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.
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.