Choosing the right image format

even experts seem to get it wrong

[kaled]

I noticed the ugly MonsterCommerce advert at the top of a WW page. It reminded me of just how often I see jpg images used when the correct choice would be gif or png.

How difficult is it for people to understand that jpg is best suited to photos and gif/png are best suited to logos, screenshots and lineart, etc?

I find 256 color png images are the best compromise between compression and quality for most images other than photos.

What do other people think?

Kaled.

[webdoctor]

png images are the best compromise

In principle, PNG may be the obvious choice, but IE's PNG support (or lack of it) has attracted quite a bit of attention. Google for "png internet explorer" and you'll see what I mean.

I'm not sure if they've fixed things for IE7... I'd be surprised :-)

[kaled]

I looked at png compatibility a while back. Provided you don't use transparency, IE seems to be OK.

I test all changes with IE6, Opera and Firefox and have not encountered problems with opaque png images (but I only use 256 color pngs).

Kaled.

[henry0]

I second Kaled
and use png for a major site header
no problem here whatsoever