converting from .psd to .jpeg

[RobbieS]

I have created 8.5 x11 documents in photoshop cs3 and now I want to take them to a copy center to have them copied on high gloss paper and laminated. The center only accepts .jpeg. If I convert the .psd file to .jpeg (image quality 12- maximum) will I be loosing any quality to the pictures? Will they still be as clear as when printed from the .psd file? Is there another way I should be saving the file as to not loose quality?
thank you.

 

[dops7107]

IMO it's ridiculous a copy centre will only accept jpg - what kind of amateur outfit are they running? Surely they accept pdf for vector output.

But anyway, your question: at quality 12, I think the loss would not be visibly noticeable, so use that if you must.

 

[Mydriasis]

Yes, there will be a loss in quality but there are other things to consider like color profile and proofing. Ask what kind of printer and paper they are using and then soft proof your images on a calibrated monitor. This will probably make more of a difference than the jgep quality loss.

Check it they accept tiff files.

 

[decksnap]

Yes, there will be a loss in quality but there are other things to consider like color profile and proofing. Ask what kind of printer and paper they are using and then soft proof your images on a calibrated monitor. This will probably make more of a difference than the jgep quality loss.

Check it they accept tiff files.

ha. Except he's talking about a copy center, where if they don't manage to lose or forget about your file altogether, they'll surely print it in the wrong size, backwards, and on newsprint.

 

[MisterMe]

... If I convert the .psd file to .jpeg ... will I be loosing any quality to the pictures? Will they still be as clear as when printed from the .psd file? Is there another way I should be saving the file as to not loose quality?
...

Word to the Wise: Your printer is a professional business. PhotoShop CS3 is a professional tool. They are not conspiring to trick their customers into producing low-quality work.

JPEG is a compression scheme, not a quality-loss scheme. I don't have PhotoShop CS3, but I do have other image editors that use JPEG compression. In fact, they all support JPEG with user-selectable image quality. It is usually difficult to detect quality-loss with a quality setting of 90%. When I cannot tolerate any possible loss of quality, I use 100%. That should correspond to the "12" setting in PS CS3. Do some proofs of your images with your settings between 10 and 12. Choose the one that you like best.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I have created 8.5 x11 documents in photoshop cs3 and now I want to take them to a copy center to have them copied on high gloss paper and laminated. The center only accepts .jpeg. If I convert the .psd file to .jpeg (image quality 12- maximum) will I be loosing any quality to the pictures? Will they still be as clear as when printed from the .psd file? Is there another way I should be saving the file as to not loose quality?
thank you.

Save it as a PDF. Even Kinko's prints those. Just beware of color issues.

 

[MagicWok]

Word to the Wise: Your printer is a professional business. PhotoShop CS3 is a professional tool. They are not conspiring to trick their customers into producing low-quality work.

JPEG is a compression scheme, not a quality-loss scheme. I don't have PhotoShop CS3, but I do have other image editors that use JPEG compression. In fact, they all support JPEG with user-selectable image quality. It is usually difficult to detect quality-loss with a quality setting of 90%. When I cannot tolerate any possible loss of quality, I use 100%. That should correspond to the "12" setting in PS CS3. Do some proofs of your images with your settings between 10 and 12. Choose the one that you like best.

Not true. JPEG is a lossy compression format, meaning that even at the highest jpeg quality setting, you WILL lose some information and you can experience what is known as JPEG artifacts. How evident this is depends on the final output and size you desire. Professional phtographers will always want to use at least 8-bit TIFFs, and the difference in that and the best JPEG you can create on pro equipement is obvious to the human eye (which is the key).

The suggestion is right, always get proofs of the files before they go ahead with the final print-run. Proofs should be included in the price quoted to you, and shouldn't be at extra charge. Paper colour, various white tones etc all effect the colours and quality of your original document.

If they are too stubborn to take a PSD from Photoshop, give them a high-res TIFF file instead. It's in your best interest to supply the best quality file possible.

 

[mperkins37]

If all they will accept is a JPEG, I would immediately take it somewhere else as they are probably a Hack outfit. Pay a bit more for quality & professionalism.
You get what you pay for.

 

[stainlessliquid]

You might be able to tell if youre printing on extremely high quality art paper and the image is a detailed photo, but it would probably be very difficult to tell the difference otherwise. Especially if its a copy center like kinkos or whatever, they dont have printers that can handle the "loss of data" that a 12 jpg might not have anyways.

Tiff's are the best to print but the truth is most mainstream printers wont benifet from tiff.

 

[CRSpeedy]

I completely agree with StainlessLiquid.

I'd be extremely impressed if you could actually tell the difference between a 8.5x11" printed JPEG (300dpi+, saved as 12) versus a TIFF or PDF. Due to size and file constraints over the years, I've had to print dozens of JPEGs, and although they tend to be frowned upon within the industry, they're not half as bad as people make them out to be. I've printed 24x36" JPEGs at Wal-Mart that came out crystal clear, and working for a publishing company, I'm particularly picky about quality.

The way some people talk about JPEGs, you'd think you were trying to print out a 72dpi .GIF file.

I'm not saying that JPEG is the most ideal way to go, but when it's your only choice, it's certainly not the end of the world.

 

[irishgrizzly]

I completely agree with StainlessLiquid.

I'd be extremely impressed if you could actually tell the difference between a 8.5x11" printed JPEG (300dpi+, saved as 12) versus a TIFF or PDF. Due to size and file constraints over the years, I've had to print dozens of JPEGs, and although they tend to be frowned upon within the industry, they're not half as bad as people make them out to be. I've printed 24x36" JPEGs at Wal-Mart that came out crystal clear, and working for a publishing company, I'm particularly picky about quality.

The way some people talk about JPEGs, you'd think you were trying to print out a 72dpi .GIF file.

I'm not saying that JPEG is the most ideal way to go, but when it's your only choice, it's certainly not the end of the world.

Most of the files I get sent to work with are high res jpegs (even when they're from professional photographers) that I'll scale, colour correct and save as tiffs. So jpegs can be fine so long as the quality is good.

 

[PHX-Locksmith]

IMO it's ridiculous a copy centre will only accept jpg - what kind of amateur outfit are they running? Surely they accept pdf for vector output.

But anyway, your question: at quality 12, I think the loss would not be visibly noticeable, so use that if you must.

You know what? I went into Kinko's the other day to have a poster printed out, I actually had my MacBook with me. I asked the clerk if they had a preferred file format to print from and the clerk told me that they ONLY print PDF files. I paused for a moment..... I asked him, "So you're saying that you can only print PDF files?..." he told me YES! I paused for another moment.... and I asked him.."So what about a JPEG file, can't you just print a JPEG?..." and again he tells me no. This is a TRUE story, this happened at Kinkos.

 

[covisio]

JPEGs

Not true. JPEG is a lossy compression format, meaning that even at the highest jpeg quality setting, you WILL lose some information and you can experience what is known as JPEG artifacts. How evident this is depends on the final output and size you desire. Professional phtographers will always want to use at least 8-bit TIFFs, and the difference in that and the best JPEG you can create on pro equipement is obvious to the human eye (which is the key).

No way, Jose

There is no way that you could detect the difference between a Quality Level 12 JPEG and a TIFF from a print bureau output - it's virtually impossible on screen.

I've just tested it by taking a RAW output from a 9 megapixel digicam, converting it to TIFF and saving, then converting to JPEG quality 12 and saving, closing both then laying one over the other in PSD layers. Switching one layer off and on repeatedly reveals no difference.
And before you ask I was a high-end reprographic technician for 9 years, working with drum-scanned images.

The problems with JPEGs come from repeated opening and saving as JPEG, leading to cumulative losses. Always keep a lossless master file, save your JPEGs out as additional files.

 

[Kwill]

Originally Posted by MisterMe
Word to the Wise: Your printer is a professional business. PhotoShop CS3 is a professional tool. They are not conspiring to trick their customers into producing low-quality work.

JPEG is a compression scheme, not a quality-loss scheme.

The way some people talk about JPEGs, you'd think you were trying to print out a 72dpi .GIF file

Originally Posted by covisio
The problems with JPEGs come from repeated opening and saving as JPEG, leading to cumulative losses. Always keep a lossless master file, save your JPEGs out as additional files.

As touched upon, JPEG is standard lossy format in most digital cameras. Each time a file is opened, edited and saved, computations are made to average similar pixels. The maximum JPEG setting discards the least; lower settings discard the most pixel data to achieve smaller file sizes. Converting high-resolution PSD to JPEG for output without edits should be fine. What is more important than the file format, is equipment calibration and use of color profiles - on your end and theirs. Otherwise you are bound to be dissatisfied with results.

 

[macwall]

You always lose quality when converting to jpeg. If you care at all about the quality you should at least use pdf. Just a few compression artifacts can ruin an entire image, especially if there's vector work on it.

 

[covisio]

If you care at all about the quality you should at least use pdf.

This is just misleading people. PDF uses JPEG as it's default image compression setting, even on the supplied 'Press Quality' preset.
Yes, JPEG throws stuff away, according to the quality level set, just as MP3 throws away bits of a recorded signal in order to make the file smaller. Compression is a choice, according to what the end use is.
In print, as long as you know the quality requirements of the output device then you can set your compression accordingly. Do it correctly and nobody, I mean nobody would be able to tell the difference. Making files smaller is necessary for production reasons, i.e. sending final print PDFs to printers. Correct compression can mean the difference between a 10mb file and a 960 kb file, for the same printed quality.
Branding JPEG, TIFF or PDF either 'good' or 'bad' is just nonsense.

 

[melissarae]

You know what? I went into Kinko's the other day to have a poster printed out, I actually had my MacBook with me. I asked the clerk if they had a preferred file format to print from and the clerk told me that they ONLY print PDF files. I paused for a moment..... I asked him, "So you're saying that you can only print PDF files?..." he told me YES! I paused for another moment.... and I asked him.."So what about a JPEG file, can't you just print a JPEG?..." and again he tells me no. This is a TRUE story, this happened at Kinkos.

HAHAHAHAHA... i worked for kinko's for about 5 years... they can pretty much print anything. EVERY kinko's is equipped with photoshop, illustrator, indesign, acrobat, and in some cases (not all locations) they have a mac with quarkxpress on it. you should have asked to speak with a manager. the trick with kinko's is that if you speak up and complain... you'll get what you need/want and most likely won't have to pay for it. they are big on "customer is always right" take my word for it... i've seen way too many customers walk out with free prints due to stupid employees.

 

[Kwill]

I've printed 24x36" JPEGs at Wal-Mart that came out crystal clear, and working for a publishing company, I'm particularly picky about quality.

Sounds like an oxymoron. As long as you are satisfied though.

Originally Posted by PHX-Locksmith
You know what? I went into Kinko's the other day to have a poster printed out, I actually had my MacBook with me. I asked the clerk if they had a preferred file format to print from and the clerk told me that they ONLY print PDF files.

PDF workflows in print shops are quite common. Large-format posters are printed from PDF here even though the complete Adobe CS3 suite is supported. It eliminates font conflict issues. Color management is also more easily controlled by printing all jobs from the same application. If someone supplies a JPEG, it can be printed. However, if the resolution is too low and text is included, the customer will complain about the quality of the print. Reprinting and educating each customer why something that looks crisp on screen does print sharp when enlarged 400 percent eats into profit. To be fair, there are many ways to produce PDFs with varying quality so education is required either way.

A JPEG photo of sufficient resolution with no text, can be printed fine. (Here, it would still be converted to PDF first.) Apparently the Kinko's representative, knew of their internal PDF workflow and did not have the time nor inclination to see if the JPEG was sufficient resolution or included any text.

BTW, I am quite certain the OP has long since printed his work and moved on.