... OMG- you don't know how many times I said woah in shock when I saw this forum messege.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!@!

NO MORE JPEAGE DOOMYNESS!!!!!!!

*glomps Bogusred till she partially suffercates*

TQTQTQTQTQTQ!!!!! XD The Joyousness!!!! XD

*falls over due to lack of sleep*

I can ping finally!!! XD

I'm going to admit more of my ignorace :lol: :redface:  I have no clue what the diffrence is between the two formats. I always use JPG cause it seems to work with every program I have.

Susie, boss lady, mam, would you mind posting a pic in both formats for a bit so I can try to see the diffrence on how they look? I don't want to ask anyone else since it is most definatly against the rules, I just would like to test my own observational skills, please.

Arkillian, you are welcome! I hope to get around to GIF support soon. the only problem with it is i have to program a way of checking it's size because i can't resize it automatically like JPGs and PNGs because of a copyright issue. hard to explain.

Moondemon, it's probably better if i explain it because most likely you wont see the difference...
For years, the two best formats for images on the web were GIF and JPG. GIF was great for images with limited colors, such as clip art because the image was so much smaller. You can be selective with it's pallete. GIF is also great because you can have transparency and animation with it. This is the format that all of the smilies are in.

JPG is great because there are no limits on colors and it's what a lot of people use for artwork. JPGs by nature are COMPRESSED images. So a lot of times quality of the images can be lost (although if you know how to use photoshop, you can make pretty darn good jpgs without quality loss.) Another downside to the JPG is that it has no transparency.

Then came along the PNG. The Png format is relatively new. PNG's are sort of like JPG's except they either aren't compressed or are compressed better so that there is little to no quality loss (I don't know which because i don't know that much about png's).  AND Png's can do transparency! They can't do animation as far as I know though.

There is a chance that the program you use doesn't save in PNG format. It's still sort of a new format. I actually didn't start using until recently with the cafepress shop. Other than that I never saved images in PNG format.

JPGs and PNGs can share the same quality, as long as you have something like Photoshop that let's you pick the quality of the JPG. The downside of PNGs is that they aren't compressed and thus lend themselves to large file sizes. I stick with high res JPGs, for the most part.

I'll have to keep in mind that PNGs do transparancy, though. GIFs make me angry since they eat color.

yeah PNG's can do better transparency than GIFS actually because PNG's can do PARTIAL transparency like with opacity. But this isn't fully supported on the web though so older browsers wont display the transparency. Thanks for correcting me on the compression stuff.

If you ever want help with CS, drop me a line. It's my favorite toy besides Painter.

Nonono- My brother explained PNG to me. It has a special algerithm for compressing files by finding patterns in the coding and giving a patern of codes a code to shorten or something like that. Cause of this, it doesn't become blurry like JPG, but is smaller that gif format. As for it being larger than JPG, htis is only because the algerithm for PNG isn't specific for a photo type picture cause of the mass colour they have. JPG basically takes colours the eyes don't pic up on easily and copresses that heaps and does little compression on the colours the eye sees well- this is only realy noticable on digetal art- photos aren't a problem, or pencil type drawings. My old cgis were ruined by JPG format though cause red is a colour the eye doesn't pic up on well, and compresses it to doomyness- This bleeds the red horribly. Blue also to an extent. This kind of stuff isn't too noticable without defined edges though.