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.

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.

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

nice read through.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.