Topic: graphic format
Started by: timopod
Started on: 1/30/2006
Board: Publishing
On 1/30/2006 at 9:09pm, timopod wrote:
graphic format
i was looking over some desktop software and it suggested using a file format different then jpeg or gif for images. Tiff or even png. What is the prefer ed graphic file format for printing.
On 1/30/2006 at 9:17pm, MatrixGamer wrote:
Re: graphic format
I save pictures as Tiffs (between 500Kb and 2Mb a pic) which gives decent resolution. Jpeg pixilates too easily. I don't know that Tiff is better than other formats though - it just doesn't pixilate as fast.
Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games
On 1/30/2006 at 9:33pm, Joshua BishopRoby wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
tiff is probably the best, although it's a gigantic memory hog, which is why we have things like jpg and gif, both of which simplify the image a bit to reduce file size. When you're going for print, though, you'll want the additional quality of tiff.
Additionally, be sure to ask your printer what resolution he'll be outputting in, and try not to go lower than that.
On 1/31/2006 at 2:14am, jerry wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
timopod wrote:
i was looking over some desktop software and it suggested using a file format different then jpeg or gif for images. Tiff or even png. What is the prefer ed graphic file format for printing.
JPEG is a lossy format. Whenever you save an image as a JPEG file, you are reducing the quality of the image. When you save as a JPEG you may have seen a slider that lets you trade between file size and image quality. What your software is doing is removing complexity from the image in order to produce smaller files. It's usually a very efficient process, but it is designed for photographic images and often produces amazingly poor quality when used on cartoon-style images. JPEGs are a great choice for photographic-style images on the web. In any case, you never want to use JPEG as a format for storing your originals; if you do, you always want to keep that first JPEG that you created and *not* continually save over it.
GIF has only 256 colors. If the original image has more than 256 colors, the software has to toss the extras; how it does so is pretty much up to the software. However, once the image has less than 256 colors GIF is non-lossy. Unless your original image has less than 256 colors, you don't want to keep your original as a GIF. If your original does have less than 256 colors, there's no problem doing so. If you are using any sort of anti-aliasing, its a good bet that your original has more than 256 colors (your drawing software will usually be able to tell you how many colors the image uses).
The advantage of TIFF is that it is designed for print work and supports several colorspaces. If you need to work in CMYK, you'll probably find it easier to use TIFF images. TIFF can do both lossy or non-lossy saves.
I generally use PNG format for saving my originals (I rarely need CMYK). All good image editors can use and save as PNG nowadays, and PNG is a non-lossy format with up to millions of colors.
I generally use PNG as a replacement for GIF on the web as well; my experience is that for images with few colors, the PNG format produces somewhat smaller files than does GIF.
In general, if your printer tells you to use TIFF, you want to use it. You don't want to confuse your printer. If they tell you TIFF or PNG and you're not working in a colorspace that requires TIFF, I'd probably go with PNG, but that's because the tools I use support it better than they do TIFF.
Jerry
On 1/31/2006 at 7:05am, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
TIFF is a lossless format and the LZW compression makes it not-too-painfully-large as an option.
However, JPEG has come a long way in recent years. You can make them CMYK, you can use a minimum of compression, and they will look indistinguishable from a TIFF. I've known many a professional photographer to use JPEG for its higher efficiency.
GIF is extremely limited and is totally unsuitable for print or high resolution screen images. It's only barely suitable for onscreen use.
PNG is sort of a midway solution between JPEG and GIF. Its features, like those of GIF, are predominantly for digital use, so you won't find it useful for print. It's awfully cool as an online format, though.
On 1/31/2006 at 4:16pm, Clay wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
TIFF is the standard, but TIFF as a file format is a horror story. The TIFF standard isn't a file format itself, but a format for a file format. What's done with the data in the file is up to the software. Usually things match up. But if you use compression all bets are off. There is no standard defined for the compression algorithm to use. LZW is common but not universal. If you're going to be supplying original files to the printer you'll need to clarify with them what they can handle as far as compression.
On 1/31/2006 at 4:25pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
Clay's right in principle: it comes down to what your printer can handle. I've never had issues with TIFFs, but then I've generated them with Photoshop almost exclusively.
On 1/31/2006 at 5:46pm, Jeff_DUG wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
I agree with Joshua's last comment. I too have never had a problem, but I use Adobe products (Mac & PC) so I've never, for example, tried submitting a .tiff created from Paint Shop Pro or Gimp.
I work with a variety of different magazines providing ad copy to them and Tiff is a pretty standard file type among printers. It is very VERY large however. I am also seeing a lot of printers asking for PDF over the last 2 years. Truth be told I don't actually like PDF files for magazine print. I feel like Quark or InDesign always prints so much nicer.
I would never recommend using .jpeg, .gif or even .png for printed materials. Just my opinion.
At any rate good luck on your designing ventures! :)
On 1/31/2006 at 6:28pm, MatrixGamer wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
Nice to know the observation of my eyes had some reasoning behind it (even if I didn't do the thinking myself!)
I like to play with things like this to get a first hand feel for how they work. It helps me understand the advantages and disadvantages. Knowing such things comes in real handy when negociating with vendors. They see you know what you're talking about which makes them think "Boy I bet this leads to a sale." It also makes them be able to help you out more easily when problems arrise (and problems always arrise with printing.)
Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games
On 1/31/2006 at 10:52pm, Troy_Costisick wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
Heya,
GIF is extremely limited and is totally unsuitable for print or high resolution screen images. It's only barely suitable for onscreen use.
-Does that apply even for black and white sketch art?
Peace,
-Troy
On 1/31/2006 at 10:57pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
Yep. For b&w sketch art, use a 2-bit TIFF. It'll be no larger and you won't wind up with printers rolling their eyes at you.
GIF assumes a screen resolution: 72 or 96 dpi. TIFF makes no such assumption and often contains metadata to tell software what resolution it is.
In theory, there's so little information in a 2-bit GIF that it should work. But it's sort of the equivalent of sending Mr. Potato Head to do G.I. Joe's job.
On 2/5/2006 at 12:59pm, Kevin A. Ranson wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
However (just to play devil's advocate), if you intend to publish to .pdf for print (like Lightning Print or Cafe Press), any printer that can print from .pdf directly can use .png graphics. That's what we used for our black & white book interiors and full-color covers.
On 2/5/2006 at 7:28pm, nikola wrote:
RE: Re: graphic format
Yeah, a png would be a good format for straign b&w graphics, it's true. Not greyscale, though. The advantages over TIFF will diminish rapidly as the file gets more complex.