Thinking in terms of my workflow where I save all my layers,
intermediate steps & stuff in PSD files; when I have the image ready to
print or upload, I "convert to a profile" (sRGB) which also flattens the
image. Would that be the same as an embedded profile?
I re-size it to appropriate dimensions and save it in a final output
form - new file name, new extension.
How well does PNG work in terms my wish for a file format I can use to
provide an image that won't be trashed if some clueless person re-sizes
it again to make it fit in their newsletter?
On 5/16/2014 7:55 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
P.J. Alling wrote:
What's wrong with it? Well it was supposed to replace the jpeg and gif
standards in web pages, (when it looked like jpeg might have been
patented and of gif always had always been owned by CompuServe IIRC and
there were threats of lawsuits over licensing), both of which ware
relatively lightweight image files that should be used for different
purposes. PNG tries to replace both and does it badly, and also can be
used as a general purpose editing format, so it also want's to be a Tiff
or maybe a PSD file. If they had just tried to make a lossless
equivalent of Jpeg, (and isn't there a JPEG 2000, standard that's
supposed to be lossless, anyway which while larger than normal jpegs is
still much smaller than PNG), The designers tried to put too much into
it, and almost no one uses it, now that the threat to users of jpegs and
gifs has receded.
Almost all of that is wrong. The 8-bit version of PNG (PNG-8) was
intended to replace GIF with a non-proprietary format that offered
smaller file size. In that it succeed almost completely. It's
non-proprietary and if makes for smaller files except for a few cases
with really small images. I don't know any web designer who uses GIF
for still graphics any more, PNG-8 is near universal.
PNG-24 was never intended to replace JPEG for photographs for web
purposes. The main purpose of PNG-24 is graphic design images (as
opposed to photographic images) which require alpha channel
transparency. Neither JPEG nor GIF can do that at all.
No form of PNG was ever intended to replace PSD or TIFF (PNG stands
for Portable Network Graphics) - PNG doesn't support layers and though
it theoretically does support embedded ICC profiles, I don't know of
any software that will embed profiles in PNGs.
JPEG2000 had multiple compression options, one of which was lossless,
but it was generally less efficient than PNG.
--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
