Difference between printing from TIFF & JPEG

[Raffay]

Hello, I want to know if there would be any difference in quality between the same picture printed from a TIFF file say 200 MB and from a compressed JPEG say 74 MB.

Cheers
Raffay

[polyglot]

Nope, as long as it's a good jpeg, e.g. quality 90 or so. JPEG has less dynamic range than TIFF, but still more than any current print technology.

The only reason to use TIFF files is if you expect to make manipulations (e.g. curve adjustments) to an image at a later date. I assume your printer is doing no such thing.

[Raffay]

A few more things, what are the normal settings in Vuescan, I mean what are the normal settings to scan so that you can see how your exposure came out, and then if required one can adjust according to need or preference. Secondly, I took a picture of some trees and on the screen it looks better but when I got it printed from a local shop it came out very dull and not impressive at all.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
Raffay

[Preston]

Raffay,

The settings you use in VueScan depend upon what you are attempting to scan. I suggest you start with 'Help' file included with VueScan. This will get you started.

As to why your print came out looking dull compared to what's on your screen, it's tough to say because there are many variables, some ofwhich are; the quality of scan, the calibration of your monitor, the color space of your image file, the printer used, the paper, and the printer profile. In short, you will need to develop a 'color managed workflow' so that your prints will be at their best. Note that an image on the screen will not match a print perfectly since the screen is transmissive, and the print is reflective. If you have a good workflow, and everything is properly calibrated, you should be able to get nice prints.

With regard to your orginal question--I suggest printing from the TIFF file, assuming your lab can do so. You can reduce file size by flattening the image and saving it as an 8-bit file. Some printers will print 16-bit files, but you'll need to know if your chosen printer can do so. JPEG files can print very nicely if they are not highly compressed (compression results in loss of detail and may cause banding in smooth-tone areas, like skies) and are carefully sharpened.

I hope some of this helps,

--P

[Tyler Boley]

there's no reason to convert back to a tiff from a jpeg once it's been created and saved and closed, because loss has already occurred and won't be recovered. Tiff is a lossless file format, it's best to create tiffs in the first place if possible, whether rendered out from raw, or from scans. These are the determining factors, not which is best to print from.. you can print from any file format, and given a decent printer setup, quality has more to do with the integrity of the file in the first place, the printer likes one no better than the other.
Hope that makes sense.
Tyler

[Jac@stafford.net]

TIFF supports lossless compression.

[neil poulsen]

Have you color managed your screen? This is important. See if you can find, or if a friend has a colorimeter and associated software. This exercise builds a profile for ICC aware software like Photoshop. (Are you using Photoshop?)

It's much better to create 16 bit TIFF's using your scanning software than JPG's. JPG's necessarily are 8 bit. With 8 bit images, you don't have nearly the number of colors available to you. This can cause artifacts in your images. They must be 16 bit TIFF's. While there's some, 8 bit TIFF's won't offer you that much more advantage over JPG's. Being compressed, JPG's lose a little bit of information from the image each time they're closed. This is not the case with TIFF.

Even if your images are already JPG, there can be benefit in converting them to 16 bit TIFF's. One is that TIFF is lossless. So, no further information will be lost. A second is that, if you put your images through any manipulations, you'll have the advantage of 16 bit images during these enhancements.

The other thing is to make sure that you're not loading sRGB as your embedded profile when your scanning software creates the image. Nor do you want your imaging software to be assigning sRGB when you open the image. Use Adobe 98 or Pro Photo. Assigning sRGB will rob your image of saturation and color fidelity.

As to the shop at which you had your images printed, they may not be color managed. Ask them about this. If you can get the print profile that they use, there's a Photoshop utility called soft-proofing that you can approximate what the print will look like before it's printed. Ask the print shop about this. If they don't know what you mean when you ask them for a profile, find a different print shop.

[Preston]

I agree with Neil's comments. I use VueScan, and when I scan color films, I ensure I'm scanning at 16-bit, and creating a TIFF file in Adobe RGB. I don't remember if VueScan outputs in ProPhoto. If not, set the output to Adobe RGB.

Once I have the file in PhotoShop, I save the scan to a new file as a PSD and ensure the embedded profile is Adobe RGB. You can save the file under a new name and retain the TIFF file type, if you like. (aside from dust-busting, I keep the scan untouched. This gives me a baseline file, if needed)

--P

[Raffay]

I am only doing B&W at the moment, and the information you people have provided is awesome but it is way bigger a bite then I can chew at the moment. If we could start with scanning with Vuescan and go step by step then I think I can understand this vast subject to some extent. If for starters you people can tell me the basic setting I should have on Vuescan when scanning black and white, including how many bits, scan from which channel, especially Color management, I want to know how I took the picture not enhanced by software so I mean what the standard brightness is to see how you exposed it etc. etc. then the output file details. I would be really grateful. If along the way you can recommend good readings that will help also, and will take some burden off you guys

Cheers
Raffay

[Mark Barendt]

I want to know how I took the picture not enhanced by ...

This is a bit more complicated that you might imagine and not because of the scanning specifically although that brings in variables too.

Negatives typically catch and record more information than will be used in a print. We only use a certain range of that info off the negative. Analog or digital doesn't change that.

When printing with an enlarger we control the range of what prints from the negative with enlarger exposure and by varying the contrast with paper grade. We refine those with burn, dodge, and other things.

In the digital world we scan then set the black point and white point to pick the range of info we want then mess with the curves tool, burn, dodge, ... to refine things.

My point is that the range "we pick to print" from most any negative is arbitrary, it has never been a fixed value.

It is normal to be able to get excellent equivalent prints from negatives that are exposed very differently. This is commonly referred to as a film's latitude.

ISO and ASA speeds were in part based on testing to find the lowest camera exposure that gave the first excellent print and other considerations like adding a safety factor.

From the first excellent print point, for a normal scene, a negative film can typically be given 3-5 stops of extra exposure at the camera and still provide an excellent print in an enlarger. Sure there may be certain differences, like how grain prints, adjustments to exposure to minimize grain is a refinement not a limit.

The width of the latitude available via a scanner, I don't know specifically, I'll let others fill in the blanks there, but you hope of seeing "how you took the picture not enhanced" isn't really a possibility, negatives require manipulation.