I hate .tif

[draftermatt]

Whoever invented them needs to be flogged.

Because of how wondrous technology is, it is now easier for contractors to send me drawings. Simply put, they've stopped printing them and sending them to me, they are sending them

1. By sending me a disk
2. By e-mailing them to me
3. By giving me access to an FTP site so I can download them

Part of me likes this because I can only print what I need, so there isn't wasted paper. Part of me hates this because I have to use up my ink and paper. Not to mention the wear and tear on my plotter.

Another big problem is drawing sizes. My plotter is a 24" wide plotter. If someone sends me AutoCAD drawings (I love those people) then I can alter the drawing to fit my plotter. If someone sends me PDF's I can also plot these to fit relatively easy. If they are already set up for 24", great. If not they print to fit and I have to figure out what scale they end up being.

But these people who send me these freaking .tifs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They suck.

.Tifs are horrible. They're huge, so they clog up my memory. I have to print one at a time, wait till it's done to start the next print, And I can only have 1 open at a time, oh and because I can only have one open at a time I get to redo the printer settings each time.

And they have no scale. I can print them to fit full sheet, that's it.

Oh, and they constantly get screwed up in printing, telling me to close any other running programs (even if there are none) telling me it couldn't print then printing anyway.

Sometimes I'll try to close them down after printing and they get stuck, then I have to manually close them (thru task manager) then deal with the "Send Error Report?"

And what's worse is a lot of Contractors say "I sent you drawings, what do I need to send a printed set for?"

I want this part of the new way to go away!

Anyone else out there have something "new" that they can't stand?

[protege]

.Tifs just suck. The program I use with my digital camera...just loves to convert the .jpgs into .tifs for some reason I have no idea why--a jpg of one of my model cars is only about 100k. Compare that to a .tif at 10 megs--is it really necessary for the files to be that large?

But, my ultimate pet peeve...has to be the .pdf idiots. These fools will make every page of a document a separate .pdf, rather than simply removing the document's staples (or binding), and dropping it into their scanner's feeder. Every damn day someone does that. It's annoying enough because most .pdfs lock up my crappy work computer...but having to open multiple files for one document just pisses me off.

[Pedersen]

Too much stuff that doesn't work well for me to list all of it.

However, for your issue, consider: http://www.BlackIce.com/TiffViewer

I've used their tiff viewer in the past, and it's worked well for me. Maybe it can save some of your hair, too?

.Tifs just suck. The program I use with my digital camera...just loves to convert the .jpgs into .tifs for some reason I have no idea why--a jpg of one of my model cars is only about 100k. Compare that to a .tif at 10 megs--is it really necessary for the files to be that large?

Actually, I do know why: jpg is what's known as a lossy algorithm. This means that it, literally, throws data away, and it is lost forever. To help explain: For a camera to take a picture, it stores three bytes for every pixel. An old camera will be 640x480 pixels, which is 307,200 pixels. Multiply by 3, and the file is 921,600 bytes. Roughly, 900K. So, for your camera to chop that image done to 100K, at least 85% of all image data is destroyed.

jpeg includes a means for doing this which, in theory, will prevent the loss of data that your eye can perceive. However, this is not perfect and will, over time, destroy a picture. Here's how to see it easily.

Pick your favorite jpeg editor. Load a jpeg. Save the jpeg again, with a quality setting around 85. Now, load the newly saved file, and save again (again, around 85). Repeat the process ten times. Now, compare the last file save to your original, and you will see some damage to the picture. Without your original, that damage is completely irreversible. The data is gone forever.

TIFF, though, is non-lossy. Every single byte is preserved. This results in an ability to load/save over the same file time and time again, without worry.

Your software is taking a step to make sure to preserve your picture as best it can.

[draftermatt]

Pedersen,

Thanks, I'll have to look into that.

[crazylegs]

Your software is taking a step to make sure to preserve your picture as best it can.

I take a lot of digital images, To record your image onto your memory card then transfer it onto your hard drive a .jpeg is fine, once I have a shot I like I convert it to a .tif and then work away it then won't matter how many times I save it etc.

[LostMyMind]

Sorry.... might even be partly my fault..... I love tifs. When I was working, I worked for utilities companies creating mapping viewing software and I used tifs.

I use IrfanView (free and work wonders in converting to other formats). However, TIF is purely raw container format (mostly, there are compress versions of TIF) Autocad is vector (which you can attach a photo/scan image)... But why in the world would you print an tiff on a plotter? Unless you got one of those nice big "plotters" that aren't really plotters but really big laser printers? (yes, I'm old old school. Plotters are those machines that pick up a pen and plot....)

I can tell you why most utilities companies prefer TIF. It's because they can't lose those tiny lines that would disappear when you convert them to jpg. So you might want to "print" those tif as is and not convert them. And yes, I used to print utilities maps too. The company I worked for did both software and paper work. Because of Andrew hitting miami area, everyone wanted their own prints of all the stuff in that area.... lots of trees died that year.

protege... You probably have your camera set to take highest quality pictures. Which in turns makes them tif (raw). If you never have the intention of printing any of your pictures bigger than 4x6. Then by all means make them jpg.... However, you will see the color shifts and funky stuff when you blow them up to print 8x10 (or even larger).

jpeg is fine, once I have a shot I like I convert it to a .tif and then work away it then won't matter how many times I save it etc.

Actually, once you make it a jpg. The damage is done. jpg -> tif only prevents the damage from getting worst. jpg is as stated above an lossy compression. Which will "change" the image to what the algorithm thinks you won't see. If your eyes are better than most at picking out color shifts, you can spot the damage quite quickly. If you can't see it, zoom in until you see pixels. Tif will be sharp when zoom in, jpg won't.

[draftermatt]

Sorry.... might even be partly my fault..... I love tifs. When I was working, I worked for utilities companies creating mapping viewing software and I used tifs.

I use IrfanView (free and work wonders in converting to other formats). However, TIF is purely raw container format (mostly, there are compress versions of TIF) Autocad is vector (which you can attach a photo/scan image)... But why in the world would you print an tiff on a plotter? Unless you got one of those nice big "plotters" that aren't really plotters but really big laser printers? (yes, I'm old old school. Plotters are those machines that pick up a pen and plot....)

Bastard!

I have an HP DesignJet 500c It's basically a big Inkjet. I wish I had a laser plotter though. I have to print them that way because the drawings I'm printing were originally that big, so to print on 8.5x11 I'd never be able to make anything out enough to use it.

Because I've tried, lord have I tried.

[LostMyMind]

Oh the HP DJ 500c, he he he. Yeah, issues..... very familiar with that one.

Try the infraview (even printing from it). Might make your life easier. Have you tried getting different printer drivers for it. I found that most of the earlier HP DJ printers drivers would try to convert everything to it's native printing script. Which really sucks doing images because those printers had maybe 1 or 2 meg of memory to print from. You might want to find an older image printing program that can send the image in "bands" so the printer don't choked so badly.