Compressed EPS vs normal EPS?

[Techboy]

Hi All,
Recently, a buddy informed me that by saving a file in compressed EPS format can save/reduce file size dramatically. For instance, a test I ran, a normal EPS yield 35.6MB vs a EPS with JPG compression that is only 4.6 MB.

Visually, when compared, both images looks identical on screen in Photoshop. Does anyone know how the compressed EPS prints when it goes through press? Does it print well on thicker stock/quality paper?

[colorblind]

If you stick to max quality JPEG compression when saving your EPS, you will not see any difference at print. Years ago when storage wasn't as affordable as today, that was a common way of saving high res images for magazines and other publications. Of course, you have to avoid resaving a jpeg on top of a jpeg since you lose a bit of quality each time.

[Joe]

It's lossy compression. You lose pixels everytime you save it. One of my pet peeves are jpegs (or others using jpeg compression) that have been resaved 77 times. Not pretty...

[beermonster]

what about the ones saved 76 times? are they ok

I know the ones saved 78 times are always bad though



if the maximum compression is used it will probably be ok - but if you don't know the history of the file and how many times it may have been saved - avoid.