Thirsty Moth

In article , PeterN
wrote:

To even view a RAW file some conversion is necessary.

that depends on what you call 'conversion'.

you're calling opening an image file a conversion. most people do not.

when people say conversion, they usually mean changing format, such as
raw-jpg, raw-psd, aiff-mp3, doc-pdf, etc.

what goes on internal to the computer does not matter to users.

The RAW file
itself is smply a set of coded instructions.

no it isn't. it's a data dump of the sensor with some metadata

Hence the proped codec is
necessary for viewing, or printing. I will not take this any further.

wise choice.

When I asked my original question, I thought the answer was as I just
stated. Nothing anyone has said has changed my opinion. I should have
realized that nospam was once more, simply trying to stir the pot.

it's not me who is stirring.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the user has a raw file, they open it in a suitable app and print. done.

But they can't send it the printer (Pictbridge excepted) and have the
printer print it.

sure they can. it's trivial.

It has to be converted somewhere along the line
somewhere.

which is entirely internal to the computer, where all sorts of stuff
goes on, none of which matters to the user.

are you going to argue about conversions to tcp/ip or 802.11n to send
it to the printer?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

... and no option to print. Maybe you can do it on your Mac but no
Windows machine that I have seen has the ability to print straight
from a raw file. Presumably your OS has some kind of software which
Windows lacks.

Eric, back off! I just did print from a RAW file...on a PC with
Windows 7. I printed a .dng using LR, PS, and FastStone.

Tony. Please have another look. What you have done is not printing
directly from a raw file to a printer. You have sent the image through
a whole chain of software to convert the raw file into a form
acceptable to the printer.

it's exactly what he did.

he has a raw image, he clicked print and it printed.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is the small matter of a huge wad of LR in the way.

lightroom is not in the way.

It's in the path which the image has to follow on it's way from the
raw form to the printer's native language.

are you going to start arguing about the path the electrons take in the
wires? or the emf if it's wireless? there's a conversion to tcp/ip
protocols, and 802.11n if it's over wifi. why not argue about *that*
conversion??

the answer is because *none* of it matters.

again, open a raw file, click print and collect the print. trivial.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:13:48 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:33:44 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:04:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Like me, PeterN is trying to find out how it is possible for a printer
to swallow a raw file and spit out an image. My understanding is that
this is not possible. You seem to be supporting that view by extending
the argument to 'conversion'.

Both Lightroom and Photoshop will print a RAW file. I just tried both
using an Epson XP-410 (a low-end printer). LR just prints the RAW
file, but PS opens the RAW file in PS but it remains a RAW file.

Just for ****s and giggles, I tried to print a RAW (.dng) file using
FastStone image viewer. Prints fine.

What goes on between the software and the printer is unknown to me,
and it really doesn't interest me.

exactly.

I didn't notice any appreciable difference in how long it took to
print or the quality of the print.

there shouldn't be a noticeable difference in how long.

jpeg files are smaller so it may take slightly less time to read the
file but that's going to be a fraction of a second and will never be
noticed.

Going back up the thread I can see that the subject of discussion has
become slightly twisted.

nospam originally wrote:

"posting obviously must be jpg but for printing, they're directly
printed from raw."

In the context of the discussion which lead up to this nospam
presumably meant that raw files could be directly printed (without
conversion to jpg or similar) from within whichever suitable
application it had been opened. However PeterN then confused the issue
by asking:

"Which printers print directly from RAW?"

The correct answer is none of them. All printers have their own native
print language in which the image must be supplied to from whichever
chain of applications is sending them the image to be printed. No
printer will accept a raw file format and print directly from it.

At this point nospam compounded the confusion originally introduced by
PeterN by continuing with the original context and answering:

"All of them".

... which is quite correct as long as the printer is being fed with
the raw image via a chain of applications which converts it to the
printer's native language.

It is now possible for all parties to go on arguing at cross purposes
for hundreds and hundreds posts.

This discussion is past the point where I really care, but my Epson
XP-410 came with whatever is required to print from a RAW file. It
was never told that I'll be printing .dngs or .jpgs or whatever.

The XP-410 is an all-in-one printer and not really the type of device
I had in mind. However, I see from the on-line manual that RAW data
should be spooled which indicates that some kind of conversion is
being made by the print driver software. It also appears as though you
don't _have_ to do this but that printing will be slower if you don't.
That suggests that the device has the ability to convert raw files but
doesn't have the computing power of the machine to which it is
connected.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-23 03:36:37 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:57:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-07-23 02:17:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:09:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

posting obviously must be jpg but for printing, they're directly
printed from raw.

Which printers print directly from RAW?

all of them.

Proof?

open raw image. choose print from the menus. collect print from printer.

optionally adjust image prior to printing.

Are you saying there is no conversion prior to printing.

obviously the printer driver converts the data to whatever format the
printer needs, but that isn't anything that the user sees nor needs to
be concerned about.

whatever software you're using also converts the data to its own native
format. your camera isn't spitting out .psd files.

the user simply opens a raw image, adjusts to taste and prints. done.

they do the same thing with a text file, spreadsheet, 3d graphic or
whatever else. just open the document, adjust if desired, choose print
and collect print.

the point is there is *no* need to save as a jpeg or any other interim
format to print.

So there is a conversion. Once there is a need for conversion, it is
immaterial whether the user does the conversion, or an activated app
does the conversion.

nope.

once again, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

the raw image is converted to pixels on the display and nobody
considers that a conversion. the magnetic fields on the hard drive are
converted to electrical pulses and nobody considers that a conversion.

there's a conversion with *everything* on a computer.

the printer is just another display device that uses paper instead of a
liquid crystal (or crt). apps draw to either or both and may not even
know the difference.

again, the user opens a raw image ...

Opens a raw image in what?

Whatever software you are using. In our case that should be Lightroom.

... (or whatever format, it doesn't even
need to be an image) and picks print and the computer does the rest.

that is not a conversion.

Of course it is.

Your statement is contrary to other comments I have heard.

then you're listening to ignorant people.

Leave out snarky comments.

i'll say whatever i want.

Your attitude adds to your persona. You have a sick and desperate need
for attention. Looks like you have to keep convincing yourself of your
greatness. Too bad others are not so convinced.

the fact that you're resorting to insults shows that you have nothing
whatsoever to refute what i'm saying.

as i said, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and it's
failing.

I don't think you are right about this.

Like me, PeterN is trying to find out how it is possible for a printer
to swallow a raw file and spit out an image. My understanding is that
this is not possible. You seem to be supporting that view by extending
the argument to 'conversion'.

Go to Lightroom and select any NEF or DNG you have available. If you
want to make whatever adjustments and edits you choose to (including
aspect ratio crops) in the Develop Module, or not.

But - but - but .... That is not printing directly from a raw image.
There is the small matter of a huge wad of LR in the way.

OK!
Then connect your camera to your trusty R3880, or use a card reader via
USB and select an NEF to print.
No computer, no Lightroom, no Photoshop.

.... and no option to print. Maybe you can do it on your Mac but no
Windows machine that I have seen has the ability to print straight
from a raw file. Presumably your OS has some kind of software which
Windows lacks.

People are at cross purposes. I've just posted another article on that
subject.

You are too concerned with the mystery of the process.

I beg to differ.

Ignoring what you describe as 'the mystery of the process' makes it
possible to make sweeping statements which can neither be discussed
nor defended. Even worse, it enables a person to have completely the
wrong idea about what is going on.

Next go to the print module and you will find that you should have
little trouble printing that NEF, or DNG, all without an intermediate
JPEG phase. As I said I don't have any JPEGs in Lightroom.

As to what Lightroom does as an intermediate phase I have no idea, as
it doesn't leave any evidence of sneakily creating a JPEG without my
knowledge.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:01:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-23 03:41:49 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:09:17 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

BTW: Now your clock seems to be running a few hours fast.

Yes. I swapped over the system drive on my computer (disk image and
all that) and I am waiting out of curiousity to discover when the
clock pulls itself into sync with a master time station (or whatever
they call them). You may have to put with the wrong time from me for a
few more days.

Why not just sync it yourself?

Because I am try to unravel some of the 'mystery of the process'. :-)

I'm curious.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:26:24 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-23 05:21:08 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-07-23 03:36:37 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:57:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-07-23 02:17:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:09:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

posting obviously must be jpg but for printing, they're directly
printed from raw.

Which printers print directly from RAW?

all of them.

Proof?

open raw image. choose print from the menus. collect print from printer.

optionally adjust image prior to printing.

Are you saying there is no conversion prior to printing.

obviously the printer driver converts the data to whatever format the
printer needs, but that isn't anything that the user sees nor needs to
be concerned about.

whatever software you're using also converts the data to its own native
format. your camera isn't spitting out .psd files.

the user simply opens a raw image, adjusts to taste and prints. done.

they do the same thing with a text file, spreadsheet, 3d graphic or
whatever else. just open the document, adjust if desired, choose print
and collect print.

the point is there is *no* need to save as a jpeg or any other interim
format to print.

So there is a conversion. Once there is a need for conversion, it is
immaterial whether the user does the conversion, or an activated app
does the conversion.

nope.

once again, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

the raw image is converted to pixels on the display and nobody
considers that a conversion. the magnetic fields on the hard drive are
converted to electrical pulses and nobody considers that a conversion.

there's a conversion with *everything* on a computer.

the printer is just another display device that uses paper instead of a
liquid crystal (or crt). apps draw to either or both and may not even
know the difference.

again, the user opens a raw image ...

Opens a raw image in what?

Whatever software you are using. In our case that should be Lightroom.

... (or whatever format, it doesn't even
need to be an image) and picks print and the computer does the rest.

that is not a conversion.

Of course it is.

Your statement is contrary to other comments I have heard.

then you're listening to ignorant people.

Leave out snarky comments.

i'll say whatever i want.

Your attitude adds to your persona. You have a sick and desperate need
for attention. Looks like you have to keep convincing yourself of your
greatness. Too bad others are not so convinced.

the fact that you're resorting to insults shows that you have nothing
whatsoever to refute what i'm saying.

as i said, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and it's
failing.

I don't think you are right about this.

Like me, PeterN is trying to find out how it is possible for a printer
to swallow a raw file and spit out an image. My understanding is that
this is not possible. You seem to be supporting that view by extending
the argument to 'conversion'.

Go to Lightroom and select any NEF or DNG you have available. If you
want to make whatever adjustments and edits you choose to (including
aspect ratio crops) in the Develop Module, or not.

But - but - but .... That is not printing directly from a raw image.
There is the small matter of a huge wad of LR in the way.

OK!
Then connect your camera to your trusty R3880, or use a card reader via
USB and select an NEF to print.
No computer, no Lightroom, no Photoshop.

... and no option to print. Maybe you can do it on your Mac but no
Windows machine that I have seen has the ability to print straight
from a raw file. Presumably your OS has some kind of software which
Windows lacks.

Read what I wrote; "No computer, no Lightroom, no Photoshop." That
means no OS to deal with. No Windows, no OSX. You don't even have to
have the printer connected to your computer.

All you need is a PICTBridge enabled camera and a PICTBridge enabled printer.
All Nikon digital cameras, including the DSLRs are PICTBridge enabled.
If you go to your manual you will find that your D750, along with the
D610, D810, D4S, D300S, my Fujifilm X-E2, and even our antique D70's
are all PICTBridge enabled, and can print to a PICTBridge enabled
printer.
My R2880, & XP-610 are PICTBridge enabled. I am not sure of the
capability of your R3880, or Tony's XP-410.

OK. I suppose Pictbridge enables you to print straight from a raw
file. I should have thought of that. But not all printers have
PictBridge. Certainly neither the Epson Stylus Pro 3800 nor the 3880
has Pictbridge.

The truth of the matter seems to lie somewhere between a raw file can
be printed directly to all printers and a raw file cannot be printed
directly to any printer.

People are at cross purposes. I've just posted another article on that
subject.

You are too concerned with the mystery of the process.

I beg to differ.

OK! OK! I was just addressing your particular thing. ;-)

Ignoring what you describe as 'the mystery of the process' makes it
possible to make sweeping statements which can neither be discussed
nor defended. Even worse, it enables a person to have completely the
wrong idea about what is going on.

Next go to the print module and you will find that you should have
little trouble printing that NEF, or DNG, all without an intermediate
JPEG phase. As I said I don't have any JPEGs in Lightroom.

As to what Lightroom does as an intermediate phase I have no idea, as
it doesn't leave any evidence of sneakily creating a JPEG without my
knowledge.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:42:24 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

This discussion is past the point where I really care, but my Epson
XP-410 came with whatever is required to print from a RAW file. It
was never told that I'll be printing .dngs or .jpgs or whatever.

The XP-410 is an all-in-one printer and not really the type of device
I had in mind. However, I see from the on-line manual that RAW data
should be spooled which indicates that some kind of conversion is
being made by the print driver software. It also appears as though you
don't _have_ to do this but that printing will be slower if you don't.
That suggests that the device has the ability to convert raw files but
doesn't have the computing power of the machine to which it is
connected.

Dunno, Eric. Don't care enough to whip out a stopwatch and time how
long it takes to print from the RAW file compared to printing from a
.jpg.

I took it that quote referred to prining a raw file via the spool as
compared to printing a raw file directly to the printer.

Let's say, just for argument's sake, it takes twice as long. How
would that affect me?

I print what I call "house pix" on my Epson. These are shots of my
grandchildren and other family members that are put up on one of three
framed magnetic boards. As more current shots are available,
something comes down to make room.

I print one, two, or three 4 x 6s when I do print. I'm not going to
waste the ink and photo paper to experiment, but as the printer is
grinding away printing a photo, I'm doing something else. I don't even
notice how long it takes.

If it's a photo that I want to frame, it's a larger print and done by
an outside service.

That makes sense.

This is a subject that has very little interest to me...and probably
to most people.

As for the Duck's thing about printing straight from the camera, I
can't imagine why anyone would bother. My D300 probably wouldn't, but
- if it does't - that's a feature not missed.

I don't think it will print straight from the camera.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:00:47 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

As for the Duck's thing about printing straight from the camera, I
can't imagine why anyone would bother. My D300 probably wouldn't, but
- if it does't - that's a feature not missed.

Agreed. The D300 along with all of Nikon's digitaloffereings are PICT
Bridge enabled (check your manual some time). I was refering to the
capability not that I have exercised the capability. I am quite happy
to print from Lightroom to my R2880.

Well blow me down. Even the D300 has Pictbridge. I never cared enough
to find out.

...and if I need a quick print from my iPhone my Epson XP-610 deals
with that via Wi-Fi.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens