What format to lab?

[dennykyser]

I have found that the even the machines around here take 16 bit Tif files so should I use these to get Prints done. (4x6, 5x7)

when uploading to mpix, should I also use these files, is there any draw back to using these large files?

Thanks for any help.

[Scottes]

They're big. Save as TIF with LZW compression, or even better yet, Zip them.

[4walls]

I have found that the even the machines around here take 16 bit Tif files so should I use these to get Prints done. (4x6, 5x7)

when uploading to mpix, should I also use these files, is there any draw back to using these large files?

Thanks for any help.

If you are doing 4x6's or 5x7's, your prints will be virtually as good as if saved as JPG, but the filesize will be much smaller. So, what is your time worth?

[evilenglishman]

bear in mind that saving a tiff with lzw compression will lower the quality of your image as it is a "lossy" compression method similar to jpeg.

[Scottes]

LZW is not lossy. There are lossy formats using LZW. From PS 6's Help file:

"Lemple-Zif-Welch (LZW) is a lossless compression technique supported by TIFF, PDF, GIF, and PostScript language file formats."

Did this change in 7 or CS?

[maderito]

bear in mind that saving a tiff with lzw compression will lower the quality of your image as it is a "lossy" compression method similar to jpeg.
LZW compression is not lossy. See: http://www.prepressure.com/techno/compressionlzw.htm

The problem that arises from time to time with LZW is that it is copyrighted. Some applications do not support TIFF (or GIF) with LZW compression, especially freeware and other low cost imaging software whose developers are not willing to pay the royalty fees.

Regarding the original posted question, converted 16-bit TIFFs to high quality JPEGs (i.e., minimal compression) is satisfactory for most photo printing purposes in my experience.

[dennykyser]

I am saving them as 16 bit files and they are huge, but fit on a cd rom so havent worried about it. Just wondered if that would give me a better image than the jpeg

[maderito]

I am saving them as 16 bit files and they are huge, but fit on a cd rom so havent worried about it. Just wondered if that would give me a better image than the jpeg
After opening an image file to edit, save it in TIFF format to prevent loss of image data that occurs with JPEG compression. That same TIFF file can also be re-saved as a JPEG (using "save as" in the file menu) when it is time to send it out to a print shop or off to the web for display. I don't think you'll notice any difference in quality as long as you are not compressing the JPEG too much.

If you are printing your own, I believe most desktop printers (which are 8-bit devices) handle 16-bit TIFF files without a problem (except for using more computer resources for background printing which can slows things down).

[evilenglishman]

LZW compression is not lossy. See: http://www.prepressure.com/techno/compressionlzw.htm

The problem that arises from time to time with LZW is that it is copyrighted. Some applications do not support TIFF (or GIF) with LZW compression, especially freeware and other low cost imaging software whose developers are not willing to pay the royalty fees.


My applogies, what you mentioned above is the reason I don't use it (brain lapse) :P
I remember a loooong time ago compuserve spamming anyone who had a website that they had to pay to use gifs :shock:

[maderito]

LZW compression is not lossy. See: http://www.prepressure.com/techno/compressionlzw.htm

The problem that arises from time to time with LZW is that it is copyrighted. Some applications do not support TIFF (or GIF) with LZW compression, especially freeware and other low cost imaging software whose developers are not willing to pay the royalty fees.


My applogies, what you mentioned above is the reason I don't use it (brain lapse) :P
I remember a loooong time ago compuserve spamming anyone who had a website that they had to pay to use gifs :shock:
I realize we're off topic here -- but ...

The Unisys patent of the LZW compression algorithm has withstood incredible attacks ("Burn All GIFs"). Last I heard, it expires this year, or very soon. Someday I'll enjoy a good read on the history of the controversial patent. It has complicated the lives of a whole generation of web designers and users. :x

[evilenglishman]

add that to the fact that png cant be used until idiots like micro$****e implement it proerly into i.e :evil:

sorry for hijacking your post denny :wink:

[Scottes]

I saw we all go back to TGA. Damn near a raw format, no overhead like file headers. 3 Bytes per pixel nice and easy RGB ordering - completely portable!

And it ZIPs quite nicely.

:)

[evilenglishman]

who knows? :wink: jpeg2000 is looming but there will always be surprises.

I remember meeting some software development guys who were showing a program they had made at a conference in Sweden about 8 years ago. They were trying to sell a program to a bigger developer. It was called "futuresplash".
I remember looking at its crappy interface and dodgy demo of slowly moving shapes. I thought it was junk but a friend with me shouted "wow! this is revolutionary"!!.
No companies were initialy interested in it, but they convinced one company of its possiblilities and that program went on to be called Macromedia Flash.

[PacAce]

I have found that the even the machines around here take 16 bit Tif files so should I use these to get Prints done. (4x6, 5x7)

when uploading to mpix, should I also use these files, is there any draw back to using these large files?

Thanks for any help.

If you are doing 4x6's or 5x7's, your prints will be virtually as good as if saved as JPG, but the filesize will be much smaller. So, what is your time worth?

I have to agree with 4walls. If all you're doing is printing 4x6 or 5x7, just save the file as a JPG file in "high quality" mode (setting of 10 in photoshot). The 16 bit and the TIFF format isn't going to buy you anything for these size prints.

[Scottes]

who knows? :wink: jpeg2000 is looming but there will always be surprises.

I remember meeting some software development guys who were showing a program they had made at a conference in Sweden about 8 years ago. They were trying to sell a program to a bigger developer. It was called "futuresplash".
I remember looking at its crappy interface and dodgy demo of slowly moving shapes. I thought it was junk but a friend with me shouted "wow! this is revolutionary"!!.
No companies were initialy interested in it, but they convinced one company of its possiblilities and that program went on to be called Macromedia Flash.

I know that feeling. Back in 93 or 94 I didn't the Internet was going to be a big deal. By 95 I was complaining about all the people getting logged in and "ruining" the Internet, but I knew it was a fad.

I caught on by 1997... :)