PNG or JPG for web/social media AND still sRGB or is it better now?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

A

agrumpyoldsod

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I was must listening to Lori Patrick on B&H Photo Video who recommends using PNG files rather than JPG "because Facebook etc mess with JPGs and make them look terrible".
"Even JPEG in 100% quality will experience some loss in quality compared to PNG and other lossless formats."
Do you have a similar experience -- what formats do you use?
AND have the limitations of having to deliver uploads to web/social in sRGB gone away -- I work in ProPhoto RGB (16-bit) but routinely downsample output for the web to sRGB (8-bit) - I notice a huge loss of quality in my posted images - should we not now at least use Adobe RGB as a minimum?
 
Good questions. I know browsers are getting better color management these days. Srgb is certainly safe, but the question is how do they handle it if there is no imbedded profile or if something not srgb is imbedded. Used to be they would use the users system colorspace which would make images in Adobe RGB look bad if the system was using the srgb or equivalent, since there would be no conversion going on.
 
Wondering if you are using convert to profile in Photoshop to convert to srgb? Or export as? Something else? I usually bother with convert to profile, there are some choices as to perceptual, relative, absolute, etc.
 
Member's gallery
I've always converted my web-destined content to jpg's in sRGB (or BT709 for video), but lately I've been experimenting with 10-bit PNG formats a bit. The problem with that is that 99% of people viewing on the internet are going to be viewing on an 8-bit, sRGB display. While I do post a few images on FB, it's not a site that I am overly concerned about image quality...most seem to be viewing on their phones, anyway....same with IG. For Flickr or Smugmug, I do pay attention to what I upload...in most cases.

I've uploaded a few things to my Flickr account in 10-bit PNG, but really haven't taken the time to upload the same images in both formats to see if there is a difference. My main Windows desktop system display is a 4K display operating in 10-bit mode, so I should be able to discern any benefit. It covers 100% sRGB, 99% DCI-P3 and 93% Adobe RGB, so I can check various modes.

For any imagery viewed on the web, sRGB is still the lowest common denominator and likely will be for the foreseeable future. While many browsers and apps are now color managed, very few have or operate their displays in Adobe RGB mode. If there is a move beyond sRGB over the next few years, suspect that Adobe RGB will be supplanted by DCI-P3 which is becoming more prevalent in cell phones, consumer TV's and other devices. HDR capable TV's and monitors are operating in DCI-P3 gamut...more or less.
 
Member's gallery
sRGB was developed to make it easier for people with cameras to send files to a inkjet printer with minimum difficult and maximum color matching of screen to paper. For viewing on a monitor it is a different situation but sRGB is still a safe color space for most monitors and smartphones.

I avoid Facebook like the plague but for web posting I have had no significant issues with sRGB from any camera. I do have to up the contrast and apply more sharpening with very low resolution images and I do the resizing always from the original Raw or TIFF source file. Supposedly the new JPG standard allows for a file to be opened and saved with no loss of IQ but in the past I know that this was not the case at all and so had to be careful with batch processing of images.
 
Andy Miller Photo UK said:
This question was not about what we used to do - it is about use of PNG not just jpgs in sRGB
Click to expand...

I don't have a good answer for you. I use PNG if I need transparency and use convert to profile to output in the largest color space the situation allows. For printing the service I use takes 8 bit Adobe Rgb jpeg or tiff, so I convert the mode to 8 bit, convert the profile to Adobe RGB and output. For the web I haven't had a reason to try PNG nor deviate from srgb.

Why not post a couple side by side here and on social media with both png and jpeg and see if we see a difference?
 
Member's gallery
Just for fun, I exported this photo in different formats, can you guys see much difference? First one is AdobeRGB with PNG. Second is JPG with SRGB and the 3rd is PNG with SRGB. Not a great photo just a tomato plant in my garden that I shot this morning messing with some camera settings. I see no noticeable difference other than all 3 of the images suffered from being downsized to fit on the forum. I did nothing special just exported them sized to 1200 on the longest edge.

Interesting the JPG shows the EXIF data and the 2 PNG files do not. Since it is the same image, the camera and exposure settings are, of course, identical.
_T3A8030 (1).png
_T3A8030.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
_T3A8030.png
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
Just for fun, I exported this photo in different formats, can you guys see much difference? First one is AdobeRGB with PNG. Second is JPG with SRGB and the 3rd is PNG with SRGB. Not a great photo just a tomato plant in my garden that I shot this morning messing with some camera settings. I see no noticeable difference other than all 3 of the images suffered from being downsized to fit on the forum. I did nothing special just exported them sized to 1200 on the longest edge.
View attachment 61016View attachment 61017View attachment 61018
Click to expand...
If software used to see the image reads and use color profile (firefox, for example), you shouldn't see any difference.
If software used does not you probably see one.

In which case, it is better to have provided srgb image, because this will most of the case the profile that will be seen (and so adobe rgb will be misinterpreted)..

This is why it is generally better to provide srgb image to social networks.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
JoPoV said:
If software used to see the image reads and use color profile (firefox, for example), you shouldn't see any difference.
If software used does not you probably see one.

In which case, it is better to have provided srgb image, because this will most of the case the profile that will be seen (and so adobe rgb will be misinterpreted)..

This is why it is better to provide srgb image to social networks.
Click to expand...
I always export JPG and sRGB when I'm posting to forums, social media, even videos used for slides in YouTube.

I thought it would be interesting to shoot the different formats here so folks could see what their software was showing.

Jeff
 
Member's gallery
JoPoV said:
If software used to see the image reads and use color profile (firefox, for example), you shouldn't see any difference.
Click to expand...
In fact that's not always thrue.
To be precise, in this case, it depends of the image and of the monitor used too.
If the image contains colors that adobe rgb can describe and wich are out of srgb space, and if monitor used is able to display adobe rgb space, and is qualibrated for adobe rgb, then in this case too you will see difference.
But only graphic "professionnal" monitors can display really more than srgb (to keep things simple).

So for social media, it is better to aim srgb.

And NEVER forget to embed profile.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Andy Miller Photo UK said:
I was must listening to Lori Patrick on B&H Photo Video who recommends using PNG files rather than JPG "because Facebook etc mess with JPGs and make them look terrible".
"Even JPEG in 100% quality will experience some loss in quality compared to PNG and other lossless formats."
Do you have a similar experience -- what formats do you use?
AND have the limitations of having to deliver uploads to web/social in sRGB gone away -- I work in ProPhoto RGB (16-bit) but routinely downsample output for the web to sRGB (8-bit) - I notice a huge loss of quality in my posted images - should we not now at least use Adobe RGB as a minimum?
Click to expand...
For what it's worth. I shoot for several big brands through several agencies primarily for FB and Instagram. I don't edit in most cases, sending them a TIFF. To one, they upload a 1.4mp JPEG limited to certain dimensions and cropped uniformally to square, 1.91x1 horizontal and 9x16 vertical. They tell me it's not so much for image quality, but rather how the platforms prioritize views based on those parameters.

For vids, they use those same dimensions as well as 4x5 and upload at 4k. I send them 8.3k Nlog (except one who wants Nraw), ungraded and uncropped. They get to 4k mostly by downsampling, not cropping (unless the pan or zoom). 24fps at acquisition and timeline.

I don't have any idea why, but these collectively get millions of views.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
I don't edit in most cases,
Click to expand...
If you don't edit your images yourself and if someone else does, it might be better to keep the biggest color space as possible (abobe rgb or better, bigger), to retain as much colors as possible for who does the editing before he converts to srgb.
In wich case it is better to talk with the person who does the editing before to be sure of its pipeline and process.
 
Member's gallery
JoPoV said:
If you don't edit your images yourself and if someone else does, it might be better to keep the biggest color space as possible (abobe rgb or better, bigger), to retain as much colors as possible for who does the editing before he converts to srgb.
In wich case it is better to talk with the person who does the editing before to be sure of its pipeline and process.
Click to expand...
They require the following: TIFF, sRGB, no compression, 16bit, no resizing. That makes a Z9 RAW into 154mb file. For print media and online ads they get a RAW uncompressed. I literally drag the card into an SSD and overnight it or drive it over.
 
Member's gallery
The actual question is not how you get to the file that you upload, but more what is going on at the site you have uploaded it to. You have approximately no control of what happens to a file you upload to e.g. Facebook. The sites will most likely perform some editing of uploaded images in order to optimize their internal flow of images. This can be converting images to a single format, setting different sizes etc. They store millions of images every day, and storage still cost, so large sites optimizes images.
It can be the sites are more 'cruel' to jpegs than to pngs or the opposite. Think you'll need to experiment to identify what suits your images best - it will vary from site to site.
But of course for web presentation you need to consider final size of the image (dimensions not file size), color space is given to be s-rgb, before uploading
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top