Are you serious? A digital photo translated to PNG is going to be quite large. PNG has it's place, for sure, but it doesn't compress photographs like JPEG does. PNG is great for line art, solid color vector that has been rasterized, etc. JPG is great for photos.
back
1 comments
>Are you serious?
Perfectly. I'm not very familiar with image compression and JPEG conjures up images of pixellated atrocities.
It seems like either progress has been made in this domain or most JPEG encoders on the internet are poorly configured (in which case the present webapp makes sense).
I think it's more likely that a pixelated jpg is a result of the creator using the wrong format (ie, using jpg where gif/png-8 would have been more appropriate) or over-compressing the image.
PNG-24 is a lossless format, and generally shouldn't be used for production sites.
Perhaps if you were, I don't know, the biggest photography site on the internet:
(Or one of the others: https://500px.com/photo/20852455/-by-maxim-gurtovoy https://1x.com/)
JPEG is used for any type of complex image as PNG compression can't compare.