Pages
1 researchok  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:47:32pm

You passed.

They look the same to me.

2 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 3:48:47pm

re: #1 researchok

Heh, I think I need a more demanding source file. I'll start with one of the 25 meg RAW files from my 7D and see how that goes.

3 Interesting Times  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 4:08:08pm

re: #2 Daniel Ballard

My initial impression was that the PNG looks ever-so-slightly sharper. But not enough to justify its much larger file size vs the JPG, if you're thinking in terms of websites/bandwidth.

4 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 4:24:58pm

Then there's DNG...

5 Skip Intro  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 4:25:48pm

To me, the color looks better on the jpeg.

6 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:24:59pm

Better shadow detail in the PNG.

7 darthstar  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:51:26pm

Can't tell the difference on my MacBook Pro with retina display. (apparently retina display means something good)

8 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:55:15pm

PNG is a lossless format, so it's always going to be much larger in file size. But by its nature it will also be as close to the original as possible.

For this kind of image, though, with a lot of color gradation, the visible difference is minuscule, especially if the JPEG is saved at a high quality, and the JPEG file will be a lot smaller.

PNG images really work much better with line art, or images with lots of solid colors. And the real advantage of PNG files, for web design anyway, is that they have a true alpha channel for transparency.

For putting photos on the web, JPEG is almost always going to be the better choice in terms of the tradeoff between file size and image quality.

9 darthstar  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 5:58:29pm

re: #8 Charles Johnson

I thought PNG was smaller than JPEG, even though it was a 'lossless' compression. Interesting.

10 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:01:12pm

re: #9 darthstar

I thought PNG was smaller than JPEG, even though it was a 'lossless' compression. Interesting.

PNG can be smaller than JPEG for some types of images, but for photographs almost never.

11 CuriousLurker  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:03:58pm

re: #9 darthstar

I thought PNG was smaller than JPEG, even though it was a 'lossless' compression. Interesting.

Ditto what CJ said.

Also, they're almost always smaller than GIFs when used for line art or images with large areas of flat color

12 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:15:41pm

re: #8 Charles Johnson

Thank you for that, as long as I'm tuning images up for various formats, I figured to set one up for LGF.

And to share a little news-I hired a lady to make a wordpress blog for me with a e commerce retail front end so people can buy prints or high res digital files. Hopefully a retina display friendly site.

13 Gretchen G.Tiger  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 6:28:01pm

My only input is the the second image looks over-exposed.

:)

14 lostlakehiker  Mon, Nov 12, 2012 10:12:18pm

I vote for the top image. Put aside questions of file size. Just which looks better.

Slightly off topic? I had the opportunity once to walk up to a controlled, rather large natural gas fire. At closest approach, it was maybe 10 yards away, and filled much of my view.

That lasted less than two seconds, of course. Those things are hot. But the sight was unforgettable. Flames such as the one in the photo, when live and moving, are hypnotic and fascinating. "Towering Inferno" did its best to convey that. But the real thing is more impressive.

15 Mattand  Tue, Nov 13, 2012 5:31:47am

re: #13 Gretchen G.Tiger

My only input is the the second image looks over-exposed.

:)

Heh, I actually gravitated towards that one because it looked brighter.

I don't do as much web work as I should, but I have rarely encountered PNGs over the years. It's the default format for Apple's screenshots now, but that's about it. Any web wonks out there actually using it for real work?

16 Mattand  Tue, Nov 13, 2012 5:33:57am

re: #8 Charles Johnson

PNG is a lossless format, so it's always going to be much larger in file size. But by its nature it will also be as close to the original as possible.

For this kind of image, though, with a lot of color gradation, the visible difference is minuscule, especially if the JPEG is saved at a high quality, and the JPEG file will be a lot smaller.

PNG images really work much better with line art, or images with lots of solid colors. And the real advantage of PNG files, for web design anyway, is that they have a true alpha channel for transparency.

For putting photos on the web, JPEG is almost always going to be the better choice in terms of the tradeoff between file size and image quality.

IIRC, PNG is an open format as well, created in response to some licensing issues around the GIF format.

17 Daniel Ballard  Tue, Nov 13, 2012 9:58:30am

re: #14 lostlakehiker

FYI-That flame is from a 100,000 BTU blast furnace, with the lid removed just before the air fan spins up and adds oxygen and make the fire hotter and stay down in the furnace. For perspective that flame was about eight feet tall. I shot it at 1/8000th of a second shutter speed.
the furnace with the air boost reaches 2000F.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh