I use webp a lot, it’s smaller than PNG for lossless images like screenshots and smaller than JPG for lossy while working for both. All the image editors and image viewers I use support it, so it’s not inconvenient for me in any way.
Also Portable Network Graphics, as the name suggests, is a network image format, not a digital image format. Just having a laugh : )
The lossless mode is great (but more limited than PNG), the lossy mode sucks though. Like it only supports a quarter of the colour resolution compared to formats like JPEG.
Also being a video format, it’s not actually tuned to store still images, it likes to blur/smear things.
Edit: But if you’re using it for the intended purpose, low resolution previews, thumbnails and stuff like branding, it’s fine. I wouldn’t use it where quality matters.
There are many valid criticisms one can make of webp; perhaps discussing the pros and cons. Rather than using those you instead went after it’s name not being linguistically accurate.
Irfanview is the answer.
I don’t even know what the question was tbh, but I’m still right.
Irfanview is always the answer!
Unless the question was do you use faststone 😉
not allowing webp is the answer.
webp, as the name suggests, is a web image format. not a digital image format.
webp is a fucking cancer and deserves to be put in the same place betamax and 8-tracks were left to rot.
I use webp a lot, it’s smaller than PNG for lossless images like screenshots and smaller than JPG for lossy while working for both. All the image editors and image viewers I use support it, so it’s not inconvenient for me in any way.
Also Portable Network Graphics, as the name suggests, is a network image format, not a digital image format. Just having a laugh : )
Why is it bad? Like what should I use instead on my website for images and icons?
The lossless mode is great (but more limited than PNG), the lossy mode sucks though. Like it only supports a quarter of the colour resolution compared to formats like JPEG.
Also being a video format, it’s not actually tuned to store still images, it likes to blur/smear things.
Edit: But if you’re using it for the intended purpose, low resolution previews, thumbnails and stuff like branding, it’s fine. I wouldn’t use it where quality matters.
webp is fine for web publishing.
I have a problem with websites that use middleware that makes webp masquerade as jpg or png. so when you go to save it locally, it’s a surprise webp.
not only that, webp is a standard that google made and pushed into the web consortium. I explicitly hate anything Google forces on the Internet.
There are many valid criticisms one can make of webp; perhaps discussing the pros and cons. Rather than using those you instead went after it’s name not being linguistically accurate.
A bold strategy cotton.