It would've worked on this site for your sig. And for those of you saying .pngs have higher quality online, check the first page. I posted a nice experiment there and invite you to do the same.
Its more of a print quality for example if i were to print out a .png it would come out better than a .jpg
this is really a pointless topic...and btw....----- prints are done in neither png or jpg...just a heads up
They're TIFF, aren't they? :huh: But yeah, if you get a print from deviantART or WalMart/Target or Bartel Drugs, chances are high that it's .jpg.
Just because noone has pointed it out: What is the point in having a render with a background colour the same as the forum? When people mention .pngs support transparency there talking about renders not sigs with parts missing. Also, I save all my files as png, always have done, takes much less time to save in photoshop and is higher quality. The file size really couldnt bother me
What is the point in having a render with a background colour the same as the forum? When people mention .pngs support transparency there talking about renders not sigs with parts missing. Also, I save all my files as png, always have done, takes much less time to save in photoshop and is higher quality. The file size really couldnt bother me [/b][/quote] It does work for renders a LOT better than a .jpg would. But the file size bothers a lot of server host people. I had a signature that was really low quality once, about 250x100 and 160kb. That's not good.
png is better for displaying graphics because it is higher quality but if you want to use a sig it is better to you jpg because it lowers the kb
"Please submit in form of .jpg for printing" or something along those lines. Most pictures taken on a digital camera are .jpgs right from the start. Most prints are photo prints.
