I know this may seem like a stupid question, but is it really necessary to convert every image that goes into a Quark layout from JPEG to TIFF if the Quark file will ultimately be turned into a PDF?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tiff
- Thread starter Dm84
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. I assume you are asking this question because you want to keep file size down, right? If this is for online content only, then it won't make a noticible difference. You can make the pictures resolution 72dpi at 100% and RGB.
When I started doing layout at my school newspaper a few years ago, I was instructed to turn all images into TIFFs before placing them in layouts. I never really understood why though. Maybe in the past it was actually necessary?Eric5h5 said:
Nope this is for print and everything gets converted to CMYK.makisushi said:
If it's for print, you should be using the highest resolution TIFFs possible from your JPEGs. This is especially important if the .pdf file itself is used for printing by the printing house, instead of the standard output of Quark XPress files and folders.
Yeah the PDF is what is used for printing. So I should continue converting everything to TIFF?bousozoku said:
Why save as TIFF? It's lossless.
So if you have RGB JPGs and convert them to CMYK, then resave them as JPGs you'll put them through yet another stage of compression.
The other advantage to using a TIFF in Quark is that you can add layers (adjustment or normal) to them in Photoshop and they'll distill just fine.
RIPs in the past had problems with JPGs, especially if they were rotated.
Best to stick with the customary methods of doing things. If anyone here dropped a JPG into artwork, they'd get a (friendly) roasting for it.
So if you have RGB JPGs and convert them to CMYK, then resave them as JPGs you'll put them through yet another stage of compression.
The other advantage to using a TIFF in Quark is that you can add layers (adjustment or normal) to them in Photoshop and they'll distill just fine.
RIPs in the past had problems with JPGs, especially if they were rotated.
Best to stick with the customary methods of doing things. If anyone here dropped a JPG into artwork, they'd get a (friendly) roasting for it.
I gave up on Quark when upgrading to OSX and bought InDesign, which readily accepts JPGs. I think if you know what you are doing then its fine to use jpgs in artwork. I regularly save large files as max res Jpegs and use in ID with no problems. Always check out of house jpgs first though, to make sure they are a good resolution and cmyk to print with.
I would say that using max res jpegs is fine. Unless you have a heavily color corrected photo, that needs to be pristine. I would'nt worry about it too much, it were for a company newsletter, or something like that.
I do agree with BV, though. Keeping a standard procedure is a very good idea. It comes in handy, when you have been up for 36 hours and are trying to make a deadline, and all hell is breaking loose.
I do agree with BV, though. Keeping a standard procedure is a very good idea. It comes in handy, when you have been up for 36 hours and are trying to make a deadline, and all hell is breaking loose.
Dm84 said:
That would be my suggestion. It you're short on space, you can choose compression and since it's LZW compression, it's lossless, unlike that used with JPEGs. When I photograph for commercial print, I shoot directly to TIFF. It avoids conversion loss and other headaches.
Dm84 said:
Not that I know of. I still use Quark 3 sometimes and it works with JPEGs fine, unless they're progressive JPEGs. (Actually, I prefer to use that when possible over Quark 5, which is my other choice at work...Quark 5 is possibly the worst program I've ever used, but that's another story.) Ideally JPEGs wouldn't be involved at all, but if you get one, the only reason to convert it to a TIFF is if it's going to be fiddled with and re-saved again at some point.
--Eric
Sheesh, you're still using Quark 3?Eric5h5 said:
What's wrong with 4.1? Damn fine workhorse that is. You can only use jpegs in Quark 4.1 or lower if you have the jpeg extension. The standalone version doesn't allow them, hence the old way of converting everything to tiff. Yes Quark 5 was a pile of dog muck, but 7 should be good. Intel native lurcher said:Sheesh, you're still using Quark 3?
We don't have 4.1. Went from 3 to 5...but I kept 3 around to use when I can, because 5 is a bug-ridden, bloated, bug-ridden, slow, and bug-ridden piece of.... Anyway, 3 does everything I need, plus it does it 5x faster, and with 100000x fewer bugs.
--Eric
BV is right- at some point in your workflow you'll be converting artwork to CMYK- so it's best to save it as a Tiff at this point or before- basically whenever you edit that jpeg that you started with and go to save it- because you don't want to degrade your file by resaving as a jpeg.