Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Design and Graphics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 27, 2006, 09:17 AM   #1
Dm84
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Allston, MA
Tiff

I know this may seem like a stupid question, but is it really necessary to convert every image that goes into a Quark layout from JPEG to TIFF if the Quark file will ultimately be turned into a PDF?
Dm84 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 09:32 AM   #2
Eric5h5
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dm84
I know this may seem like a stupid question, but is it really necessary to convert every image that goes into a Quark layout from JPEG to TIFF if the Quark file will ultimately be turned into a PDF?
Nope. Why bother changing JPEGs to TIFFs anyway, regardless? Once the quality is lost, changing it to a TIFF won't get it back.

--Eric
Eric5h5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 09:35 AM   #3
makisushi
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern VA
No. I assume you are asking this question because you want to keep file size down, right? If this is for online content only, then it won't make a noticible difference. You can make the pictures resolution 72dpi at 100% and RGB.
__________________
-Custom 8ft 4wt teton tioga
-Custom 9ft 5 wt Orvis battenkill
-Sage XP 9ft 9wt Lamson ULA Force
makisushi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 09:37 AM   #4
Dm84
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Allston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric5h5
Nope. Why bother changing JPEGs to TIFFs anyway, regardless? Once the quality is lost, changing it to a TIFF won't get it back.

--Eric
When I started doing layout at my school newspaper a few years ago, I was instructed to turn all images into TIFFs before placing them in layouts. I never really understood why though. Maybe in the past it was actually necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by makisushi
No. I assume you are asking this question because you want to keep file size down, right? If this is for online content only, then it won't make a noticible difference. You can make the pictures resolution 72dpi at 100% and RGB.
Nope this is for print and everything gets converted to CMYK.

Last edited by bousozoku; Feb 27, 2006 at 09:41 AM. Reason: posts next to each other
Dm84 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 09:45 AM   #5
bousozoku
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gone but not forgotten.
If it's for print, you should be using the highest resolution TIFFs possible from your JPEGs. This is especially important if the .pdf file itself is used for printing by the printing house, instead of the standard output of Quark XPress files and folders.
bousozoku is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 09:49 AM   #6
Dm84
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Allston, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by bousozoku
If it's for print, you should be using the highest resolution TIFFs possible from your JPEGs. This is especially important if the .pdf file itself is used for printing by the printing house, instead of the standard output of Quark XPress files and folders.
Yeah the PDF is what is used for printing. So I should continue converting everything to TIFF?
Dm84 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 09:49 AM   #7
Blue Velvet
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Why save as TIFF? It's lossless.

So if you have RGB JPGs and convert them to CMYK, then resave them as JPGs you'll put them through yet another stage of compression.

The other advantage to using a TIFF in Quark is that you can add layers (adjustment or normal) to them in Photoshop and they'll distill just fine.

RIPs in the past had problems with JPGs, especially if they were rotated.

Best to stick with the customary methods of doing things. If anyone here dropped a JPG into artwork, they'd get a (friendly) roasting for it.
Blue Velvet is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 10:22 AM   #8
rjphoto
macrumors 6502a
 
rjphoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Older Versions of Quark couldn't process JPGs. Can't say when it changed. I haven't upgraded since version 4.
__________________
2007 MacBook Pro 2.4, 2008 Macbook Air, iMac 2006 (wife's), Macmini Core Duo
rjphoto is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 10:55 AM   #9
lurcher
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
I gave up on Quark when upgrading to OSX and bought InDesign, which readily accepts JPGs. I think if you know what you are doing then its fine to use jpgs in artwork. I regularly save large files as max res Jpegs and use in ID with no problems. Always check out of house jpgs first though, to make sure they are a good resolution and cmyk to print with.
lurcher is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 11:25 AM   #10
makisushi
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northern VA
I would say that using max res jpegs is fine. Unless you have a heavily color corrected photo, that needs to be pristine. I would'nt worry about it too much, it were for a company newsletter, or something like that.

I do agree with BV, though. Keeping a standard procedure is a very good idea. It comes in handy, when you have been up for 36 hours and are trying to make a deadline, and all hell is breaking loose.
__________________
-Custom 8ft 4wt teton tioga
-Custom 9ft 5 wt Orvis battenkill
-Sage XP 9ft 9wt Lamson ULA Force
makisushi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 12:25 PM   #11
bousozoku
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gone but not forgotten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dm84
Yeah the PDF is what is used for printing. So I should continue converting everything to TIFF?
That would be my suggestion. It you're short on space, you can choose compression and since it's LZW compression, it's lossless, unlike that used with JPEGs. When I photograph for commercial print, I shoot directly to TIFF. It avoids conversion loss and other headaches.
bousozoku is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2006, 10:43 PM   #12
Eric5h5
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dm84
When I started doing layout at my school newspaper a few years ago, I was instructed to turn all images into TIFFs before placing them in layouts. I never really understood why though. Maybe in the past it was actually necessary?
Not that I know of. I still use Quark 3 sometimes and it works with JPEGs fine, unless they're progressive JPEGs. (Actually, I prefer to use that when possible over Quark 5, which is my other choice at work...Quark 5 is possibly the worst program I've ever used, but that's another story.) Ideally JPEGs wouldn't be involved at all, but if you get one, the only reason to convert it to a TIFF is if it's going to be fiddled with and re-saved again at some point.

--Eric
Eric5h5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 04:22 AM   #13
lurcher
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric5h5
Not that I know of. I still use Quark 3 sometimes and it works with JPEGs fine, unless they're progressive JPEGs. (Actually, I prefer to use that when possible over Quark 5, which is my other choice at work...Quark 5 is possibly the worst program I've ever used, but that's another story.) Ideally JPEGs wouldn't be involved at all, but if you get one, the only reason to convert it to a TIFF is if it's going to be fiddled with and re-saved again at some point.

--Eric
Sheesh, you're still using Quark 3? What's wrong with 4.1? Damn fine workhorse that is. You can only use jpegs in Quark 4.1 or lower if you have the jpeg extension. The standalone version doesn't allow them, hence the old way of converting everything to tiff. Yes Quark 5 was a pile of dog muck, but 7 should be good. Intel native
lurcher is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 09:23 AM   #14
Eric5h5
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurcher
Sheesh, you're still using Quark 3? What's wrong with 4.1?
We don't have 4.1. Went from 3 to 5...but I kept 3 around to use when I can, because 5 is a bug-ridden, bloated, bug-ridden, slow, and bug-ridden piece of.... Anyway, 3 does everything I need, plus it does it 5x faster, and with 100000x fewer bugs.

--Eric
Eric5h5 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2006, 09:50 AM   #15
decksnap
macrumors 68030
 
decksnap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
BV is right- at some point in your workflow you'll be converting artwork to CMYK- so it's best to save it as a Tiff at this point or before- basically whenever you edit that jpeg that you started with and go to save it- because you don't want to degrade your file by resaving as a jpeg.
__________________
My cat's breath smells like catfood.
decksnap is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Design and Graphics

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problems with TIFF multipage scans simon Edwards MacBook Pro 0 Sep 30, 2013 02:37 PM
Adding .tiff Signatures in Preview medmandje Mac Applications and Mac App Store 0 Feb 21, 2013 12:56 PM
TIFF File Merge Software crazyaboutravel Mac Basics and Help 0 Nov 10, 2012 01:00 AM
tiff photos etsi iPhone 5 Aug 9, 2012 02:22 PM
.TIFF files on iPad (received via email) pyles iPad Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 0 Jun 15, 2012 02:11 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC