Has Anyone Started Using PNG images in Websites

[! !]

In theory - they are really marvellous combining - jpg complexity with Gif transparency capabilites

But they just have NOT taken off.   Which may be because they were not an automatic pug-in  to older versions of Netscape.  Or maybe they just were not promoted enough - because there was no corporate money behind it - LIKE FLASH.

It is nice that since they are lossless  and compressionable - that they are being offered as save-options in Graphic Design Softwares.

[Queen Bee]

I'm not sure why PNG hasn't become as popular as it should... But I suppose I'm one of the contributors to that problem. I am so used to using JPEG and GIF conversions that I don't even stop to think and use PNG format.

I did notice that PNG colours are a bit strange in the browsers... They vary slightly from regular image colours, and you have to change hexidecimal codes from backgrounds and tables if you want it to match right. This is my experience so far.

[Hope]

I like PNG, but like everyone else, I seldom use them. I think it is because I don't think about it.

For years I used Gimp and used PNG but since I switched to Photoshop I stopped. No real reason.

[johnhask]

I used for a php site that delivered dynamic images. Like most of you, gif and jpg are the hard-to-leave old standards.

[SensoVision]

I like them, maybe because it's default for Linux and I'm get used to them in some kind of manner. Anyway I think that the problem they are not widely used was named by Rachel:

I did notice that PNG colours are a bit strange in the browsers... They vary slightly from regular image colours, and you have to change hexidecimal codes from backgrounds and tables if you want it to match right. This is my experience so far.

from what I know there are issues with reperesenting gamma colors, so they don't pick up so well till now... anyway I hope the problems would be resolved shortly and I can switch to them.
BTW if you're interested in the problem itself check out these links:
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/png-gamma/
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngstatus.html

[donecweb]

I like them, maybe because it's default for Linux and I'm get used to them in some kind of manner. Anyway I think that the problem they are not widely used was named by Rachel:from what I know there are issues with reperesenting gamma colors, so they don't pick up so well till now... anyway I hope the problems would be resolved shortly and I can switch to them.
BTW if you're interested in the problem itself check out these links:
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/png-gamma/
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngstatus.html

Thanks, those sites were interesting and I learned a little more about png. I have made an effort for years to use png as much as possible instead of gif, due mostly to the old patent thing with the use of gif. I guess now I have just gotten used to using png and jpg. I have noticed some problems sometimes with png but when they appear they are almost always seen in gif also, that is when I use jpg. I reserve gif for the animations.

DonEc

[oohdale]

Most sites won't upload them and mine just wants the old stand bys, gif, jpg. Oh well they take up too many bytes anyways.

[dojo]

I know about them already, but still I'm a bit shy when it comes to using them. Guess I'll wait more

[Queen Bee]

I really prefer PNG to GIF when it comes to small-size images, but it's still easier for me to just stick with the old.

[ewomack]

The last I heard PNG was still having some issues with IE, but maybe they've been solved. Something around transparency and gamma correction. Also, PNGs were not very well supported in last generation browsers (IE5, etc), so developers just have an easier time sticking with GIF and JPEG since there are no issues. New technology always meets the bulwark of old technology. Especially on the web. A lot of people don't know or care how to update their browsers. That's only one of the reasons that progress on the web is a little glacial (and why many XHTML books still include sections on deprecated tags - because they're all over the net).

[Andy]

I did a comparison of the results from saving 3 types of image in the 3 formats: Here are the results Unfortunately for PNG it doesn't win the battle over JPEG and GIF in most cases. However, I do use PNG for small images to help support the format 

[Menard]

I have only used PNG for a joke magazine cover I did. I did the template in a draw program and exported it as a bitmap to edit in Paint Shop Pro, adding the images and text. Saving the image as a jpeg kept resulting in the text looking fuzzy. I won't even comment on how the images looked in gif. Saving it in PNG gave me good text and images, at a much larger file size though, but it was the best compromise.

[SensoVision]

since I switched to Linux PNGs are everythere they are used as default format for saving Screenshots of desktop and for many other things so actually I've get used to them.
Andy I've take a loot to the tests you've done and ball in PNG would win in my eyes, it doesn't so dithered as JPEG or GIF and althought it's a bit bigger it's more than acceptable price to pay for such quality. Anyway I've decide that you didn't use all possibilities of PNG format and I've download PNG image and witht he GIMP reduce there colors using "Generate Optimum Pallete and Floyd-Steinberg Color Deightering(Reduced color bleeding)). you can see image I've got with this, maybe you can add it to your collection too?
it's only 8389 bytes and doesn't loose too much in quality IMHO.(Anyway for such image as this it's better to use JPEG anyway, PNG should be used for things where details shouldn't have soft corners like letters in font (from what I understand)).

what do you think?

[Andy]

I updated the page http://aweconsulting.co.uk/web-graphics/ to include your compressed PNG image senso. Even so, the JPEG is impressively small in size for picture graphics rather than geometrical patterns.

[SensoVision]

that's truth, and I never actually tried to argue with this. Anyway we're trying to abandon GIFs not JPEG