jpg vs png

[Adam Pribyl]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Karsten Wade wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 11:03 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>> The image (the (FC6 banner in the upper left) has a lot of gradients and
>> JPG compression would look a lot better for the size it's at now (~10k).
>> The previous version which was a jpg was only ~7k. I think there is some
>> way to squeeze PNGs down though for photographic/gradient artwork, but,
>> none of the FOSS tools I can find seem to do it. :(
>
> Considering everything:
>
> ... wanting a small page that loads quickly
> ... wanting graphics that look nice
> ... wanting to adhere to standards of freedom
>
> Let's use JPEG and be happy we can.

JPEG is a lossy in this case, I do not agree it looks nice.:) It's good 
for high resolution photos bud not for shaped graphics. If you have a 
source in lossles format then png is the best quality/size option.. I'm 
very unpleased about fedora logo on wiki front page as it has ugly 
yellowish shadows = JPG. Just check it with pipete in gimp wherether its 
white or not.

>
> - Karsten
> --

Adam Pribyl