Wasn't it Dave Hinz who wrote: > >Raw scans in TIFF format take a lot more room than .jpg but, it's not a >lossy format like jpg is. You might consider PNG format. It's not lossy, is reasonably compact particularly when compared to uncompressed-TIFF, and is far more widely supported than compressed-TIFF. -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:31:21 +0100, Mike Williams <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Wasn't it Dave Hinz who wrote: >> >>Raw scans in TIFF format take a lot more room than .jpg but, it's not a >>lossy format like jpg is. > > You might consider PNG format. It's not lossy, is reasonably compact > particularly when compared to uncompressed-TIFF, and is far more widely > supported than compressed-TIFF. I use PNG often, just not for archival purposes. TIFF for archives, PNG or JPG for webpages when size of images actually matters. And, with ImageMagick (free anywhere, and standard on most or all *nix distros these days), format support is pretty good and interchangable.