I know JPG is a smaller file, but is there a quality difference between JPG and PNG?

Thanks
Ben

"There can be."

I've seen JPGs look better than PNGs and vice versa. Doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme or reason, either.

The major advantage to PNGs is alpha transparency. JPGs have...well, none.

The difference between PNG and JPG is that PNGs are uncompressed, and of course have bigger size.And a plus is the transparency Adam mentioned. Jpg`s are compressed images, and the quality depends on how compressed is that file.They have no transparency.For online viewing -JPGs are used for smaller size, and GIF`s for transparency, because old browsers like internet explorer don`t "see" the PNG transparency, only GIF.

Right now is really not a good time to start using PNGs online. Besides what everyone else has metioned, there is a new problem I heard about. Even though the new version of IE allows for transparent PNGs, there is an issue with a "gamma" setting that messes up some colors in your image. There are some programs out there that strip out the gamma info, but to me, it seems like too much of a hassle when a jpg or gif should work fine.

angele
could you explain this or provide a link which would shed more light on this issue?

Originally Posted by jbladeus

angele
could you explain this or provide a link which would shed more light on this issue?

Sure! It came in my sitepoint newsletter. Here is the link: http://www.sitepoint.com/newsletter/...=3&issue=153#7
Its pretty interesting.