FA+
Shop
517
Views
Views
10
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 432 x 576
File Size 122.2 kB
Report this content
More from Tom_Clowder
Listed in Folders
Second in an occasional series of comparative illustrations. Today’s topic is file format and why it makes a difference.
The Web and digital cameras are instilling bad habits in people. Why? Because JPEG (which stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group) is a preferred file format for both. Unfortunately, JPEG is a “lossy” format. Yes, it’s possible to achieve extraordinarily small file sizes, but at a terrible cost in image quality. Moreover, unconfirmed reports suggest that image quality can degrade every time a JPEG file is opened or otherwise handled. Most people, however, don’t know or don’t care about any of that: I can’t count the number of images I’ve received from paying clients that are in JPEG format.
Much, much better for image quality is TIFF (Tagged Image File Format). Because it doesn’t use lossy compression, it doesn’t compromise the image—but for the same reason file sizes tend to be very large. LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch) compression, which is lossless, can reduce file size, but not as much as JPEG can. In my line of work, quality matteres more than file size, so any JPEG image I receive for use in a job gets converted immediately to LZW-compressed TIFF before I do anything else with it.
The comparative image above shows how bad the difference can be. Keep in mind, though, that it’s a worst-case scenario: minimum-quality JPEG versus LZW-compressed TIFF, doubled in size and resampled through GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) for uploading to Fur Affinity.
The lesson? Use JPEG cautiously, at the highest practical quality, and if possible only for Web purposes. For print, make it TIFF or EPS (encapsulated Postscript) and avoid JPEG entirely.
The Web and digital cameras are instilling bad habits in people. Why? Because JPEG (which stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group) is a preferred file format for both. Unfortunately, JPEG is a “lossy” format. Yes, it’s possible to achieve extraordinarily small file sizes, but at a terrible cost in image quality. Moreover, unconfirmed reports suggest that image quality can degrade every time a JPEG file is opened or otherwise handled. Most people, however, don’t know or don’t care about any of that: I can’t count the number of images I’ve received from paying clients that are in JPEG format.
Much, much better for image quality is TIFF (Tagged Image File Format). Because it doesn’t use lossy compression, it doesn’t compromise the image—but for the same reason file sizes tend to be very large. LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch) compression, which is lossless, can reduce file size, but not as much as JPEG can. In my line of work, quality matteres more than file size, so any JPEG image I receive for use in a job gets converted immediately to LZW-compressed TIFF before I do anything else with it.
The comparative image above shows how bad the difference can be. Keep in mind, though, that it’s a worst-case scenario: minimum-quality JPEG versus LZW-compressed TIFF, doubled in size and resampled through GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) for uploading to Fur Affinity.
The lesson? Use JPEG cautiously, at the highest practical quality, and if possible only for Web purposes. For print, make it TIFF or EPS (encapsulated Postscript) and avoid JPEG entirely.
Category All / All
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 432 x 576px
File Size 122.2 kB
Listed in Folders
. . . I know you’re a Second Life player using Windows. How do I know that? Because Targa is used exclusively in computer animation, which is why Second Life uses it. BMP is used almost exclusively by Windows; Mac users hardly ever see it, much less use it. (I have done so only a handful of times, and only because a job or client explicity required it.)
TIFF, on the other hand, is widely used on all platforms and is the preferred standard in many fields, including print. If you bring a BMP or Targa file to a printer, he will give you the hairy eyeball. He might print it, but I guarantee you’ll get static over it.
TIFF, on the other hand, is widely used on all platforms and is the preferred standard in many fields, including print. If you bring a BMP or Targa file to a printer, he will give you the hairy eyeball. He might print it, but I guarantee you’ll get static over it.
Indeed. I also do some print work, so I'm not unfamiliar with TIFF. I do a lot of digital projects, particularly video, so I was wondering about TIFF's ability to hold an Alpha layer.
And believe me, I'm well aware of the unrelenting evil that is JPEG. :P
For projects heading off to be printed, especially ones that contain both high resolution images AND text, I found it most expiedient to us a PDF file, though making sure it doesn't use JPEG compression is a must.
And believe me, I'm well aware of the unrelenting evil that is JPEG. :P
For projects heading off to be printed, especially ones that contain both high resolution images AND text, I found it most expiedient to us a PDF file, though making sure it doesn't use JPEG compression is a must.
To be honest, I have no idea whether TIFF supports alpha layers—I never use them in my work and have only the vaguest notion what they are.
I agree, PDF is certainly the way to go these days for composited print-ready files. However, that was a bit beyond the scope of the lesson I was trying to impart, so I didn’t touch on PDF.
Even today, with so many applications featuring all-too-helpful built-in automatic PDF creation, I still print Postscript files and distill them manually with Acrobat Distiller. That way I can be sure the job settings are just what I need them to be, not what some application engineer thinks I should want.
I agree, PDF is certainly the way to go these days for composited print-ready files. However, that was a bit beyond the scope of the lesson I was trying to impart, so I didn’t touch on PDF.
Even today, with so many applications featuring all-too-helpful built-in automatic PDF creation, I still print Postscript files and distill them manually with Acrobat Distiller. That way I can be sure the job settings are just what I need them to be, not what some application engineer thinks I should want.
hehe, understood; I just brought it up to redeem myself after my first comment. ;)
For the record, and Alpha layer controls the transparency of an image. It works on the same proncipal as a color layer (determining how much red/green/bue (or cmyk) is in a particular pixel), but instead controls how transparent that pixel is.
For the record, and Alpha layer controls the transparency of an image. It works on the same proncipal as a color layer (determining how much red/green/bue (or cmyk) is in a particular pixel), but instead controls how transparent that pixel is.
The reason jpeg has grown so much in popularity is it's web friendly aspect. I understand your pain. But if its going on a site thats going to possibly load that image several thousand times with several thousand other files, a 10 mb 500 by 500 tiff 300 dpi image is really gonna slow down the servers. Tiff is brilient for image manipulation, and is extrodinary for vextorization. bmp is the most sound online format to use in images 150 by 150 or bigger, any smaller and quality doesn't matter. Personaly after recently finishing a project for my school in which I had to vectorize an photo of the school with a PS pasted ring on it that was blurry at its defualt size of 350 by 700, I've grown sick of people who know shit about computers and exspect the world of a jpg. P.S. Linux likes bmp too... Mac is being left behind in the digital world, so unless they play catch up or start a new path for the industry no one will take them seriously.
<3 Your friendly neibourhood hand vector tracing arctic fox. :P
<3 Your friendly neibourhood hand vector tracing arctic fox. :P
First, as stated in the description as well as many, many times throughout the comments, this is about print—not about Web use. I am very aware of the difference, and address it in a more recent submission.
Second, I have no idea where you’re getting your information about the Mac being “left behind”, because it simply isn’t true. The Mac has been the standard in the publishing industry for many years, and speaking as a professional graphic designer I see no sign of that changing. I believe that’s true on the Web side too, although I cannot speak to that with authority. If anything, the Mac is becoming more popular; certainly its market share has exploded in the last few years.
Besides, this isn’t about how studly the Mac is or isn’t; this is about where image formats are used—and I don’t see the BMP format used much of anywhere in print. Or on the Web, for that matter.
Second, I have no idea where you’re getting your information about the Mac being “left behind”, because it simply isn’t true. The Mac has been the standard in the publishing industry for many years, and speaking as a professional graphic designer I see no sign of that changing. I believe that’s true on the Web side too, although I cannot speak to that with authority. If anything, the Mac is becoming more popular; certainly its market share has exploded in the last few years.
Besides, this isn’t about how studly the Mac is or isn’t; this is about where image formats are used—and I don’t see the BMP format used much of anywhere in print. Or on the Web, for that matter.
That's not an 'unconfirmed report' as far as I'm concerned. Unless you are being ironic...
;)
JPEG images do degrade with visual 'noise' near edges (as in your example) each time it is handled (resized, copied, color adjusted). Someone could claim all the original information is encoded in the compression, but I am beginning suspect JPEG was designed to have the degrade in quality -- to discourage multiple copies and manipulation of images.
End rant.
;)
JPEG images do degrade with visual 'noise' near edges (as in your example) each time it is handled (resized, copied, color adjusted). Someone could claim all the original information is encoded in the compression, but I am beginning suspect JPEG was designed to have the degrade in quality -- to discourage multiple copies and manipulation of images.
End rant.
I called it “unconfirmed” out of meticulous honesty: if the phenomenon is indeed documented somewhere, I haven’t seen it, so to me it’s unconfirmed. I’ve stumbled into too many rhetorical traps in the past; as a result I try to be very careful about making unsupported assertions of fact.
By the way, that matted print of “Wolf by Firelight” is still available if you want it!
By the way, that matted print of “Wolf by Firelight” is still available if you want it!
BMP is a horridly bloated file format, because it palettizes the image (like GIF does) then stores the palette with the image, doubling the data size or worse. Because of this, it is also not color accurate. What it decides is your color range is, is not always the best for the image. Not recommended for print work. Any palettizing compression scheme is bad for such work.
TGA is not just used in Animation but in film-work in general when you have large amounts of visual data files strung together. TGA can have an alpha channel (where TIFF cannot), and for its non-lossless format and full color range it has a tiny file size. It does this by completely sacrificing resolution information. Not good for Print work (which requires a minimum DPI of 300), but excellent for film work where even today's high def stuff doesn't get much larger than 1920 x 1080 pixels (at 72dpi).
TGA is not just used in Animation but in film-work in general when you have large amounts of visual data files strung together. TGA can have an alpha channel (where TIFF cannot), and for its non-lossless format and full color range it has a tiny file size. It does this by completely sacrificing resolution information. Not good for Print work (which requires a minimum DPI of 300), but excellent for film work where even today's high def stuff doesn't get much larger than 1920 x 1080 pixels (at 72dpi).
Like the formats discussed in earlier comments (TGA, BMP, and GIF), PNG is rarely seen in the print world, and if you use it you will get the same horrified reaction from print people—like me. Apparently I can’t emphasize it enough: any format seen primarily on the Web is totally unsuitable for print. If it doesn’t maltreat the image with lossy compression, it maltreats the image with poor color-handling. The former is the case for JPEG; the latter is the case for GIF and PNG.
In short: don’t use it!
Nope. TIFF and EPS, EPS and TIFF—forget anything else for print. Anything.
In short: don’t use it!
Nope. TIFF and EPS, EPS and TIFF—forget anything else for print. Anything.
If it doesn’t maltreat the image with lossy compression, it maltreats the image with poor color-handling. The former is the case for JPEG; the latter is the case for GIF and PNG.
I don't want to sound aggressive, but I gotta call bullshit. On JPEG you are correct (compression artifacts from the DCT quantisation). GIF, yes (256 colours is it's max).
PNG, emphatically not the case. PNG is lossless and true-colour (up to 64 bits per pixel, RGBA). It also has a bunch of options for specifying colour profiles, gamma, white balance, etc. Colour handling in PNG is not a problem.
This submission would've been better as a 24bit PNG, actually, since you wouldn't have all that dither from the colour quantisation to get it to fit in GIF's limited palette.
Notably, PNG's DEFLATE compression with prediction filters is superior to LZW.
PNG doesn't support CMYK, though, so if that's the colourspace you want to work in, you'll have to go with TIFF. Or if you want multiple pages in a single file, use TIFF. Or if your workflow only supports TIFF, then use TIFF. That's fine. But don't claim PNG handles colours poorly. It doesn't. If a customer came to you with a PNG instead of a TIFF file it should be the least of your worries.
I don't want to sound aggressive, but I gotta call bullshit. On JPEG you are correct (compression artifacts from the DCT quantisation). GIF, yes (256 colours is it's max).
PNG, emphatically not the case. PNG is lossless and true-colour (up to 64 bits per pixel, RGBA). It also has a bunch of options for specifying colour profiles, gamma, white balance, etc. Colour handling in PNG is not a problem.
This submission would've been better as a 24bit PNG, actually, since you wouldn't have all that dither from the colour quantisation to get it to fit in GIF's limited palette.
Notably, PNG's DEFLATE compression with prediction filters is superior to LZW.
PNG doesn't support CMYK, though, so if that's the colourspace you want to work in, you'll have to go with TIFF. Or if you want multiple pages in a single file, use TIFF. Or if your workflow only supports TIFF, then use TIFF. That's fine. But don't claim PNG handles colours poorly. It doesn't. If a customer came to you with a PNG instead of a TIFF file it should be the least of your worries.
Okay, one caveat: most high-end print systems are CMYK. I’ve heard persistent rumors of a few print systems that use RGB, but I’ve never encountered them and don’t have any details, just the assertion that they exist. Still, I doubt the print shops that use them would thank a client who brought them PNG files rather than TIFF images. If nothing else, the publishing and print industries are notoriously conservative and don’t like anything out of the ordinary, because anything out of the ordinary tends not to work, creating angst and lost money. I tend to be conservative in that fashion myself, for the same reasons.
PNG doesn't support CMYK, though, so if that's the colourspace you want to work in, you'll have to go with TIFF. Or if you want multiple pages in a single file, use TIFF. Or if your workflow only supports TIFF, then use TIFF.
These are in fact some of the reasons why TIFF is suitable for print work and PNG is not, and form the basis of my comments. As for PNG having a broader color range, that may be so; I now have conflicting information and thus can’t offer a definitive opinion myself. Since my work is almost exclusively print-related rather than Web-related, I’m vastly more familiar with the formats used in print.
PNG doesn't support CMYK, though, so if that's the colourspace you want to work in, you'll have to go with TIFF. Or if you want multiple pages in a single file, use TIFF. Or if your workflow only supports TIFF, then use TIFF.
These are in fact some of the reasons why TIFF is suitable for print work and PNG is not, and form the basis of my comments. As for PNG having a broader color range, that may be so; I now have conflicting information and thus can’t offer a definitive opinion myself. Since my work is almost exclusively print-related rather than Web-related, I’m vastly more familiar with the formats used in print.
In general, yes—TIFF is best for high-resolution images for which color and image integrity are key. That includes most print-related uses.
PNG and other formats have already been thoroughly chewed over in the comments above yours; check ’em out.
Long story short: if you use it on the Web, don’t use it for print. If you use it for print, don’t use it on the Web.
PNG and other formats have already been thoroughly chewed over in the comments above yours; check ’em out.
Long story short: if you use it on the Web, don’t use it for print. If you use it for print, don’t use it on the Web.
Comments