You don't HAVE to use JPEG

[Pskhaat]

I read often people complaining about JPEG color depth. JPEG sure is nice to keep files on the web small and lossily compressed, but why do people feel they must publish JPEG? At the expense of size (in the majority of cases) can one not just as easily post PNG (for instance) files which can easily support a color channel bitdepth of 16.

Sure, JPEG works fine but I'm reading posts where folks are feeling constrained by the quality of their cameras and the final published form (on the web here mostly I would assume) why use JPEG at all?

 

[Michael Slade]

It's a consideration for the folks who are downloading your images to view I think.

If I have to wait and wait for either a slow server or a huge image or a poorly loading flash gallery, I usually move on.

 

[Pskhaat]

Yeah, if Flash comes up I move on, can't stand it. Quick load example from the dummy test I did with HDR in PNG (note only used 8bit/channel pixmap input). You're looking about a size factor of 2x-4x to include full color depth where necessary. Image is ~0.6 megapixels, roughly what we publish here?

I'd be willing to wait the extra few seconds...(ok, maybe not for this picture )

vs.

 

[BKCowGod]

um... both of those look just a bit special.

 

[Pskhaat]

uh...yeah, I can't find the thread now, but were from my first attempt at writing a program to do automatic HDR with 3 images Disclaimed.

 

[Michael Slade]

Bandwidth hog. Oink oink.

 

[go4aryd]

People who don't print on their own equipment sometimes feel limited by on-line or walk-in labs who only support jpg. Costco, walmart, walgrens, etc. etc. Times may change, but their equipment is often setup only for jpeg, not for TIFF or other loss-less format. Biggest reason I have seen - and has little to do with exclusive web use. I even know some full-time pros who only shoot jpegs so they don't have to process a raw image through a converter.

 

[Pskhaat]

Well, if any'a y'all wanna put up a nice pic you think is better without JPEG constraints, I'm all about saturating bandwidth for market change alone so I'm eager to consume 'em.

 

[TeriAnn]

Well, if any'a y'all wanna put up a nice pic you think is better without JPEG constraints, I'm all about saturating bandwidth for market change alone so I'm eager to consume 'em.

Some of us don't work in a place where you can do high speed surfing or live in a city that has fast internet connections. I had a choice between 128K phone line (no G3 out here) or a satellite connection that isn't quite fast enough to watch a mpeg in download time. I just kill PNG downloads and go on to other less bandwidth consuming things.

If you just want your stuff only seen by city folks or people who surf the web at work, PNG is a solution that shows your work in splendid grandeur. If you want to communicate with anyone else you need to make compromises.

Its kind of like the old tree falling in the forest saying ... If you communicate in a way they people can't or won't receive is it still communication?

 

[tdesanto]

I read often people complaining about JPEG color depth. JPEG sure is nice to keep files on the web small and lossily compressed, but why do people feel they must publish JPEG? At the expense of size (in the majority of cases) can one not just as easily post PNG (for instance) files which can easily support a color channel bitdepth of 16.

Sure, JPEG works fine but I'm reading posts where folks are feeling constrained by the quality of their cameras and the final published form (on the web here mostly I would assume) why use JPEG at all?

I wonder if the browser one would use to view the photos may also be a limitation. Often I have optimized an image in PS and then downcoverted to a JPEG. Usually the results are fine when I view the image in PS, but when I open it in a browser the image doesn't look as good as it did in another application. This leads me to the, albeit very unscientific, conclusion that the color depth of what IE is designed to display may be the culprit.