Photogs, graphic artists-are you using PNG?

[JoeM]

I pretty much agree with what everyone is saying. There was a time when you had to think carefully about using PNG since IE 6 and below had problems with it but those days are gone.

I still tend towards TIFF for print jobs.

[M A V I C]

PNG doesn't support CMYK. So for print, it's a non-option. Just because it's PNG doesn't mean it's lossless. It can be lossless, but it depends on the application and the encoding used. I think assuming because it's PNG it's lossless is very dangerous. Compare PNGs from Photoshop saved via Save as... vs Save for web and you'll see a difference (at least in file size.)

For most computers anymore, there's no real reason to use interlacing.

mikebw wrote: One thing that you might not know is that while GIF supported transparency it was only 1 bit (on or off) whereas PNG provides 8 bits of transparency information.

aka "alpha transparency"

[jdc]

Yeah, sticking with PSD.

Smaller than tifs, can manipulate PSD layers in ID and transparent backgrounds.

Im primarily print.

[Marc Anthony]

M A V I C wrote:
Compare PNGs from Photoshop saved via Save as... vs Save for web and you'll see a difference (at least in file size.)

Just FYI, the file size disparity is also true of JPEG. The reason for this is that the web exported versions don't include the file metadata that is included in a traditional save.

[M A V I C]

Marc Anthony wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
Compare PNGs from Photoshop saved via Save as... vs Save for web and you'll see a difference (at least in file size.)

Just FYI, the file size disparity is also true of JPEG. The reason for this is that the web exported versions don't include the file metadata that is included in a traditional save.
That's not quite accurate. There's a lot more going on, it's not just metadata. For example, many colors are stripped out as well.