PNG, JPG, or GIF images?

I usually use PNG for most images on my sites since I seem to get the quality I want with the smallest size compared to other formats displaying the same quality. But, I've seen some threads about gamma differences when using PNGs so I don't know what to choose now.

Which format do you use and why?

 

I always use GIF - mostly because it's small and can also use transparencies. I tend to avoid PNG mainly as its easier for me to keep everything as one file format.

It doesn't really matter at the end of the day - whatever makes it easier for you.

 

I've never heard anything about "Gamma differences" with PNG.

Have any sources available ?

 

I like PNG most of all, but because of the many naive people who still use IE6, i have to use gif and spend more time adjusting the gif images to look well on my web pages.
Transparent png images can be put on any background color and they will look fine. if you put a gif image on a yellow background, but the gif was adjusted for the blue background, then you will notice some jagging around the image.
JPG- not at all.

 

I use PNG and GIF, used to be strictly PNG but after some loading issues with PNG I started using GIF for my layouts to keep the load down, if an image within the layout needs higher quality then I'll use PNG. For all other images not part of the layout I use PNG.

JPG loses quality far too quickly so never.

 

I'm using png files vor nearly everything only in my content I use gif or jpg but for the layout only png

 

I might have read something about gamma differences, but that doesn't mean it favors gif over png.

PNG, btw, compresses smaller than gif so I don't know what Yukio is talking about.

 

JPEG for high quality images.
PNG for regular images
GIF for Speed

 

The rounded corners at phpBB.com are a good example of when you can use PNG to get better quality alpha channels in a layout for browsers with good support, while using IE conditional comments to load an alternate stylesheet which uses GIF images instead.

 

I thought PNG images weren't widely supported across different browsers. I mainly use JPG and GIF images for what cipals15 said, but I never use PNG.

 

You'll get a better quality gradient from a 24-bit PNG than you will from a JPG or GIF. GIF can however match the quality of a PNG on short gradients covering 255 shades or less.

JPG is for photographs, not general quality.

 

Only really see photo's using JPG
I would adree using PNG for higher quality

Tempera

 

I agree. GIF is also good for logos/images with few colors.

 

Wrong. PNG files will beat GIF files in size, and therefore speed, in almost all cases. PNG replaces GIF, though animated PNG is not generally available...yet. Though PNG can be used for lower quality images, the preferred format is JPEG

 

http://www.matthewrochow.com/optimisation/image-optimisation/

8bit PNG will loader faster than a GIF. So for photos you use PNG or GIF?

Yes, there are gamma problems, however they are easily fixed.

Considering PNG is smaller than GIF for basically anything over 100bytes, not sure why you consider GIF is "speed"

 

PNG has no quality loss
JP(E)G is in between
GIF is compatible with most browsers but the quality isn't that great

 

I use jpg's... coz its compatible with most browsers...

but u can use PNg's and there's a solution for that gamma differences..

just use PNGfix script... it should solve the prob.....

 

see this
jooria.com/details-30.html

 

All down to file size/quality - jpegs for images with gradients and gifs for solid colour images. Using PS 'save for web' function you can compare side by side the different formats, together with the file size.

 

I only use PNG's while developing the site and then for the final release I export to JPEG.