Ken Nielsen wrote:
I am having wonderful results using jpeg for all of my line graphics online.
It's seeming like I've given a wrong impression.
I have the utmost respect for the capabilities of jpeg file format, especially when compressor is as nicely done as Lightroom's and/or Photoshop's. I use it almost exclusively for exporting from Lightroom. To confirm how good it is: compare raw file to lossy dng (which uses jpeg compression) in Lightroom.
My only point is that there is a place for png, and so it would be a worthwhile enhancement to Lightroom.
Again and again: png is a lossless format, jpeg is lossy. In many contexts, lossy is fine, which is why jpeg is so popular. And again: png is more of an alternative to tiff (which is also lossless) than jpeg, in cases when tiff is not supported or supported flavor is just bigger.
PS - SnagIt's jpeg compressor sucks (used for my initial example posts), so I never use jpeg when exporting screenshots from SnagIt. 100% quality is adequate (I misspoke initially), but files are way bigger than png. Lightroom's jpeg compressor is much better..
Ken Nielsen wrote:
Stripping color tables on jpegs also reduces file size. A good stripped jpeg can be 3k which is pretty small.
Yeah, but:
- You can't do that upon export from Lightroom (without a plugin I mean).
- Color (and/or tone) is more likely to be off, for some viewers, even if not for you.
Ken Nielsen wrote:
There is no hard and fast rule that you cannot use what brings the best result on internet.
Hard to argue with that .
Cheers,
Rob