Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Jpeg - the facts Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Search Search Module
Collapse

Advertisement Advertisement Module
Collapse

Featured Images Featured Images Module
Collapse

Mediabistro Creative Sites Mediabistro Creative Sites Module
Collapse
Latest Topics Latest Topics Module
Collapse

  • neeru_m
    Reply to Need help with logo
    neeru_m
    Thanks Guys for your suggestions. I will try to post more work on my logos. But for sure your suggestions wwill be a great help for me....
    Today, 02:54 PM
  • Designia
    Reply to Business Greeting Cards
    Designia
    The difference in the colors and typography is too jarring....
    Today, 02:24 PM
  • Obsidian86
    Reply to Is there a member list here?
    Obsidian86
    That sounds more like a threat than an offering....
    Today, 02:08 PM
  • seamas
    Reply to Please help with company logo
    seamas
    OK, so you are 100% correct in needing another logo.

    Have you come up with any ideas of your own?

    I would totally avoid the red cross. That is only going to make people think...
    Today, 02:06 PM
  • PrintDriver
    Comment on Illustrator CC 2014 Issue
    PrintDriver
    I've sent it in many times.
    That and making the color palette work like InDesign's for color swapping. ie, delete a color and it asks what you want to replace it with.
    The option-drag method...
    Today, 01:59 PM
Advertisement Advertisement Module
Collapse

Sponsors Sponsors Module
Collapse

X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jpeg - the facts

    http://qualityinprint.blogspot.com/2...ion-facts.html

    Excellent blog post.

    Although I still say that if you do get a jpg to use then it's fine to use. If you do make changes to the jpg, i.e., overall levels, or colour balance, tint, colour correction, or clone something out or make drastic changes to the image it is always best to resave it as a tiff.

    But the point in the blog post is excellent, if you are not making any changes to areas of the jpg then those won't be affected again.

    You can use jpgs in printing, it's fine I do it all the time. It's only when I have to make changes to the jpg that I resave as tiff or psd, or keep a layered version of the file etc.
    Last edited by hank_scorpio; 05-05-2010, 11:37 AM.

    "May your hats fly as high as your dreams"Michael Scott

  • #2
    So when do you think that message will actually make it into the average graphic design college program? I've been fighting against the myth of JPG=NOT FOR PRINT PRODUCTION for... well, the early nineties.

    Comment


    • #3
      The latest I'm hearing a lot of now is PNG for print. Which is just "no". Well it's not that, it only supports RGB profiles, but it can embed a CMYK profile. But if the CMYK profile isn't there then it's unpredictable results from different printers.

      So how the PNG message got to graphic designers for print instead of jpeg is totally beyond me.

      JPG not for print is akin to the 300 ppi rule for print.

      "May your hats fly as high as your dreams"Michael Scott

      Comment


      • #4
        our Igen sometimes produces better colors with an RGB Jog than a CMYK Tiff. it really depends on the "subject".

        nice read through.
        Dribbble Page
        Behance Portfolio
        Linkedin Profile

        Comment


        • #5
          That's an informative read. Don't know if it'll impact me much though as I rarely get an image that doesn't need edited. That and I'm usually struggling for sufficient resolution and not chucking it about willy-nilly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Bottom line - at typical JPEG compression levels there is no visible degradation of the original image. In fact, one has to go to unusual levels of compression before artifacts are seen (at least level 8 in Adobe Photoshop).

            Double bottom line - there is no reason to be concerned about saving images in JPEG format so long as the highest quality/least amount of compression option is selected.
            Unless you are doing large format. Any jpg artifact is bad.

            And no where does he mention what happens if you do a "Save As" rather than a straight Save within the same file.

            But, single compression jpg downloads like what you get from Corbis or Getty are ok up to a point. You have to go pretty darn large before single compression artifacts can be seen and they'll show up first in the black areas and deep shadows. If you can get the uncompressed tif for the same cost though, do it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by PrintDriver View Post
              Unless you are doing large format. Any jpg artifact is bad.

              And no where does he mention what happens if you do a "Save As" rather than a straight Save within the same file.
              When I did the images to test the issue of jpeg artifacts I did a "Save As" each time. That means I opened an image, made an adjustment and did a Save As V1. Then I opened Vi made an adjustment and did a Save As V2. And on and on. It was boring to do - but enlightening.

              Yes, uncompressed files are alway best - even if they are only psychologically reassuring.

              best gordon p

              Comment


              • #8
                The most flagrant misuse I see of JPEG on a regular basis, is it's use in pure line art, such as logos, infographics, even line illustration. And increasingly so, I see 'hi-resolution JPG' on the spec list for logo file hand-offs for collateral print products (t-shirts, etc.) as well as general logo file hand-off situations-- and in particular, for on-line hand-offs.

                ONE: JPGEG was never designed for line work. The artifacting which everyone is so concerned about, is most noticeable and heavy around high contrast edges: line work.

                That's when I usually get the response: "Just send it maximum quality".

                TWO: A maximum quality JPEG of a high rez line logo is probably at least 3 to 4 times larger than the equivalent TIF with LZH compression (and no artifacts) and (this one is interesting, especially when handing off web or screen bound logo rasters) typically-- 5-6 times larger than an equally sized/rezzed (pixel for pixel) GIF copy. If you're looking to transfer lossless, limited-colour RGB line-art, GIF is technically hard to beat for compression/quality per byte.

                But, try to explain THAT to someone who can't even wrap their head around the JPG vs. TIFF debate, and it's hopeless to even try. I'd reserve that trick for file transfers which I control both ends of.

                As for compressed vs. uncompressed --- no. Uncompressed are NOT always best. Unless you enjoy unlimited bandwidth and storage space. From a file handling point of view, in prepress, it really hasn't been a serious issue in years. BUT, the real issue does remain: making the right choice, at the right time, between lossless and lossy format choices.
                Last edited by Bob; 05-21-2010, 12:56 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you deal with line art that has JPEG artifacts, there's an easy PhotoShop technique that will, in most cases, remove the artifacts completely.

                  The how-to is here: http://tinyurl.com/352k253

                  best gordon p

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I use the Smartblur tech for cleaning up text scans. It is great. But, for true line art, you're working at a higher resolution and the choice should always be non-lossy TIFF where possible. Much smaller, cleaner, lossless.

                    Comment

                     
                    home | site map | advertising/sponsorships | about us | careers | contact us | help courses | browse jobs | freelancers | events | forums | content | member benefits | reprints & permissions about | terms of use | privacy policy | Copyright © 2014 Mediabistro Inc. Mediabistro Inc. call (212) 389-2000 or email us
                    Working...
                    X