The printer said a high-resolution JPG is fine — should I still send TIFF?

If the printer has approved it you can send JPG, but make sure the quality setting is at the highest possible value. What causes problems in print is not the format itself but the artefacts aggressive compression produces; a JPG saved at high quality prints without trouble for most jobs. Do not reopen and re-save the file after you have sent it, because every re-save adds another layer of degradation. If you have a lossless source available, preferring it is always safer.

How do I know whether my image has enough resolution for print?

The measure in print is not the pixel count but the pixel density at the physical size being printed. The same image can be more than sufficient on a small business card and inadequate on a poster; what matters is how many centimetres across the image will be printed. The most practical approach is therefore to tell the printer the finished size of the job and ask whether the image is suitable. Converting the format does not increase resolution, so turning a low-resolution image into a TIFF does not solve the problem.

Should I convert my file to CMYK myself?

Usually no — it is safer not to do it without consulting the printer. CMYK conversion is not a single standard operation; getting the right result requires applying the ICC colour profile appropriate to the press, the ink and the paper stock. A conversion done with the wrong profile can print colours differently from what you expected, and that only becomes apparent once the job is off the press. Printers often prefer to apply their own profiles, so ask in advance which colour space you should send the file in.

JPG or TIFF: Which Should You Send to the Printer?

Q: Would sending a PDF be better?

For a great many print jobs yes, especially for designs containing text and vector elements. Standardised PDF versions such as PDF/X are widely used in the printing industry because they reliably hold images, fonts, colour profiles and bleed together in a single file. If you are only sending a photograph, TIFF is a directly suitable choice. For laid-out design work such as brochures, books or packaging, using the PDF standard your printer asks for prevents problems from the outset.

The wrong file is an expense you cannot undo

Print differs from digital work in one fundamental respect: there is no undo button. If you upload the wrong image to a website you fix it in five minutes. If five thousand brochures are printed wrong, the money and the time are gone.

That is why it is worth taking the format question seriously before you hand files to a printer. In this article we compare JPG and TIFF in a print context, explain when each is appropriate, and cover the risks that get overlooked.

Why do printers ask for TIFF?

The reason has less to do with the format itself than with the guarantees it carries.

Lossless data. TIFF stores pixel data without damaging it. That matters in print because compression artefacts look less forgiving on paper than they do on screen. In flat colour areas in particular — a single-colour background, a sky, a corporate colour block — the block structures and banding that JPG produces can become visibly distinguishable in print.

CMYK support. Presses work by mixing inks and their colour model is CMYK. Screens, by contrast, use RGB. TIFF supports CMYK and embedded ICC colour profiles; this allows the printer to control colour expectations. JPG works with RGB in practice.

High colour depth. TIFF can carry 16 bits of data per channel. In work involving heavy colour correction this keeps smooth transitions free of banding. JPG is limited to 8 bits.

No generation loss risk. A file can pass through several hands during prepress. TIFF accumulates no degradation no matter how many times it is opened and saved; JPG does.

So is JPG never acceptable?

It is. There is no need to be dogmatic about this.

A JPG saved at a high quality setting with sufficient resolution gives entirely acceptable results for a great many print jobs. In photo-heavy work with few flat colour areas, the difference is usually indistinguishable to the eye. Plenty of printers explicitly state that they accept high-quality JPGs.

The situations where JPG is risky are these:

There are large flat colour areas. Corporate identity colours, single-colour backgrounds, gradient transitions. Artefacts cannot hide here.
Text and sharp edges dominate. JPG produces ringing around sharp transitions; in printed text this shows up as a blurry halo.
The file has been edited and saved many times. Accumulated generation loss reveals itself in print.
The quality setting is low. A JPG compressed for small file size is not suitable for print.

The most critical point: it is not the format, it is the source

Here is the real issue most people overlook.

Converting a JPG to TIFF does not raise it to print quality.

The data discarded when the JPG was created is permanently gone. When you convert to TIFF the existing artefacts are preserved exactly, merely stored in a much larger file. When the printer opens the file they see that it says "TIFF" — and they also see the degradation carried over from the JPG.

So the order of operations should be this:

Find the best source you have. A RAW file, the original scan, the source file from the designer, the high-resolution version the photographer delivered. This is the only real improvement you can make in terms of quality.
If no such source exists and all you have is a JPG, converting the file to TIFF may still make sense — especially if the file will pass through several hands before printing, because it prevents new loss in the subsequent steps.
Tell the printer. Say that the source was a JPG. An experienced press operator can take precautions accordingly.

Resolution: more important than format

This is the topic that gets overshadowed by the format debate but is actually more decisive.

The measure in print is not the pixel count but the pixel density at the physical size being printed. The same image can be more than sufficient on a business card and inadequate on a poster. What matters is how many centimetres across the image will be printed.

Converting the format does not increase resolution. Turning a low-resolution image into a TIFF does not stop it printing blurry. That is why telling the printer the finished size of the job and asking whether the image is sufficient is a step to settle before the format choice.

Do not forget the PDF option

If you are only sending a photograph, TIFF is directly suitable. But if your job is a laid-out design such as a brochure, book, package or business card, the PDF/X standards common in the printing industry are usually a better choice. These standards reliably hold images, fonts, colour profiles and bleed together in a single file.

Your printer will tell you which standard they want; asking prevents problems from the outset.

Decision summary

You have a lossless source for the photograph → send TIFF
You only have a high-quality JPG and the job is photo-heavy → JPG is acceptable, consult the printer
Large flat colour areas or text dominate → find a lossless source, JPG is risky
Laid-out design work (brochure, book, packaging) → the PDF standard your printer asks for
The image is low resolution → changing format does not fix it, you need a better source

In summary

A printer asking for TIFF is not an arbitrary preference; it rests on concrete grounds such as lossless data, CMYK support and colour depth. But format alone does not determine quality — what really matters is how good the source you hold is and whether the image has sufficient resolution at the size it will be printed. Use the best source, do not skimp on the quality setting, and ask your printer about anything you are unsure of. A phone call is always cheaper than a reprint.