PNG all the way, the only way to get the same quality is to have a program that can set it to its highest quality, but if someone wanted to use a program like paint to save pictures(like screen shots) the jpeg would have extremely horrible quality, where as if you saved it as png it would have beautiful quality(plus even in photoshop you can save pngs faster). Also PNG supports transparency, JPEG does not, it doesn't make any difference that your putting the same color in the bg of a JPEG it's is still 0% transparent which you need it to be 100% transparent for things like cutouts. Another thing is that you can still make your image "rip-proof"(as you say) using the same method you mentioned above(just so you know you could just crop out the background in photoshop so it's really not that rip-proof). Lastly though your right, for things like websites you shouldn't use pngs because they take longer to load, but you wouldn't use a jpeg if you had a good program either, you would use a GIF image instead.
png are good quality, high in bytes jpeg low in bytes, but can be the same quality as png but also png, is more useful in terms of renders etc. but ill choose jpeg
Baically (just to iron out any inconsistencies) PNG is better JPEG is worse Now for the not to lengthly explanation.... PNG supports transparency, is lossless, its free (both as in free beer and free speech) and it is the format of the future www JPEG blurs and adds noise to areas of solid color, losses massive amounts of graphical detail, is not open source either note this argument is putting compression and size aside because that is becoming of less consequence with the introduction of broadband internet connections
You're all retarded. .PNG gives you much higher quality, and the load time is so similar it doesn't make a difference.
png format give a higher image quality than jpg. png are lossless image format so it doesnt lose its quality after saved or watsoever. jpg compresses the image hence losing the quality. therefore file size of png's are higher than jpg
<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">if you make a 800x600 vector piece that's has only a few colors in it then a .png will probably have a smaller file size than a 100% quality .jpg but if you make a digital painting or something like that with the same dimensions then it'll probably the other way around the number of layers of the .psd doesn't really matter after you save it</span>
<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">normally that's true but what if it's a .jpg saved with 100% quality? in that case the quality is the SAME but the file size just depends on the image itself this is an example of a .jpg saved with 100% quality.......i GUARANTEE you will not find ANY compression in the text or anywhere else on it if it was saved as a .png it would look EXACTLY the same but the file size would be bigger (which is why i picked .jpg in this case)</span>
Yeah, but most people that do tags/tuts,etc don't really know that so when they save in jpg, it looks crappy. Which makes others want to use that instead of jpg.
Here is the deal with the 2 Portable Network Graphics (PNG) is a bitmapped image format that employs lossless data compression. JPEG The compression method is usually lossy compression, meaning that some visual quality is lost in the process, So yes Jpg loads faster but in return you loose quality
<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS">well your sig doesn't look compressed and it's a .jpg...............how did that happen? wait a second, mine is a .jpg too! it's a miracle that it's not compressed! how does this keep happening?! its so amazing that there can actually be .jpg's out there with NO COMPRESSION both .png AND .jpg can have have perfect quality........now discussion over</span>
There is NO way to make a jpg transparent. The way you described doing it is simply matching up background colors, and is completely useless for all purposes of a transparent image.
