I have a bunch of PNG and TIFF files—scans of old family photos and documents. I will keep them as archival masters, but for the purpose of online sharing I am creating JPEG's from these files. The simplest tool to use for it (on Mac) is Apple Preview. I wonder: is there any practical difference if I use a higher-end software instead, such as GIMP, Adobe Bridge or Photoshop? By "practical" I mean either:
- better quality preservation in general (e.g. colour)
- smaller files with the same level of details
Paid vs. free is irrelevant in this question. Also, I am not looking for automation, I will process them manually.
UPDATE: I realised my question is rather vague. So here is what I have in mind. When creating a zip-file, I can tell the program if I want the "fastest" or the "best" compression. These are vague terms, but the result is clear: I can get a smaller file containing the same information if I am willing to wait longer. I understand that comparing a lossy JPEG compression to lossless ZIP is unfair. But as the answer of @rafael indicates, there are quite a few parameters controlling the JPEG compression engine. I haven't dived into GIMP and PS, but at least Preview and Bridge do not provide direct control over those parameters. Which means, the software designers made some choices for me. And hence my question: is it perhaps known that PS or GIMP or Bridge do a "better" job in creating small JPEGs with visually the same quality than Preview? And also if they (being targeted towards photo professionals) are more careful with my images in terms of colours.