JPEG compression vs TIFF & Resolution settings

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 7 years ago
  • (Edited)
Starting a family album. Have read that jpg's loss pixels when viewed or saved over and over again. Tiff on the other hand have been recommended for saving with no future distortion. Any help out there.
Also, a majority of the photos are at 72 pixels. Have read that at 72 pixels some of the quality of the picture is lost. Presently using 240 pixels. Other than increasing the size of the file, does anyone see a problem with that number of pixels?
Photo of James Johnston

James Johnston

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 476 Posts
  • 76 Reply Likes
JPEG is visually lossless but there is data loss. The bigger issue is, every time you edit and re-save the JPEG, more data loss which eventually can be visual and not desired. TIFF, no such issue, bigger files.

The resolution tag (72, 240) is rather meaningless. Digital images don’t really have a fixed ‘size’ other than how much space they take up on a drive. Work with the pixel dimensions and then divide that by the tag to come up with the current ‘size’.

For example a 2000x3000 pixel document is an Absolute. If you divide those values by 72, you get 27.7“ on the short axis (2000/72) or 8.3” (2000/240). The document didn’t change a lick. You just told the application how you want to divide up the pixels you had (2000).
Photo of Brett N

Brett N, Official Rep

  • 2257 Posts
  • 108 Reply Likes
To add more detail to this explanation, the resolution (72, 240) is a print setting. It determines how big the individual pixels will appear as dots on a page. Thus, when you divide the number of pixels in a given dimension by the resolution, you are determining how large the print will be.
Photo of James Johnston

James Johnston

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Andrew, many thanks for your valueable input.

It is most appreciated and the promptness of your answer is most surprising.

Warmest regards,

im