9 times out of 10 they'll ask for a tiff, EPS or similar, then.) (ie, typical situation in a crazy rush when the designer sends a native file in CC native format when the cheap shop only handles Corel. Won't happen any time soon, as is used in every scientific place out there, yet, and is a life saver for print companies when there's no way to open a native file of certain designer in a print shop where they use another. For archiving for museums and stuff, maybe his approach is kind of correct, but even so, that's a flawed point, as the same way, tiff format could be deprecated at some point ! I wouldn't be surprised, even. The PNG compression, or any compression at all, does not harm any quality aspect of your work. I mean, you can yet even open a PCX, format from Zsoft Paintbrush ! And that's been not really used like in 30 years.or many more. I extremely doubt you'll have any sort of problem opening a PNG in 20 years from now ! neither later on, really. I think he is transferring all the issues in compressed TIFFs to PNGs. There are other better compression formats, but that has the advantage of being very universal, and opened by default by most OSes. So they open a bit faster, they are safer, and use less disk space. So, for a while I'd save (i still do sometimes) my print files as tiff, then I'd zip 'em. Indeed, I agree i the case of TIFFs till certain extent, as I typically would even just store the tiff uncompressed, then use 7zip or whatever (7zip is relatively modern, if we go back to the 90s, lol.), as I tested to compress a lot more, and I knew having problems opening it again was less likely to happen in any case. For some reason, you often get some software not able to read a certain tiff compression, sometimes even being the exact same type of compression (zip, LZW, etc). Also, may come for the hjgh level of incompatibility seen in speciall TIFF compression. Well, that'd be a point for the specific case of an acrhive thought to last many decades without any maintenance, I guess. His main dislike of lossless compression is.that a compression algorithm can later on be not understood by A or B program. you need certain level of lossless compression or you run out of available space pretty fast. I use files with 100s of layers, print resolution, sometimes fully layered CMYK files. hardware is not only about one time purchase, is about general maintenance costs. Perhaps he counts with amazing quantities of space storage, but even if he has some years lasting devices, the maintenance of that, as disks break (there's quite some debate about SSD lifespan, but that's another matter, as I wouldn't ever use SSD for big storage solutions), fall, get wrecked, you get a power shortage that force a peak and might loose a disk, etc. Look, even if he had a practical valid point in this specific detail (again, I find the article is correct, I just don't agree in one important point), the solution is storing tiff UNCOMPRESSED! Geez !. But he kept until the end to explain the reasons why he personally don't like compressed. Through all the article he is warning about the dangers of using EVEN LOSSLESS compression, and we all know there's no issue in doing so. but a bit misleading in how this person considers lossless compression. Leo, that article, tho I skimmed per chunks, is correct for the most part. NO YOU DON’T LOSE QUALITY! in other words: YOU DON’T LOSE QUALITY!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |