Theres no loss in quality on a jpeg really. Alright its no good for maintaining perfection when you want the original, but these files are for distribution and a jpeg is absolutely acceptable. PNGs have absolutely no use the real world unless you want fancy alpha effects that work on next to nothing.

Almost every digital camera in the world will have at least one option to save images as jpegs, none of them save as png.

The quality retention is enough so you can edit them a couple of times and not notice any real difference from the original in quality.

Quote from: SeriousAlmost every digital camera in the world will have at least one option to save images as jpegs, none of them save as png.

The quality retention is enough so you can edit them a couple of times and not notice any real difference from the original in quality.

Absolutely. Or we can switch to PNG and upgrade to 40gig memory cards.

What it is, is that PNG was a Good creation but no one took it on and thats MSs fault because they did not adapt it properly. So If you have an image format that has has really good differences but for most people it wont be effective or function correctly then why use it? As said jpeg and gif do the job already and the patent and copyright rubbish with gif went out the window so why use it?

I do think PNG will be used a lot more next year, its transparency use on web pages along with css3 and divs you can do some really really cool stuff and very good looking sites without using annoying flash, and be fast loading.

(NOTE i dont like full flash sites but recent versions of flash i have to admit has reduced in size and kept quality a lot and still warrants fast loading when you use for small video and logos, media boxes and advert centres.)