Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Clive Carpenter on July 20, 2011, 10:45:38 am

Title: PNG vs JPG
Post by: Clive Carpenter on July 20, 2011, 10:45:38 am

I'm currently in the process of having my website re-designed by a web company.

Their strong recommendation is that the image galleries be .png files instead of .jpg on the basis that there are no colour changes and images generally 'look better' (their words not mine).  When I questioned this and said that I thought that most photographer's websites utilised .jpgs, their response was that 'the modern approach was that .pngs were better than .jpgs'.

Before I dismiss this out of hand, could I get some opinions from those better versed than myself on this subject.

Thanks in advance

Clive

Title: Re: PNG vs JPG
Post by: fike on July 20, 2011, 03:04:11 pm

this seems to sum it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics#Comparison_to_other_file_formats

Title: Re: PNG vs JPG
Post by: NikoJorj on July 21, 2011, 09:50:55 am

For us photographers, the lack of an EXIF standard in PNG is, well, significant.
Add to this the inefficiency of the PNG algorithm on photographs, and you may well think that those guys generally deal with CGI rather than photographs.

A last thing would be the lack of support of PNG in a few web browsers, especially older versions of IE (but anyway the poor guy with IE6 is doomed).

Title: Re: PNG vs JPG
Post by: Clive Carpenter on July 21, 2011, 02:16:21 pm

Thanks for the responses.  I'll stick with what I know - jpgs.

Clive

Title: Re: PNG vs JPG
Post by: wolfnowl on July 22, 2011, 02:20:22 am

If you need transparency, go with .png.  Otherwise, I'd stay with .jpg...

Mike.

Title: Re: PNG vs JPG
Post by: Clive Carpenter on July 25, 2011, 05:10:12 am

Thanks to everyone for your help.....

Clive