I am just confusing about either JPEG or PNG. I want to upload some of my graphic design work samples on the social network such as Facebook. I want to know as what will be the best between a couple of above image file formats. Kindly help me out.
May not be the best attitude, but I tend to choose whichever has the smallest file size—assuming the image quality is pretty much the same in both versions. Often I find that one will appear better than the other, so I’ll choose that, as long as the file size isn’t too big compared with the alternative. In general, PNG seems to be the favored format for the web, though either is fine, really.
It depends upon the content but PNG is a superior lossless format and can contain variable transparency unlike JPG. Though like Ralph said; if you are using PNG-24 it’s likely to be several times larger in filesize than a JPG for photographic content. Size may matter.
It may also depend on the file size allowance of each of the sites you plan to upload them to.
You guys covered the bases – file size and file quality. PNG-24 is becoming an industry standard, and I choose that format unless the file size is prohibitively high.
For me PNG is the best for web.It is use worldwide now,for me PNG is fast in loading webpages other than JPG images.Also PNG has the ability to show transparency while JPG don’t.
A nice feature of PNG is that it can be saved at low- or hi-res with transparency intact. You can’t do that with JPEG.
for my site I often use JPEGs for photos and also for saving layouts and illustrations to send to clients that have limited access and/or knowledge of design software such as Adobe.
PNG, JPEG, and GIF are all useful if used appropriately. I use and appreciate them all — and also EPS, TIF, BMP, and WMF, depending on what I’m using them for and for whom… Imagine that!