![[decorative element]](http://designorati.com/wp-content/themes/d3/images/nav1_topics_OFF.png){kind=small}
Shall I Use TIFF or EPS Files to Print Bitmap Images?
Though with the Creative Suite the use of PSDs is increased, TIFF and EPS are still popular and indispensable formats…
Though with the Creative Suite the use of PSDs is increased, TIFF and EPS are still popular and indispensable formats.
Some time ago I had an interesting online conversation with a fellow designer, Peter Vintner. The discussion was about the difference between TIFF and EPS files and which one is better for offset printing. While EPS is mainly intended as a vector format, one can still use it for bitmap (or raster) graphics. At the time I was told by someone else that EPS files are better than TIFF files regardless, while I was told by my printer that it didn’t matter which one I used. I finally decided to pose the question: “Aside from the vector capabilities of EPS files, which one is better when used for bitmap images—EPS or TIFF?” Peter Vintner had the answer.
EPS VS TIFF
EPS stands for Encapsulated PostScript. In other words, it is a PostScript file, irrespective of its contents. It is an object oriented file written in PostScript language, designed to be self contained.
TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format. It is a purpose-built bitmap file format, and as solid as a rock.
An EPS and TIFF of the same image contain exactly the same image data.
The only reasons for using EPS in preference to TIFF are images with spot colour channels and duotones. You can’t use the TIFF format in those circumstances. Otherwise TIFFs have distinct advantages over bitmap EPS files.
The Bitmap Winner
Firstly, a TIFF is always considered a smaller file.
Secondly, when imported into a page layout program, if you crop a TIFF image, only the data relating to the visible image goes through the RIP (Raster Image Processor). Whereas, if you crop an EPS image, the entire image data still has to be processed. It therefore takes more time to process and print an EPS than a TIFF of the same image. If you have lots of them it makes a big difference. And time and money in this respect.
Thirdly, an EPS cannot be manipulated outside the environment in which it was created. Once it’s in the page layout program, that’s it. That’s why it is “encapsulated”. Conversely, the data in a TIFF is accessible and can potenrially be changed from within the importing page layout program.
The difference between EPS and TIF as far as image quality is concerned is absolutely zero.
Will PSD replace the TIFF format?
What you read above was Peter’s view on EPS and TIFF formats. However since then, InDesign CS now supports spot colours in TIFFs, but, more importantly maybe, the use of PSD files is increased. PSDs can be imported into InDesign, as well as QuarkXPress armed with the PSD XTention, without background and without clipping paths. PSDs also support spot channels. Will the native Photoshop format bedim TIFF?
What do you think about this?
- The Wednesday Format: The Role of TIFF in Desktop Publishing
- Old Habits Die Hard
- The Wednesday Format: EPS
- The Wednesday Format: PSD, Photoshop’s Native Format
- Desktop Printing with QuarkXPress
- BeLight Releases Image Tricks for OS X Tiger Free
- Photoshop 9.0.1 Update Now Available
- The Libre Map Project “Frees” USGS Maps, Info
- Convert InDesign Files to QuarkXPress Files With ID2Q
- Top 25 InDesign Tips From The InDesign Conference
I use PDFs in layouts for various reasons; they’re even better than PSD files. Read this article by Nick Hodge:
http://www.nickhodge...com/mne.php?mcid=861
DESIGNORATI
That’s a very interesting article. I have bookmarked it. While I was writing the article I was thinking about the PDF format. The resource you just posted is a really good one.
The PDF option is exciting because, as Nick says, there are no downsides. PDFs hold any data you may need, including spot colors, and the files are as small as can be.
The one problem: Nick is writing about a Photoshop->InDesign workflow. I’ve used PDFs in Quark but Quark doesn’t handle them well. I usually experience slower performance and inaccurate on-screen color.
DESIGNORATI
Remember also that QuarkVista, the image-manipulating XTension new with Quark 6.5, works with bitmap images only. That’s another reason to use TIFF and not EPS.
DESIGNORATI
You know, I saw a coule of people posting in forums things like: “I know I shouldn’t place PDFs in the layout application, but…”
And I think: What? Why? Of course you can! I wonder where that myth comes from. QuarkXPress users of version 4.x couldn’t import PDFs, nor JPEGs unless they had Xtentions to allow them to do so. I wonder if it comes from there.
Heh. I still encounter a lot of PDF myths. In response to my offer to provide vector artwork in PDF form for placement into Quark, I recently had a major publisher respond with: “No, PDFs won’t do. We need high resolution. Use TIFF.”
DESIGNORATI
Interesting… I created an 8.5×11 EPS graphic for a small poster, and was asked to output this to an HP 1050 designjet printer to generate a 24″x36″ version of the poster.
The original art left Illustrator, went into InDesign (for added text), then out to Acrobat before heading to the printer.
If I placed the EPS in InDesign, the resulting artwork took nearly 2 hours before the prtiner would start printing, and it would pause for several 20-minute “breaks” during output. Image quality was excellent, however.
If I converted it to TIFF and placed it in InDesign, it took 10 minutes. Image quality suffered, though from the expected viewing distance it was not an issue. Still, it bothered me. There were “memory limits” on the resolution of the file as I exported it from Illustrator that restrained me from outputting a higher quality/antialiased image, despite a system having 3 GB RAM.
I still don’t understand the time-to-output difference (both EPS and TIFF based PDFs were nearly the same file size), and am disappointed by the quality difference. The statement “The difference between EPS and TIF as far as image quality is concerned is absolutely zero” seems out of context and should be qualified. Under what conditions is the image quality difference zero?
Was the Illustrator image a vector image to begin with? Peter was talking about raster images, not about vectors. If you were handling a vector image, then EPS is definitely better than TIFF (though also AI should be OK if the printer can handle it). If you save a vecor graphic to TIFF you are effectively rasterizing it and you loose quality.
When we talk about raster images, I am not sure why an EPS takes more disk space than a TIFF, but I guess it’s because of the architecture, the way the EPS is made, that creates one gets that result. Though when an EPS is “hosting” a vector graphic, I can understand why it is bigger: vector graphics are made of mathematical calculations, not simply dots.
Pariah said:
I think the different types of PDFs and their capabilities will be one of my next articles.
Here is what a printer said about the PDF capabilities in the About.com forum:
“On the newer rips that printing companies are using this is true - but there are some rips out there that will not convert type to vector. I worked on one that the vector information did not hold and it became rasterized. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up on this.”
I then questioned him on the fact that a RIP doesn’t convert to vector, as type already is vector. I also told him that RIPs will rasterize type anyway, but being vector, it will rasterize at the RIP’s highest resolution, instead of the resolution set beforehand by the designer. He answered back saying:
“On the one rip that I worked on a Brisque which is made by Creo/Scitex - in a nut shell, A photoshop PDF file be it placed in Indesign or ripped as a PDF not placed in Indesign rips in 2 layers see below. This rip does not recognize Photoshop type as vector.
“- Type that was set in Indesign, Quark, Freehand, Pagemaker - all this type would rip as vector. Photshop files
that are saved as bitmap files would rip as vector.
“- Type that is set in Photoshop all this type would rip as raterized type, this is how the ripping software handled the files.
“- When PS files are ripped on these workstations there are 2 layers that make the final ripped file. One is the Line work which is the layer that all the vector type would be on - 2400 dpi.
“- The other layer is CT = Continous tone - Your continous tone file end up on this layer - and the way this software treats type set in Photoshop, is that it ends up on this layer and becomes rasterized - resolution 12 or 304.8 pixels/inch.
“Now the Printergy workflow that I am using the type will rip as vector like you talked about in your 1st post. I just wanted to let people know that there are some rips out there that will not rip Photoshop type as vector.”
So Photoshop PDFs do the job but not always.
Another difference between EPS and TIFF is that, since EPS is a postscript file, it can not use embedded colorprofiles. So for a colormanaged workflow using EPS is not an option.
Hello, so from what I’ve gathered is that when placing bitmap images into a design layout program such as InDesign, it is wise to use TIFF’s because they are: 1. Smaller in size. 2. When cropped the RIP only reads what is shown and not the whole thing even though you don’t see it. (Which helps speed things along) 3. Better for color precision.
On the other hand EPS’s are handy when you are importing: 1. Duotone bitmaps 2. Bitmaps with specific spot colors (only in photoshop CS, right?) 3. Bitamps with a clipping path. 4. Vector graphics from a vector program that you are importing into InDesign (you only want to save your vector in this format to keep it clean and sharp, right?) Thanks
That sums it up pretty much. Though PSD and PDF files are the best choice when using InDesign.
This article was simply showing the differences between the use of EPS and TIFF and it took into consideration that not everyone uses InDesign, so they might need to use those two formats.
With QuarkXPress 7, chances are that also QuarkXPress users will use more the PSD format and of course there are those who use none of those two applications.
I didn’t even know that you could use PSD’s and PDF’s. One: PSD’s have all of the layers still, right? And I thought that PDF’s were only for things like acrobat readers to show customers files easier. Can you elaborate on these two file formats in layout programs.
Thanks for the response!
Sure you can! And yes PSD allows you to have layers, but so does TIFF, if you are using any version of Photoshop from 6 onwards.
We have a couple of articles that tell you what you can do with PSDs and PDFs. Read them and let me know if you still have any questions. I’ll be glad to help you out.
Here are the articles:
Desktop Publishing with Photoshop PDF
PSD, Photohop’s Native Format
i have one question…when you create a document in corel or illustrator and you use small font size (size 9). whats better for printing in an offsett? eps or tiff?
If you use those two programs you most likely have created vector graphics. You should save as EPS, some printers even accept CDR or more likely AI files.
Text is vector and when it’s small it’s one more reason not to rasterize it by saving your file as a TIFF.
If you save as EPS remember to embed or outline the fonts, or send a copy to the printer (watch out for license restrictions).
We have a client that uses Photoshop EPSes. This always results in lines going thru the art (after being placed in InDesign). So I have to resave the EPSes as TIFFs or PSDs, replace them in ID, and volia! No lines. I was always taught photos should be raster and “art”/type should be vector. Just my 2¢.
Anyone got thoughts on EPS over tiff for handling images with clipping paths? The rip at several printers we work with always drops the clipping path in the tiff file.
I was wondering if Designorati would be interested in a link exchange between fingrinfo?
Can you use tif’s in Quark and still keep the clipping paths. When I place a tif in Illustrator it does not keep the path. I have to use eps, in order to keep the path. My client uses Quark and requested tifs, with paths, I am not sure they know what they are asking for. I did not think tifs kept there clipping path in Quark. Anyone know for sure? Thanks,