Post by BuckSkin on Oct 20, 2024 18:17:33 GMT
I don't know why, but I was always under the assumption that png files were quite a bit smaller than jpeg files and that was why anyone would want to use them.
I was quite surprised at the results of a little screen-shot test I just performed.
I took a screenshot; so, thus, no EXIF data to weigh anything down.
I saved the screenshot as both a jpeg and a png.
The jpeg weighed in at 746KB
The png weighed in at 1.70MB = over twice if my math is correct.
Considering this, other than my reason explained below, why would I ever want to save anything as a png ?
The reason for my little test is that for years, so that a different program is the default handler of said images, I have saved any photos that went into the "Documents" side of things as png instead of jpeg.
If I need to see a photo relating to something in Documents, I can click to open it with a completely different program and not muddy up whatever I may be doing photography wise with FastStone.
Doing thus has caused me to often have to convert a jpeg to png.
I was quite surprised at the results of a little screen-shot test I just performed.
I took a screenshot; so, thus, no EXIF data to weigh anything down.
I saved the screenshot as both a jpeg and a png.
The jpeg weighed in at 746KB
The png weighed in at 1.70MB = over twice if my math is correct.
Considering this, other than my reason explained below, why would I ever want to save anything as a png ?
The reason for my little test is that for years, so that a different program is the default handler of said images, I have saved any photos that went into the "Documents" side of things as png instead of jpeg.
If I need to see a photo relating to something in Documents, I can click to open it with a completely different program and not muddy up whatever I may be doing photography wise with FastStone.
Doing thus has caused me to often have to convert a jpeg to png.
