png is for lineart, jpeg is for photos.

Because no one can tell the difference, yet you can have the same image at 1/10 of the filesize.

Just like those faggots who insist on listening to everything in FLAC.

>>1384659
kinda like this. The reduction in image quality is negligible when it comes to photos. .PNG is best used for vectors and stuff.

The main reasons:

PNG works best on compressing hard edges (like vector-based images). JPG works best on soft, gradient transitions (like in photos).

PNG doesn't support subtractive color spaces such as CMYK, which are necessary for offset printing. JPG does have this support.

PNG doesn't support EXIF data, which photographers like to have. I don't believe believe it supports IPTC data, which often is important for photojournalists.

somebody post that png pasta; I don't have it saved

what this guy said:
>PNG works best on compressing hard edges (like vector-based images). JPG works best on soft, gradient transitions (like in photos).

also in your example image thats an extremely low quality jpeg. i took your image and resaved it as a 10/12 quality jpeg. switch between this image and your image and you'll see that there's no discernible difference between the images.
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:09:02 14:50:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	200
Image Height	199

Seeing the difference now isn't the reason to save photos as PNG. PNG uses lossless compression, while JPEG is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the JPEG photographs sit on your hard drive, they will lose, on average, roughly 0.8 bits/pixel, assuming you have SATA - it's about 0.6 bits on IDE, but only 0.3 bits/pixel on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting JPEG pictures in about 2001, and if I try to view any of the photos I downloaded back then, even the stuff which was saved at 100% quality and 4:4:4 chroma subsampling, they just look like crap. The shadow detail is terrible, the highlights...well don't get me started. Some of those photos have degraded at a rate of 0.7 or even 0.8 bits/pixel. PNG pictures from the same period still look great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to PNG, you may not be able to see the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did

>>1384725
thanks

>>1384725
>>1384730
Obvious samefag is obvious.

>>1384725
don't start this. Keep the shitty trollpasta on /g/

>>1384725
awesome, i just threw up from laughing so hard.

>>1384730
>>1384705
these are me
>>1384725
this is not me
>>1384735
faggot
>>1384737
it was originally from /mu/

>>1384742
Ohshit, I missed
>>1384705
Sorry, my fault.