Saving as TIFF

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by photo_girl|1, Nov 25, 2008.

  1. when i go to save an image as a TIFF... where it says Image Compression - when do i select NONE and what do i
    select LZW or others - slightly confused.

    Most of my work i end up saving for myself in order to print on my Epson 3800.

    From time to time, the file is copied to a CD for a client (magazine etc)

    thank you
  2. Tiff supports several ways to compress the image it holds:

    - No compression ... the oldest one ... compatible to every program that understands tiff.

    - LZW lossless compression ... (a algorithm described by Ziv and Lempel is used to compress data) ... not all
    programs do support this.

    - ZIP lossless compression ... the same algorithm as in ZIP files is used. ... again not all programs understand this

    - JPG lossy (!) compression ... the same algorithm as in JPGs files is used ... with the same drawbacks (its not
    lossless) ... again not all programs understand this.

    If you have knowledge about the program that will read your tiff files, and if you know, that LZW or ZIP is
    supported, you can chose one of them. The compressions used are lossless, so no worry about image quality. If you
    want to stay as compatible as possible, use "no compression". The files are larger, but also give you the best
  3. If I was a cynic, I would say you have posted quite a few questions recently, and in most cases, haven't even had the courtesy to thank the people who have taken the time and effort to reply (myself included). With that said, I can't be assed to reply to this question.
  4. A thanks or I understand or I got the message is always nice. But if you wait for it, You will post few answeres.
  5. While, to some extent, I agree with Stuart and Ronald; I already have a couple of sackfulls of thank yous so I don't really need anymore. But feedback on how helpful the answers were does enable responders to know if they are giving the correct advice.

    However, this is drifting away from the question. Rainer has given good advice about your choice of options. I would suggest just using the standard TIFF for archive storage, although I sometimes use PNG (slightly compressed lossless format) if I am trying to cram a lot of images onto a disc. If you are sending the images to someone else I would always use standard non compressed TIFF unless instructed to do otherwise.

    Exactly how you go about selecting the option will differ between proogrammes. Which software are you using? With my programme (Serif Photo Plus) there is a section hidden under the obscure name of Optimiser where the various options are available. You should have something similar. Probably, just select TIFF and None when asked about compression, although some software works with strange names like 'Best Quality' etc.

    As a last resort, have a look under TIFF or Exporting Files, etc. in the programme Help files, there is usually a lot of information there.
  6. As you probably know, two advantages of TIFF are their nearly ubiquity; and more importantly, their ability to preserve
    layers (like .PSD files.) The rules of thumb presented above regarding which compression method to use are sane. My
    experience is that virtually everyone can use ZIP compressed (lossless) TIFFs. I've never had problems using LZW, but
    I work with Adobe products almost exclusively and they all support LZW TIFFs.

    I would also second the use of PNGs for smaller files (say up to 1600 X 1280) intended to be used on screen/web.
    Though browser support for PNGs is still spotty for older browsers, they are a lossless flatfile format that supports
    transparency generally superior to JPEG and GIF -- except for relative file size.
  7. There were over 200 variants of TIFF back in 1996; today there are even more forms. <BR><BR>If you use a more obscure variant there is a less chance another person can read it; it gets worse with time; worst as the number of targeted folks to read the file increases.. Its like the TV newscasters tend to use vanilla English and not jive talk, not lingo from just one city; not lingo thats understood by a few. <BR><BR>There are TIFF variants that have been abandoned and orphaned and only an older Adobe or older brand of software will read it; and a new *upgraded* version decided to kill off the variant. Thats why here as a print shop we still use older photoshop versions and other softwares to move forward odd variants. <BR><BR><BR><BR>LZW has little compression with normal pictoral images and is typcially not used much. It has a radically greater compression (lossless) with an image that has a constant tone such as an advertisement sign; which may have a sea of one color; text in just a few colors. A 20 meg TIFF for a sign might compress in LZW down to a trim 1 to 2 meg file with no loss;and be emailable on dialup to podunk in just a few minutes. <BR><BR>There can also be were a newer program will not read an older tiff variant if its more than 1 meg; but it will if less than 1 megs; then when its converted to say a PCX or plain TIFF the reverse is true. After along time one realizes there are a mess of variants; and rules are often not written down or documented<BR><BR>PNG has been preached as the 2nd coming for it seems forever; in printing as an input from clients it right up there in the weeds with 5 1/4 and jazz discs; Amiga files. I do not doubt its a great format. In say a many thousands of files recieved PNGs are a couple of orders of maginitude used less than a dumb PCX, BMP or GIF as a printing input; we get a few a year. PNGs are thus very odd; they are used a million times less than a JPEG or TIF by real world clients. The only time we get them as an input is when folks save images off a web site or google search. PNG's have been preached as a good way to save files for along time; I just wonder if they are so great they are rarely used. The folks I know who use PNG's are web design folk. PNG has been around now for 13 years; it uses a non patented compression scheme; unlike LWZ at the time. PNG often makes a bigger file than a JPEG; BUT it does work alot better with combo of TEXT mixed with a pictoral image; thus its often great with a web page to make it load quicker. If one runs a webpage one should see if your PNG files have issues with IE 4 thu 6 as there are many subtle issues. <BR><BR>Here I aim abit tired of messing with the file format of the day every nanosecond; and tend to use mainstream formats like the plain vanilla TIFF.<BR><BR> Alot of folks save stuff on their Acme computer and assume the other chap has the same stuff. We open a disc and it has a warning this file was saved with Acme color space and jive talk; do you want to convert? Then when one presses "yes" the customers RED logo is barbie pink; or if one presses "No" is a puke orange.:) Often its with a clients new fangled graphics software thats not configured yet; maybe it has the default ACME color space for screenprinting signage on hippos.:)

Share This Page