When uploading an image to say mpix or another web printing service, does it matter, in terms of quality, to upload in tiff or jpeg?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tiff or jpeg for online printing?
- Thread starter trjwv
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I always print from the Tiff File if at all possible. There is more data to a Tiff File, than there is to a Jpeg. I haven't used Mpix, thus I cannot provide any experience, but if they accept Tiff's, then I would send in a Tiff.
HTH...
HTH...
Mpix prints mine from jpeg. and I'm more than satisfied with their results, even amazed at times.
With all the tech heads on this site I'm sure you will be given the reasons why jpeg's work for them.
With all the tech heads on this site I'm sure you will be given the reasons why jpeg's work for them.
You may be correct, but you will never find anyone with design experience sending (or accepting) a .jpg file for printing. And then again, designers don't think of ink jets or dye-sub printers when we read about sending something to a printer. We like to keep things complicated.
I have a good ink jet for my photos, but I still only print from 300 dpi .tiff files.
According to this site, on line printers prefer .jpg files because of size issues in the upload process. I have a local printer who takes .tif files because they like the info in the larger file. I would take stuff to them and not use an on line service, so ignore me.
Dale
Last edited:
Technically speaking, it is more ideal to send a TIFF (the main advantage being in that you can send in 16-bit format), however, in practice, you will be hard pressed to see the difference between a print made from a 300ppi TIFF or a maximum quality JPEG of the same resolution.
At the highest quality, JPEG files differ from TIFF only down at the pixel level. Printed at 300ppi, you're talking about differences on the order of 1/150 of an inch or less. It simply isn't going to matter unless you intend to inspect your print with a powerful magnifying glass. And even then it is doubtful you'd be able to spot the differences between a TIFF and a JPEG print, due to resolution losses in ink bleed and paper texture.
The JPEG is easier to transfer over the web, so large print shops tend to use JPEG, and there's nothing wrong with that. Again, 99.9% of images will look identical from a JPEG or a TIFF so long as each have been prepared properly.
Ruahrc
At the highest quality, JPEG files differ from TIFF only down at the pixel level. Printed at 300ppi, you're talking about differences on the order of 1/150 of an inch or less. It simply isn't going to matter unless you intend to inspect your print with a powerful magnifying glass. And even then it is doubtful you'd be able to spot the differences between a TIFF and a JPEG print, due to resolution losses in ink bleed and paper texture.
The JPEG is easier to transfer over the web, so large print shops tend to use JPEG, and there's nothing wrong with that. Again, 99.9% of images will look identical from a JPEG or a TIFF so long as each have been prepared properly.
Ruahrc
When I first started in Electronic Printing and Publishing (coming from film stripping), if we got a set of files from a client and they were using jpgs, all work would stop.
"We can't use those, we're a real printer. Do they think this is (insert quick print shop name like Kinkos)?"
Now when we get jpgs, no one really notices. Our old rip software (Scitex Brisque) had a real problem with jpgs.
"We can't use those, we're a real printer. Do they think this is (insert quick print shop name like Kinkos)?"
Now when we get jpgs, no one really notices. Our old rip software (Scitex Brisque) had a real problem with jpgs.
Bayphoto and MPix both ask for .jpg files. Bayphoto seems to get pretty good reviews for their work, quite a bit better than MPix. I suppose if you export a RAW file into a 100% .jpg file and print at anything smaller than 20x30" it would be hard to see much difference, practically speaking as long as the file isn't edited and re-saved from the .jpg file. I haven't tried either of them, so I can't speak from personal experience. Fifteen years ago when we scanned our prints into .tiff files for insertion into Quark files for imagesetter output for newspaper production I wouldn't have used .jpeg files, but I guess things have changed.
It really depends on what size and for what purpose you are printing. Anything smaller than 24x36 from a 12MP sensor you would be hard-pressed to see any difference between a print made from a .jpg or a .tif
I have prints in my studio @ 24x36 that originated from a 8MP camera printed from a .jpg through Mpix and WHCC. They don't "suffer" from originating from a .jpg
I have prints in my studio @ 24x36 that originated from a 8MP camera printed from a .jpg through Mpix and WHCC. They don't "suffer" from originating from a .jpg
It depends heavily on the output device- for instance Fuji Frontiers only do 8-bit files, TIFF or JPEG and they're in sRGB- so there's simply not going to be a difference in output quality. However, even if the Frontier did 12-bit output, it'd need a change in color space to be different, and even then the difference isn't going to be all that noticeable without an extra large print and a side-by-side comparison. The only difference between a TIFF and a JPEG in most instances is going to be if you make adjustments and re-save, then the JPEG is going to lose some quality with each re-save.
Paul
That's just it. JPEG is a lossy compressed format. This has nothing to do with how many bits you have in each pixel. JPEGs run the risk of losing spacial resolution with each save. This problem can be mitigated by saving at 100% quality. However, the workaround has the side effect of dramatically increasing the file size, which blunts one of the advantages of JPEG. The best strategy is to perform all edits on a non-JPEG source file. Then convert to JPEG for delivery.
If you export to JPEG to print, it's a non-issue- you're not re-saving, so you lose nothing. With an 8-bit sRGB TIFF, you gain nothing in printing (which is what we're discussing here- simply what file format to save in for printing.)
I don't know what you're shooting with, but with either of my two DSLRs, even if I use LZW compression on the TIFF files, the difference in image size is hardly "blunted-" for instance, looking in a directory now, the first example of a compressed TIFF and full-sized JPEG is 73.3M for the TIFF and 6.1M for the JPEG. The next example shows 147.3M for the TIFF and 25.7 for the JPEG. My final example is 147.2M and 4.4M respectively None of those are even close to what I'd describe as "blunted."
Paul
You really have to ask that?
OK, I'll give you a serious answer. It depends on the source.
You would think that TIFF is the answer. Well, it is, assuming the original source was some sort of lossless format and has never been destructively compressed. So, your source is a lossless format photo, or an original digital image produced in Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.
You certainly would not want to convert that to JPEG, because you will lose quality.
If the original source is JPEG, though, that might be a different matter. You have to realize that if your original source is JPEG, it's already tainted. You just have to do the best you can with it. If you need to resize or adjust it in any way, you are going to lose some quality. And it had lowered quality from the git-go.
If you know what you are doing, do whatever editing/adjusting, and ave as a TIFF. You start with a degraded image, manipulate it, but why degrade it further?
On the other hand, if you are going to use the original as-is, without any changes, then you might be better off submitting the original JPEG. The printer probably has better conversion/filtering tools than you, and they know what works. The printer is used to people throwing nasty JPEGs at them, and they probably have some automated workflow set-up to to the best they can with it.
Last edited: