with 30x40's, but I'm hoping the 8MP files from my new 1DM2 will allow me to do 30x40's using the same process.)

So, it has to be their software. I sure wish it was available to us without having to spend a couple hundred thousand bucks on a high-end printer to get it! Who knows, maybe in just a few short years that will change, too.

RAW isn't just for exposure correction. It's for incredible speed when you need to correct a couple of hundreds images, normally 800-1200 for me, in a hurry. You can nail a 100% of your shots in term of exposure, but if Mr Murphy steps in, none of them will be usable straight off the camera. Recently, I have 3 events in a row held in tents. The color cast from the tranlucent tent and the spilled in day light created a mixed lighting scenario straight from hell. One of the event was at 6PM of an overcast day, the images were flat and muddy, in addition to the described mix lighting problem. Using C1 Pro, I corrected all of the RAW files and generated outputs for web JPGs, proof JPGs, and Costco ICC emlargement JPGs in 48Hr. The corrrection includes EV, curves, WB, sharpening, and output specific settings. In the case of the muddy images, I toned and added a custom contrast curve to make them look considerably warmer and better. That took probably an extra 30 minutes of my time but the customer was extremely surprised and happy with the end result.
This is just ONE in a long list of advantages when you work with RAW. To those who think the JPG workflow is faster, cast aside your bias and try C1 Pro, get to be efficient at it, then time yourself with a test project. You may see things in a different light.

Here is a link to what RAW is all about:
http://www.lashier.com …m?dir_cat=26101​&gal_col=7
Here is a link to an uncorrected image under a tent
http://albums.photo.ep​son.com …628&a=31254972&​p=68238553
Regards,
Alan