CMYK JPEGS???? WTF!?
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- airey0
one reason i've found useful is to supply colour corrected files via email or similar. the compression allows smaller files that other formats obviously and you don't have to worry about the douchnozzle at the other end converting them with paint. still, i agree the use of jpegs in print is odd but luckily have so many other problems at present i find it hard to give a flying monkeys tinkle.
- OSFA0
I've been told to use jogs at my job for print (indesign docs) I haven't noticed a major flaw or issue yet I'm still trying to explain reasons for certain type of files. Is there a simple explanation as to what files are better, other than compression and why that I can use?
- monospaced0
I can't believe this thread didn't die awhile ago. There is nothing THAT wrong with a high-resolution, minimum-compression .jpg, even in print. I utilize stock photography regularly, and the images are almost always .jpgs in various color modes. I use these images mostly in print, and I often deliver them, packaged, to the printer that way. The reason is that the printer (vendor) can and will prep the file for me and their presses much easier than I can.
- AntiLabs0
MM_swapImgRestore();
- mydo0
just a useful note in case you're interested. CMYK jpegs will work without problem on every browser except ie. handy to know if you have a client bitching about why he can't see images he's uploaded.
- jimbojones0
the only reason why jpgs were bad for print was the additional compression RIPs would do to them, obviously not the case with tiffs and all. but today there are hardly any RIPs that would compress jpgs, so. besides, indd is faster with the same amount of jpgs compared to tiffs (if you work with full-res files, and not with dummies to substitute later)
- mydo0
inkjet printers print RGB better than CMYK IMO anyway.
CMYK is for hipsters.
- eating_tv0
I tend to pronounce CMYK as 'smack'
- pascii0
why print?
- DaveO0
This thread blows.
- GeorgesII0
how about CMYKOG then??