>I have to wonder if the publicist and publisher are requesting jpeg >files rather than lwz compressed TIFF files out of force of habit ...
>From one, file size was specifically mentioned. Others may be due to habit, or their >experience that once image goes through their prepress and screening they likely >cannot discern a difference in the printed result. Bob Shomler ---------------- >>Another aspect of purposing, different for different destinations, is the >>file format. I've had more than one publicist and >publisher request that >>I provide (email, ftp) a jpeg in preference to a tiff because of the file >>size. (For this I use a high/maximum quality in photoshop terms: 10 to 12.) > >Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist >and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF >files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress >TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG >compression at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of >the file they are getting. > >While jpg is the most known and common compression format on and for the web >and may even be necessary if you are sending the file as an email >attachment, to achieve that usefulness on the web or as an email attchment >it is often necessary to use compression levels of 5 or less which really >tends to loss a lot of data and information. However, for FTPing, it >usually is not a necessity to reduce the file sizes to very small levels >since most of the publishers and publicists generally have some sort of >direct high speed connection to the internet and relatively large server >space to store downloading files, as well as a desire to get maximum quality >files. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
