Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

52

The JPEG format has the advantage of giving small files. The RAW formats have the advantage of preserving all the data collected at the shot. The PNG format gives neither of these advantages, so you don't even get a compromise between the other formats, you get almost only the drawbacks from both formats.


39

Image size notes aside, a big reason is that PNG does not have a standardized means of EXIF embedding and that will immediately shy the camera makers away from it. There would be a lot of information lost by doing image conversion to PNG in camera as a result and, for the most part, would probably been seen as a negative by most photographers.


24

PNG may use a lossless compression algorithm, but it is lossy in comparison to the raw data. You lose bit depth, the camera may introduce demosaicing artifacts, you may bake in a bad color balance, the camera may apply inappropriate sharpening, the in-camera noise reduction may wash out detail, etc. I don't think there's a big demand for a format that's as ...


13

You explicitly mentioned PNG-24 - that has eight bits per channel, whereas a TIFF file can have 16. That would be one reason the quality could be higher, from a RAW conversion especially but also if you are doing a lot of editing. The PNG standard also supports 16-bits per channel (PNG-48) but I don't know how many applications support that, whereas pretty ...


10

Take a look at Why don't most cameras support PNG format? for some other answers. Often cited reason is that the usual metadata (IPTC and EXIF of TIFF and JPG) is not very well supported by PNG and the software. PNG does support color profiles now, but it does not offer CMYK as TIFF does, because it is focused on web-usage. Anecdotal: I used to store ...


6

The RAW formats store, well, the raw sensor data from the camera with information on how to decode that for image processors such as Adobe Camera Raw or similar. In that sense, the RAW format is not an image, you have to apply demosaicing algorithms to interpret the sensor data into a coherent image for display. Beyond the Adobe attempt to convince everyone ...


5

You are not losing any quality. It is mostly a habit, I am guessing. Lots of books on digital imaging still suggest TIFF as the highest quality format. For non-technical people, that is all they need to know. Note both TIFF and PNG have higher bit-depths as well. Most people who still save in TIFF use 16-bits per-pixel, so the equivalent of PNG-48. If they ...


5

You can probably do this by creating an action and then batch processing: Create the action with an open file in photoshop start recording do File > Save As > and set file type to PNG or use File > Save for Web if you need to resize or make other modifications click Save stop recording and save action as "Save As PNG" (there may also be some built in ...


5

Shoot RAW, develop to a PNG file (if the software allows). http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml


4

From the Wikipedia page for 'pngcrush', The main purpose of pngcrush is to reduce the size of the PNG IDAT datastream by trying various combinations of compression methods and delta filters. However, pngcrush can also be used for various manipulations of PNG images, such as changing the bit depth, removing unwanted ancillary chunks, or adding certain ...


2

You want to use ImageMagick, its free and open source. Get it from http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php Then use the "convert" function


2

First off I am not sure if there is an easy way to create an invisible watermark in PSE without buying a Digimarc subscription. With that said there is a way to create an (almost) invisible watermark using the blue channel and layer styles but this is not possible in PSE. Here is a tutorial on how this is done in PS. (Maybe download the trial version of ...


2

PNG is portable network graphics. It is targetted for the web, and rather simple (in colors) images. Its compression is very ineffective for realistic graphics as you will shoot with a camera, so the results are nearly uncompressed. As such you can then simply use RAW files, which do add the benefit, that there is no lossy conversion to an RGB colorspace. ...


2

In addition to what the other have said, PNGs are horribly inefficient at storing photos. Their compression scheme is designed to perform well when there are relatively few colors, large areas of the same color and/or exactly repeating patterns. A quick test with a random 18 MP photo yielded these results: Original RAW: 22 MB JPEG with 100% quality: 14 MB ...


2

I did some more tests and I think the issue is color space conversion. Here's the testing procedure I used with Photoshop CC 2014: Create a new file with 8-bit, Adobe RGB 1998 color space. Create a rainbow gradient. Save for Web as PNG; don't convert to sRGB. Place embedded the PNG file just saved. Change PNG layer blend mode to difference. There is a very ...


1

The short answer is yes (unless you have a camera that can output PNG files (which, I believe, is very few)). The long answer is (in general) sort of. As mentioned in the comments, file conversion is, technically, a form of alteration and so, for the vast majority of photos, having a .PNG extension means that they has been altered. This does not mean that ...


1

They're really different formats to do very different jobs. PNG is intended to be a non patent-encumbered format for network use - it was not designed for photography and there are aspects of the design where this shows. Alpha Channel an extra colour channel for variable opacity ADAM7 interlacing for a quick preview or for the whole image not to be ...


1

RAW is greater than 8 bits and stores the actual sensor data rather than processed image data. RAW is actually generally losslessly compressed, or even sometimes lossy compressed. PNGs would actually be larger if uncompressed because they only hold the image data after processing, which means each pixel has 3 colors rather than 1, and is generally only 8 ...


1

IMO you should always shoot in RAW, if you are not worried about memory costs RAW is the way to go. This gives you the best opportunity to correct images in post processing. Below is a quote from: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/252-PNG-and-Cameras.html PNG is absolutely wonderful for storing true 24-bit color images. Processing PNG ...


1

Both formats have their Pros and Cons. But the real reason why JPEG is more prevalent than PNG is that the people behind JPEG do aggressive licensing, which PNG lacks. (www.libpng.org/pub/png/) This is very similar to MP3 vs. OGG vs. FLAC. MP3 Creators licensed aggressively in the beginning... leading to the popularity. Due to this, now, manufacturers ...


1

TweakPNG is a free sorftware that can edit PNG metadata (Windows only).


1

If metadata is added to PNG files, such as keywords, it doesn't "stick" permanently. I found the only safe way was to use Bridge > Photoshop > Image processor and batch change the PNG to a JPEG, PSD, or TIFF file. I used tiff LZW to save space and even then it is a larger file than the png. I needed this to be able to add keywords and descriptions to pngs in ...


1

For the MAC OSX, there is a freeware called 'PNGCommentator'. Have not seen it on other platforms. PNG metadata can now be added and edited at the click of a mouse. Version 1.2 adds support for batch processing and customisable presets, allowing for much faster workflows. Text macros extend this even further, allowing the software to automatically ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible