Compressing TIFFs

RA
Posted By
Robert A
Mar 5, 2004
Views
371
Replies
6
Status
Closed
Can TIFFs be compressed using PKZIP or another compression program without any loss of data or image quality? Need to make a backup of 10 gigs of scanned photos, and I’d like to shrink it without jeopardizing my files.
Related Tags
compression tiff

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

TT
Tom Thackrey
Mar 5, 2004
On 5-Mar-2004, "Robert A" wrote:

Can TIFFs be compressed using PKZIP or another compression program without any loss of data or image quality? Need to make a backup of 10 gigs of scanned photos, and I’d like to shrink it without jeopardizing my files.

Yes. However, if they are already compressed tiffs they won’t compress much if any.

—
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it’s reserved for spammers)
A
al-Farrob
Mar 5, 2004
Robert A wrote:

Can TIFFs be compressed using PKZIP or another compression program without any loss of data or image quality? Need to make a backup of 10 gigs of scanned photos, and I’d like to shrink it without jeopardizing my files.

Yes, they can, and won’t lose quality because zip doesn’t even know what kind of data it is compressing.
It’s role is compress and then decompress producing the same data.

—
al-Farrob
—
"16 photographs by al-Farrob"
http://www.al-farrob.com
MR
Mike Russell
Mar 7, 2004
Robert A wrote:
Can TIFFs be compressed using PKZIP or another compression program without any loss of data or image quality? Need to make a backup of 10 gigs of scanned photos, and I’d like to shrink it without jeopardizing my files.

Zip will provide some some compression, but photographs don’t typically compress very well in zip. You may have better luck saving your images in PNG format.

I got the following results, using an image that started life as a 3 megapixel jpeg, YMMV:

original jpeg (fine quality) 1,133 kb

TIF format 9,230 kb
zipped TIF 6,981 kb
PNG format 5,006 kb

jpeg (PS medium quality 7) 353 kb
zipped jpeg (PS medium quality 7) 348 kb

Personally, I’m a great believer in compression, and would not hesitate to archive my best and most important images in jpeg format PS high quality 9. I recognize there are those who have valid reasons to feel otherwise. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
N
nospam
Mar 7, 2004
I’m with you. A slightly misregistered printing plate or color calibration problem will do far more damage to an image than slight jpeg compression will.

JD

Personally, I’m a great believer in compression, and would not hesitate to archive my best and most important images in jpeg format PS high quality

9.
I recognize there are those who have valid reasons to feel otherwise. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
N
nomail
Mar 7, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote:

Personally, I’m a great believer in compression, and would not hesitate to archive my best and most important images in jpeg format PS high quality 9. I recognize there are those who have valid reasons to feel otherwise.

I’m with you. A slightly misregistered printing plate or color calibration problem will do far more damage to an image than slight jpeg compression will.

JD

That is like saying "because stepping in front of a running train will kill you, it’s OK to cut off your leg with a chainsaw. After all, the train would have been much worse".

JPEG compression does do damage, even if it’s only slight. Why start at 95% quality if you can start at 100% quality? Storage space is dead cheap these days. JPEG is great if you need to send material over the internet, but I don’t see any advantages for JPEG as a storage format, except saving a few cents storage costs per image. If that is your problem, perhaps you should think about charging decent prices for your work, so you can afford more storage space.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
N
nospam
Mar 7, 2004
JPEG compression does do damage, even if it’s only slight. Why start at 95% quality if you can start at 100% quality?

Because I think the difference in print is imperceivable. Compare an uncompressed tiff with a best-quality jpeg equivalent, printed side by side on the same sheet of paper. Even with a printer’s loupe, you won’t notice. The problem with jpeg compression is that 8/10 designers don’t really understand it, and don’t want to. Adobe has it in the PDF spec because it’s practical and can serve a useful purpose if the operator makes prudent adjustments.

Storage space is dead
cheap these days. JPEG is great if you need to send material over the internet, but I don’t see any advantages for JPEG as a storage format, except saving a few cents storage costs per image.

It’s not the cost as much as the impractically. Backing up an image archive on 20 CD’s instead of 60 is a logistics issue worth addressing.

If that is your problem, perhaps you should think about charging decent prices for your work, so you can afford more storage space.

I charge exorbitant prices to discerning clients who can’t tell the difference either, even if I explained. As millionaire land developers and home builders, they focus on the big picture, not hair-splitting details that make absolutely no difference whether or not a 250,000.00 new home deal is closed or not over a Jpeg or Tiff.

Do you insist on Hexachrome printing for every job? It’s obviously "better".

Ever listen to and enjoy an MP3 file, or do you insist on the purest wav file in every case – at ten times the file size?

JD

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections