Quality?? PNG/JPG

PNG, it is a lossless compression unlike JPG, so there is no loss in picture quality.

so PNG is better?
__________________________________
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is in having lots to do and not doing it.
||pregucoso||

Yes.

" Everday is a good day Peter, with two scoops of raisins. "

uhhh... shyeah?

.sp|it
visionleague™

better like whoah.

Especially if you you have any sort of gradient or a relatively dark image to begin.

colossus72 [c72]
Customize.org Staff
member relations, submissions.

Better with reds.

+| he who will kill the god if given the slightest chance |+

www.GIFT333.com

^ that's what i think

Proverbs 19:96 -- Custo helps those who help themselves... use Google

yes, JPEG's are really bad with deep reds.

Only because ppl think not everyone can open PNG files yet, they (rusted in there tradition) still use JPEG.
Transparancy is another reason to use PNG.

Its thru though, not every program can read PNG, but most do.

PNG are far supperior, although as some have said there are a few stragellers that have yet to support fully the PNG standard; for example IE6 seems to have a bit of trouble with partial transparency in PNG's (Get Firefox).

http://students.bath.ac.uk/ch2lah

Jpeg has better compression and is better suited for photos over the web. PNG for everything else.

www.toxicana.com