Short answer - YES. JPEG in high quality, fine will yield excellent resultsWarm regards,DOF..
I shoot jpeg all the time. my prints are fine..
Shot at iso1600 at niagara falls butterfly conservatory in 2006. it is a jpeg..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
People who take pictures in RAW and tweak them carefully will usually convert the final version to a JPEG for printing. At the lowest compression / highest quality settings the results are excellent. I can't tell the difference for album-size prints (5 x 7) (as long as the JPEGs were correctly exposed)..
...but in themeantime, I would like to print some pictures. Using the highestquality jpeg, will the prints look good? Is it possible to get printquality photos using jpeg?.
Yes, Yes, Yes, YES..
It's a pity that you even feel you have to ask that question. You have been misled by the "real photographers shoot only raw / jpg is rubbish / only raw can produce decent photographs" crowd..
A properly exposed jpg will produce excellent results. The benefit of raw is greater flexibility in making adjustments (and in particular correcting errors) in post processing. But a raw image is not inherently, by itself, superior to a jpg...
I have a Canon 350. I am new to digital photography and stilllearning about aperture and shutter priority, etc...This Canon does not allow me to shoot in RAW in auto mode. This willforce me to quickly learn how to use my camera properly, but in themeantime, I would like to print some pictures. Using the highestquality jpeg, will the prints look good? Is it possible to get printquality photos using jpeg?Thank you..
Jpg is fine. For great printing you need about 250-300 pixels per inch (ie: 4" x 6"; at 1000 x 1500 pixels is great quality) , so you do not always require the highest quality jpg setting...
Thanks to everyone for your help.This makes me feel much better...
Using the highestquality jpeg, will the prints look good? Is it possible to get printquality photos using jpeg?Thank you..
One caveat, do not save, open, resave, open etc in jpeg; each time you save a jpeg file it compresses the file and lowers quality. You can open and print as often as you like, but isnterad of saving it each time you print, just close the file without saving..
Of course if you have PS or some other editing software, save and edit as a TIFF file if at all possible. If you can't get to TIFF, copy the original jpeg image layer into several duplicatge layers, then play around with different editing, pick the one layer that works best for you...once you have all your changes on a layer, delete the rest, flatten that layer into the original, then save under a new name. You'll end up with the original as a "negative" and the edited version for printing..
Ed is quite right but there are two separate issues here which a beginner might easily confuse..
1. File size. if you have a 10MP camera and only want to print at 5x7 inches you could set the camera to one of the smaller file sizes, e.g. 5MP. A 5 x 7 inch print at 300 pixels per inch (more that the eye can resolve) only requires 3.1 MP so 5MP would be more than enough..
2. Compression setting. The more you 'compress' a JPEG the more you get artefacts which start to get annoying and degrade the image quality. So always use the highest quality / lowest compression setting. On a camera this might be called 'fine'; in Photoshop Elements you use quality 12 (as opposed to 1)..
So you might choose to set your camera to a lower number of MP if you only need small prints, as Ed suggested... but always use the highest quality / lowest compression for the JPEG files - a different thing..
RAW files certainly offer more of a color range than jpegs, but you can get excellent results when printing jpegs. Just make sure that your resolution is high (i.e choose the highest res jpeg format on your cam) and when you import your picture into Photoshop, make sure your settings are at 240-300 dpi...