Yes the idea to compare which provides a better digital image is valid. In fact I am in support of it.
Al: about your printer. I am referring to real world professional printers when printing both and comparing, not home quality scanners or printers. JPG totally can not fit the purpose for any real comparison with TIFF. Try to get a same color from monitor to desktop, or try to get a pantone color right, and you'll how impossible that is
TIFF file is raw file. it has more info than your eye and monitor can see, and it is THE way to print professionally. But they appear to be the same on monitor from a 72 ppi size-reduced image, and might not offer much when printed from a desktop printer. The TIFF files WILl matter tremendously when are used in printings such as magazines, brochures, etc. Which is why it matters. Desktop is home printers that offer non-professional results in terms of color. But it matters much when you are printing with color separating CMYK printers .
A printer might be good enough for amateur and hobbist uses. Most likely professionals, say magazine editors, will want to use digital cameras files to print professionally, and that's why it matters to keep it TIFF for printing, that's why I said it's not a good idea to compare print files based on the monitor display.
But then since we are comparing which gives a better digital image so it doesn't matter in this case.