Six times as many JPG files as TIFs will fit on a CD. A six to one ratio JPG is indistinguishable from a TIF. To say there is no saving in size is nonsense.
Jim Davis wrote:
Like I said, I looked and my JPG files saved at 12 average around 7 megs. To say there is alot of savings using JPG is nonsense.
Have you all seriously considered the fact that jpg compression does not treat images equally? Some images compress substantially without "appearing" to lose anything, while other images look awful with minimal amounts of compression.
Because of the way jpg compression works, images with large areas of gradual tonal variations compress very well. But if you have an image packed with detail and many sharp tonal transitions, just a small amount of compression is all that the jpg format can give you. So comparing raw files to jpgs in general for compressability is not really a fair comparison.
A jpg of dreamy clouds can be quite a bit smaller than the raw file. A jpg of a busy street scene very well may be the same size or only slightly smaller.
If I've got the space, I store raw files and tifs, but I have no qualms using the jpg format for certain images, and I have yet to meet anyone who sees a difference between the final printed images.
Cheers, Shawna http://lightwriting.net
