I just read the answers here, but if we are talking about printing high quality in A2 format (that's about 16"x23", for those not used to ISO standard paper sizes) on a good printer, is it possible to do so with a tiff file rather than a jpg file? And if so, is it better?
File format doesn't matter as much as quality level. To achieve the best quality print, you want a lossless image format that has an embedded color profile that matches the environment you did any editing in and that can be reproduced by the printer being used for printing. This will ensure that the image maintains the highest possible quality and color accuracy throughout the process from editing to printing. Tiff supports higher quality levels than Jpg, so as long as it is supported by the printer, then uncompressed TIFF is preferable.
If you are using Photoshop or similar software on your computer with your printer, then yes, you can print a TIFF file instead of a JPG.
If you are sending the file to a professional photography printing service that includes good customer service, you could send them a TIFF file and they will do what is necessary for them to print it.
If you are going to your local drug store or warehouse store to get a "print in an hour" then no, you cannot use a TIFF. The workflow used by those type of printers require JPGs using the sRGB colorspace.
If you are working with your own high-end printer or with a professional printing service you can absolutely get a better print with a 16bit Adobe RGB file than you would with a heavily compressed 8bit sRGB JPG, but at A2 sizes between 150 and 300dpi I don't think anyone would see a real difference.
TIFF is a better format for exchanging files that are going to be edited and manipulated than JPG because it does not loose any information by compressing the file. But for printing, a high-resolution JPG is indistinguishable from a TIFF with the same width and height.
But if you are doing super high-end printing to specialty materials, think metal, you may be able to get more from a TIFF, but very few people would ever see the difference.
A TIFF file, if created directly by the camera or from a RAW format, has the potential of offering a generally higher quality due to the ability of having lossless compression or none at all: a capability not offered by JPEG files.
However, not only JPEG can be compressed to high quality settings where the losses are negligible to the untrained eye, but to make an A2 print at the de-facto standard of 300dpi you would need 35 megapixels. (Of course, it's unlikely you would look at an A2 at the same distance you'd do with a 10x15…)