All you need to know without going into any major detail is that a TIFF is likely to be extremely high quality in comparison with a JPEG. A JPEG has heavy compression (hence they usually look a bit fuzzy) and the file sizes are usually much much smaller.

Opening up a 104Mb Image will be very resource consuming. I suggest you don't bother unless you really need it urgently...in which case you can always email me the address and I'll download it and change it into a jpeg for you

TIFF is an imaging format that is used mainly with scanners. It has a small amount of loseless compression, but offers very good quality. JPEG was a standard created by, and named after the "Joint Photographic Experts Group", and is a lossy codec, that creates small files, but the quality is usually average. I'm a but rusty, so I might have left something out .

TIFF and JPEG sound like a programmer and his girlfriend tiffany. (Programmer, girlfriend, is that possible? I guess so.)

i'm not nerdy I'm just... uh.... uh... yeah, I'm nerdy.

Edited by - Someone of importance on 2/30/1987 13:60:39 PM

I'm quite vocal on this point.
I personally think the quality of JPEG's are almost on par with TIFF's these days and considering the size difference between the two, I go the JPEG everytime. TIFF's and BMP's are a blight on the file servers of the world and should be banned from shared services. I hate to think how many calls i've had of some sales gun trying to cram a 20Mb powerpoint presentation full of TIFF's onto a floppy. After a TIFF to JPEG converstion, I can get one of those suckers down to 400k with very little loss to image quality, if fact an almost un-noticeable loss.

My dinky little 2.1 megapixel camera takes color pix and stores them as JPG files. On average about 500kb in size. For my degree of picture handling expertise (low end) I am unable to detect any imperfections in the photos and they certainly come out on photographic paper as clear as if not clearer than any old style chemical photographs
that I have taken in the past.

If you're not a professional in the graphics handling business, JPG probably is as much as you need.

okays then.. in my ever constant pursuits for perfection at astronomical standards (pun intended ) i shall take them both. jpeg for distributionary purposes and TIFF for analytical purposes that amounts to nearly 170mbs.. my modem's gonna cry

I think its because I have to work with EXTREMELY high resolution photos every day (8 megapixel minimum) that I have grown to have a fond hatred of jpegs. In every day use they're fine, mustang's right, nowadays the compression is actually quite lossless. However if you start looking at doing high res work jpeg's are a no-no, even tiffs are scoffed at, nope its gotta be bitmap, png or preferably EPS for me

kimk, seriously, if you need help downloading them I can do that for you and convert them into something a bit more manageable for you - just let me know.

Hmm yes I can understand the need for high res formats in your line of work Grom. I just hate the wastage of space on a file server that's being used up by unnecessarily large images. Sure it might only be a couple of Mb per image, but you get 100 users with 100 images (in some shape or form) that could be cut by 50-100Mb and that's 5 - 10 Gig of wasted space on your server. Even those whomping JPEG's taken by digital camera's are over the top, I mean who really needs to view their happy snaps at 1280x1024? Yet they all take them at that res.

Quite laughable sometimes. There are a few clueless people who use random pictures for MSN on my corridoor and of course just link the huge picture and wonder why it's all pixelly. they ask me to help. Up comes photoshop, reduce image size, picture is sharper than when it was full size... You don't need them that size. By all means take photos that size but shrink the pic for use on the web. It's quicker, easier and just as detailed.

My gap year in Borneo

Actually, one of the best options is PNG. The files can be large, but they have excellent quality, as well as a good compression ratio. If JPEG weren't so economical, we'd all be using PNG.

I totally agree...not very good for web use, but for graphic design they come in very handy.

One of my pet hates is large filesizes on websites...back in the days of 14.4 I was taught to build EVERY web page with less than 20K in total (including images)....it makes me laugh that people STILL don't realise that you can knock out some quality work at those sizes. Nowadays I've slacked a little, I limit myself at 50K, unless its flash, were I'll let it go up to 150K because I'll build in an interesting preloader.

I know what you mean; I'm STILL on a modem! When I did HTML and JS, I always tightly scripted my pages, and always used capitals in the tags, made notes, etc. Some of the website I've seen... it would take a year to find the BGCOLOR tag!
Well, you'd know better than I, Grom.

hehe I'm just glad someone else feels my pain with this

I feel it alright. I bet that as a Web Designer, it gives you nightmares too .