...

View Full Version : Image file type - best for web?



CaptainB
09-29-2007, 04:43 PM
Hi!

I think I have read somewhere that .gif images should be the best to use for websites (layout like header, footer, buttons etc).

Is that correct? I'm asking because I would like to have a fair balance between loading time and quality of the image.

Any thoughts and comments are appriciated!

(I know that .png images can be used for transparent pixels in SOME browsers)

_Aerospace_Eng_
09-29-2007, 06:08 PM
Yes thats correct though pngs seems to be better quality. I think if you don't require any transparency then use a png because it can handle gradients better. My site uses all pngs. The only downside is the color of the pngs may be a little darker in IE. If the image contains only one or two colors then sure a gif will suffice. Its when it contains more than that, it gets tricky to get all of the colors you want.

CaptainB
09-29-2007, 06:34 PM
Thanks Aerospace. So I guess I should use .png instead of .jpg (or jpeg) ?

_Aerospace_Eng_
09-29-2007, 07:30 PM
.jpg would be useful for images that a lot of colors. .png would be useful if you want a glossy type effect. Use jpg only for personal photos like for a photo gallery.

CaptainB
09-29-2007, 09:23 PM
Nice to know, thx!

frenz_hilpur
10-05-2007, 12:04 AM
.jpg CAN look really good if you change the compression setting when saving it in GIMP or photoshop, and it's usually a very small file.

But .gif is good if you have an image with simple colors, otherwise PNG is great. I use it for almost everything though.

bDare
10-05-2007, 12:23 AM
I use .png's for all of my design elements. However, IE 6 doesn't do transparency in .png's.

felgall
10-05-2007, 04:29 AM
IE can handle transparency in PNG8 with no problem, it just has a tramsparency issue with PNG32. If you only need 256 colours of fewer then PNG with transparency is a suitable alternative to GIF across all browsers and is the only one that gives partial transparent options. It is only when you need more than 256 colours that IE decides that it will not accept transparent colours.

binaryWeapon
10-08-2007, 09:22 PM
jpegs get nearly the same quality, but no transparency support and smaller file sizes. I used all pngs on all of the big images on my site (http://www.excalo.com) and the file size of my whole web page was 70 mb. I converted them all to pngs and it went down to 15 or so mb. So use pngs for transparent images and maybe small ones, but you should use jpg for big ones.

Junkwolf
10-16-2007, 06:51 PM
If your image is black and white, defently gif. Photos are best jpg. High quality images and personal artwork that isn't black and white should be in png.

As for banners and such, it really depends on the image. Gifs are horrible with gradients. Size may be important, but blotchy banners don't offer much in the way of professionalism.

Also, file compression. Kinda pointless to be saving a black and white image as a gif if your saving all 256 (think i might be wrong on the number) colors with the image. Make sure you tell your program to only save the colors needed. Makes a BIG difference in file size.


If you need help, pm me or send me a msg thru aim. This stuff is a fun hobby for me.

trigger_tre
10-17-2007, 08:26 AM
Just a good piece of advice try to be fluid with your choice of formats to save under. It can greatly affect your webpage.

For instance if you have a banner image saved as a background .png and then you decide to place another image on top of it with similar colors and/or gradients but use .gif or .jpg instead. There will be a noticeable difference between them especially on images with gradients.

So my advice is that if you choose 1 format to build the background of your site be consistent and use the same format throughout, it will reduce gaudy difference between images.

-trigger



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum