I'm looking for an image format, unpopular as it may be, that has good quality and also good compression. After I'm done post-processing my RAWs I want to export them in a way that's shareable and practical, trying to save as much space as possible. PNG seems too heavy and JPG is quite lossy.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Even if you can find something better than JPEG, it's not likely to be widely used enough to be "shareable and practical." When you say JPEG is "quite lossy," what software are you using to export the files, and with what settings? What problems are you seeing that make you think it's too lossy? \$\endgroup\$
    – coneslayer
    Feb 10, 2012 at 18:48

1 Answer 1


It depends on what you mean by "shareable" and "practical". Are you sending your images to the web, a printer, or just your own storage solution? The only practical format for the web is JPEG. If you are sending to a printer you can probably chose between TIFF, JPEG, and PSD. If you are just storing it yourself, you could use PSD, PNG, TIFF, JPEG, DNG, or your native RAW format.

Practically speaking, JPEG is great quality and sharable so there is not a real need for anything beyond that at this time. See my previous post on JPEG 2000.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.