Comments on: .png Designer Knockoff http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/web-design/png-designer-knockoff Design stories & tips, peppered with life's little tidbits Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:10:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: catherine http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/web-design/png-designer-knockoff/comment-page-1#comment-294 catherine Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:45:00 +0000 http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/?p=461#comment-294 <p>I know. The limited palette is precisely why I rarely use GIFs.</p> I know. The limited palette is precisely why I rarely use GIFs.

]]> By: decibel.places http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/web-design/png-designer-knockoff/comment-page-1#comment-293 decibel.places Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:30:56 +0000 http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/?p=461#comment-293 <p>Well, a GIF with an 8 or 16 color palatte will be smaller than a PNG or JPG - that is the situation for which GIFs were intended.</p> Well, a GIF with an 8 or 16 color palatte will be smaller than a PNG or JPG – that is the situation for which GIFs were intended.

]]> By: catherine http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/web-design/png-designer-knockoff/comment-page-1#comment-292 catherine Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:53 +0000 http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/?p=461#comment-292 <p>Yes, totally. And that's where I made my initial mistake--in thinking I needed PNGs to have transparent edges (the fade). By saving the fade edged images with their background, I was able to fake the fade and use considerably smaller JPGs. Of course, other images, like the logo and menu rollover colors are PNGs because they must retain transparency.</p> <p>I really never use GIFs because by the time you need 256 colors, you're talking complex image and you might as well move right on to PNG w/o image quality loss.</p> <p>Thanks for the feedback, Randall!</p> Yes, totally. And that’s where I made my initial mistake–in thinking I needed PNGs to have transparent edges (the fade). By saving the fade edged images with their background, I was able to fake the fade and use considerably smaller JPGs. Of course, other images, like the logo and menu rollover colors are PNGs because they must retain transparency.

I really never use GIFs because by the time you need 256 colors, you’re talking complex image and you might as well move right on to PNG w/o image quality loss.

Thanks for the feedback, Randall!

]]> By: decibel.places http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/web-design/png-designer-knockoff/comment-page-1#comment-291 decibel.places Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:25:02 +0000 http://azzcatdesign.com/blog/?p=461#comment-291 <p>Using JPGs is fine ... <em>unless</em> - you need transparency (ie your images are not rectilinear). For transparency, you have a choice of PNG and GIF. GIF files are indexed at 256 colors and can be problematic with photographic images - they were created for graphic art. As you discovered, Internet Explorer does not handle PNG transparency well, requiring additional JavaScript for pngfix (and it gets complex when the images are rollovers). A tried and true technique to reduce image file sizes is to use the smallest palette possible without affecting the quality. <a href="http://www.smushit.com/" rel="nofollow">SmushIt</a> can reduce your file sizes by 35% without affecting quality - also part of the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5369" rel="nofollow">YSlow toolkit</a></p> Using JPGs is fine … unless – you need transparency (ie your images are not rectilinear). For transparency, you have a choice of PNG and GIF. GIF files are indexed at 256 colors and can be problematic with photographic images – they were created for graphic art. As you discovered, Internet Explorer does not handle PNG transparency well, requiring additional JavaScript for pngfix (and it gets complex when the images are rollovers). A tried and true technique to reduce image file sizes is to use the smallest palette possible without affecting the quality. SmushIt can reduce your file sizes by 35% without affecting quality – also part of the YSlow toolkit

]]>