I have had a logo designed in the .tif format - its very large and hi-res

can you please suggest, that if i reduce it size by 2/3rds what is the best format to rename it to for my website.

ie .gif / .jpg etc. Id like the best quality available for web as would like it to look clean and prominent.

 

thanks alot

 

Loz

It would depend how complex the colours are.

Gif would give you the smallest file size but won't be any good for complex colours.

Jpg might be the best bet but if you want it to have a transparent background, that won't work either.

Png will give you transparency, good colour but a large file size.

As I say, it depends on the logo.

Have a play and see what they look like.

gifs = images with large areas of flat colour

jpg = images with lots of variation in colour.. photos for example

png = where you need levels of transparency.

 

A proper logo (as opposed to one of those bevelled gradienty swooshed pieces of crap you get for £20) would usually be best suited for gif.

I would suggest PNG for nice quality logos.

I would suggest JPG for high quality, photo's

I would suggest GIF for medium quality logo's with a small file size.

People who say that you cannot make a logo look good with a .gif file, are wrong. I'd say a logo looks best if it looks good with .gif. That means it is simple (not too many colors, no fancy transparencies, etc.) but effective. I always try to make my logos as .gif.

 

But this isn't a rule, just my opinion. And of course some web designs/printed mediums/companies/whatever need very varying logos, so sometimes you will need those fancy thingies.

People who say that you cannot make a logo look good with a .gif file, are wrong. I'd say a logo looks best if it looks good with .gif. That means it is simple (not too many colors, no fancy transparencies, etc.) but effective. I always try to make my logos as .gif.

 

But this isn't a rule, just my opinion. And of course some web designs/printed mediums/companies/whatever need very varying logos, so sometimes you will need those fancy thingies.

 

pretty much as above.

 

png for transparency

jpeg for photos

gif for no transparent colours and text

 

what's happening with jpeg2000 anyone know - supported by browsers? transparency?

 

I read somewhere recently that .gif format should really be replaced with .png as it offers more clarity and power with transparency. Lets face it - the only reason we still use gif's is because a lot of computer illiterates haven't upgraded internet explorer for 5-6 years! lol

 

PNG all the way. That way - when your really complex layered transparency dependent design breaks in IE. 6 - you can tell people it's because they have a crap browser and they shoud upgrade to one not made by microsoft! hehehe

 

(Sorry couldnt resist)

 

Paul.

IPNG all the way. That way - when your really complex layered transparency dependent design breaks in IE. 6 - you can tell people it's because they have a crap browser and they shoud upgrade to one not made by microsoft! hehehe

 

One site I did a long time ago had a mid-grey background. I put (with the site owner's consent) a png with transparency on it that read "Your browser sucks".. couldn't see it on IE. It didn't show up at all against the grey background.

 

That's about when I realised I was a geek

Lets face it - the only reason we still use gif's is because a lot of computer illiterates haven't upgraded internet explorer for 5-6 years! lol

 

When it gets really bad, is when one of your clients asks you, "is it supposed to look like that?", and you realise he's viewing your developmental mock-up site in IE 5.5

More ideas about file format please visit to http://www.web-design-edge.com/our-blog/we...our-website/25/

 

Well I'm a big JPG guy. But that's me. Gif's have their place as do PNGs. I think the big thing with PNG's is that they used to be from Macromedia Fireworks but now they are showing up all over the place. I heard about the JPG2000's but that was a few years ago. Knowing how these browsers are slow to take hold of new things, I don't expect new formats to really come into play for a few years after they emerge.

 

I would suggest having your logo saves in a tiff, jpg, gif and png and pdf format so that you have many different versions for different mediums. I know a lot of printers want it in a acrobat pdf.

 

Hey any chance you can sneak us a peak of your logo? B)

I think the big thing with PNG's is that they used to be from Macromedia Fireworks but now they are showing up all over the place.

 

Nah, PNGs follow an International standard and are nothing to do with Macromedia other than Fireworks (now Adobe Fireworks) uses them as it's default format.

 

PNGs only really came about as a replacement for the GIF format due to patent issues with Compuserve / Unisys.

Oh good to know!

Lets face it - the only reason we still use gif's is because a lot of computer illiterates haven't upgraded internet explorer for 5-6 years! lol

 

PNG all the way. That way - when your really complex layered transparency dependent design breaks in IE. 6 - you can tell people it's because they have a crap browser and they shoud upgrade to one not made by microsoft! hehehe

 

(Sorry couldnt resist)

 

Paul.

 

I agree PNG 24bit is the best format for transparency and has great quality overall but we can't just make sites for people using specific browsers. But no worries because there is a PNG hack. So you can use the png transparency in IE6 with JavaScript and CSS.

 

here is one of the many sites that explain it.

PNG hack

PNG every time. I would never use gif's for anything. If you use an 8bit PNG (No alpha transparency) then there are no cross browser issues (except maybe in IE 5, but it is about 8 years old). Also as someone said above, you can use the alpha transparency .CSS hack (with 24 bit PNG's).