For me EPS is the format of choice for saving my pics. Crossplatform, slim and lossless...
I can't get it through my head why everybody keeps saving tiffs... Nikon editor saves them even without lossless LZW compression, filling up harddisks faster than Microsoft software.
I always have done a lot of pre press, and am thus very familiar with the Mac platform. For many years now, EPS has been the image file format of choice in pre press and Mac. Even though the format has its minor restrictions on the PC, the advantages outweigh its limitations by far. The only important workflow measure one has to take, is to save low-res thumbnails to facilitate browsing, since the EPS format does not pre visualize and import very well on the PC, as opposed to extremely well on the Mac.
An example: I took a 17,1 Mb. TIF, generated from a RAW by Nikon Editor. First I saved it as a TIF with LZW compression. The resulting file now weighted 8,3 Mb.; a 50% weightloss without loosing quality (promise!!). And then now, Ladies and Gentlemen!: the real weight watchers trick. I took the same 17,1 Mb. TIF, and saved it as EPS. The resulting file: 1.7 Mb. You wouldn't want your girlfriend (or boyfriend, sorry ladies) to lose weight that fast!
SETTINGS: Save as: Photoshop EPS; preview: TIFF (8 bits/pixel); encoding JPEG (maximum quality). Note: this JPEG encoding, however an EPS (Encapsulated Post Script) is *NOT, NOT* a JPEG, and its compression *IS, IS* lossless.
My suggestion: try it, you'll love it; even if it were only because you won't have to go out and get a new harddisk any time soon...
Let me know what you think. Gerard
From the "Editor": Just for clearness... This is the way I go on the PC, since it does not support Binary. On the Mac you would choose Binary compression, but I'm not sure you get the same dramatic weightloss. Maybe some Apple fans care to comment on that.
BTW.: I agree that there is no such thing as win-win, this format is supposed to be lossless, but I guess that mathematically speaking it is not.
this all sounds great for space saving, but i have a hard time believing that the file is 1/10 the size and lossless. there MUST be something lost. i would like to hear more opinions on EPS files. come on computer experts, lets hear what you all think.
NICK " the fox fears not the man who boasts by night, but the man who rises early and goes forth"
Yep, as stated above lossless compression does exist, but I'm also sure taht EPS JPEG comprssion is lossy. There are Shannon laws about entropy which say that there is a limit for lossless compression. 10:1 for an average photo seems to me just too much. Anyway, just another thing to try.
Anyway, as genghis45 said some hours ago, if you feel that the quality is ok and you use to do pre-press, this looks like the obvious way to go.
** edited to add:
As Bob states below, I was referring to JPEG 2000, which being lossless is clearly a different algorithm.
-- BlueKnight, Nikonian from Northern Italy stoppingdown.net timelesswanderings.net bluebill.tidalwave.it/mobile
The original JPEG specification provided for a lossless compression scheme. It provided roughly a 50% compression but was removed later on and today, the only JPEG compression that exists (even on maximum quality) is definitely lossy.
There is now a new JPEG2000 spec that, although it contains JPEG in its name, is not really JPEG but rather a whole new format entirely. As was mentioned, the new Adobe Camera Raw plugin allows you to read this format. In general though, JPEG2000 never really caught on (it is JPEG *2000* and we are now in 2003 after all) and the file format frontiers have moved on to PNG.
well jpeg2000 doesn't give you nearly as much compression as jpeg. From what I have read jpeg2000 is to processor intensive for the small benefit in compression that it provides (which is why only some specialized applications support it)
I too do a lot of pre-press work and EPS is the file type of choice for Photoshop and Quark.
Its too bad Capture doesn't let us use that format. It means saving as a TIF first and then saving as EPS in Photoshop and going back and deleting the TIF file.
Re: JPG Max Quality compression vs. Binary:
I beleive that there is a JPG type algorithm use to compress the file but the resulting file is still an EPS file. If at that point you work on the file and re-save it in binary encoding there will be no loss but the file size jumps back up to 23Mb.
If you save again with JPG quality will there be MORE compression??
One of the reason I think that EPS is not popular because it is not flexible for printing. For marketing reasons EPS format is upscale and Post Script engine for colored printer are expensive. In terms of compression and quality nothing realy beats EPS specially for offset usage. The only drawback is that you have to have the hardware to maximize it. Also EPS I think is a proprietary printing driver language of Adobe which makes it more expensive to produce. That is why when a printer has a postscript capability the price is doubled.
One more thing it takes a while to print an EPS format than JPEG. Now for an amature photographer JPEG will do.
>One of the reason I think that EPS is not popular because it is not flexible for printing< Can you explain what you mean with this? You have been printing EPS files and encountered trouble? In what way?. BTW: you do NOT need a Post Script printer to print EPS.
>Now for an amature photographer JPEG will do< May I suggest you check some of the posts on JPG on this site Grayblue, because JPG for editing and archiving is decidedly not the way to go.
As a graphic designer who works constantly with eps files, I think eps is a very poor format for your photo image files.
As others have mentioned, your eps weight reduction is due to lossy jpeg compression. For prepress, the reason to use eps bitmaps is specialized: you can create a CMYK separated image rather than have the image separated by the prepress RIP engine. If you're doing this, you lose much of your original image's color gamut. If you embed a full gamut RGB image in your EPS file, you've committed a cardinal sin of prepress output and your separations will look terrible.
Have you ever noticed what formats stock photos are provided by the big stock agencies? Jpeg RGB is most common, but only to keep the size smaller for downloading or CD-ROM packaging. When you get high end scans from a service bureau you'll get either TIFF or SCT (Scitex bitmap format).
The digital darkroom doesn't follow the same rules as offset prepress production. RGB is the correct workflow throughout when you're printing using the native drivers for most photo printers. Postscript coding isn't supported by these drivers and you can't print EPS images via the native drivers except by opening them in applications like Photoshop that can treat the files as non-eps bitmaps for printing.
EPS isn't saving drive space. Quite to the contrary, EPS format files with bitmaps are larger than the non-embedded bitmaps on their own. EPS simply embeds a bitmap image and then adds postcript header data along with other tagging that will vary by how you've saved your file. A separated EPS image file will be much larger than a simple RGB bitmap.
If you're interested in comparing the benefits of EPS vs. tiff in a prepress environment, here's a good summary. This article does not apply to digital darkroom workflows:
If you're not shooting raw, I'd probably use low compression in-camera jpeg over in-camera tiff since the tiff file size is so large for the modest gain in quality. Raw makes more sense, both in terms of file size and in flexibility for generating the best quality output files for your images. From raw files, I generate tiffs but generally use adjustment layers for image corrections and save the file in Photoshop PSD format. Only my best images deserve this much work, so file size isn't a concern when quality and flexibility are important. If I want to have some easily accessible files of other shots, I make some low compression jpegs and save them with the raw files onto CDs.
If you're obsessed with conserving disk space you need to look at disk prices and reconsider your priorities. EPS doesn't even conserve drive space, so unless you're using it appropriately for prepress work, stick with the better alternatives.
In case you're still not convinced, I just did a test save of an uncompressed tiff file of 35.5 megabytes to a binary encoded (on of the lossless flavors) Photoshop eps file. The resulting EPS file is 47 megabytes with the added 1 bit (monochrome) header and eps overhead. You can save file size by using jpeg encoding, but that's not as good as using plain old jpeg for smaller files. Of course this Photoshop EPS file would be useless for prepress work since it has a crappy monochrome header and an RGB image embedded in it.
To the experts: something occurred to me. Why do we accept that a 3,5 Mb. RAW can generate a 60 Mb. Tiff, but do not except that we can get from this file a "lossless" 3,5 Mb. EPS. Honestly, just curious...
One fundamental difference is that a RAW (NEF) file has only one channel, luminance, that is then de-mosaiced via the Bayer pattern. In a given row, the pixels are alternating red and gree, yet in the next row blue and green. Try Thom Hogan\'s article on how digital camera's work for more info.
Also, I think you must be refering to a compressed RAW file....
And yes, I was referring to a compressed RAW. Would there be any noticeable difference between compressed and uncompressed? I ask this because I just bought a 512 Mb. card, and according to my camera there will fit about 66 RAWs on it. Since you mentioned in another forum that you would get 50+ on a 512er, are you using uncompressed?
NEF compression is a lossless algorithm, but it takes time to do which will slow up the camera when dumping the buffer to the CF card. While it seems attractive at first to use compressed NEF, most shooters (including me) end up giving up on it and shooting uncompressed NEF, sacrificing space for speed.