Sankaku Channel/ポスト4669487

If saved as jpg it'd be under 1.5MB... I'll never understand why people needlessly make stuff png.

Because a master or original image in png is much better for manipulation than a jpeg one. You can think of it as a raw.

JPEG is a lossy format and repeated re-encoding will make the quality deteriorate.

What happens if someone modified a jpeg image, and then saved it as jepg again? What if he wanted to modify that saved image for a second time? Compression artifacts will start piling up and all he will be left with is an ugly image.

PNG -> JPEG = good
JPEG -> JPEG = bad

While I feel Rinfinite is correct, I'm curious as to what "lossy" means...

Vitali said:
While I feel Rinfinite is correct, I'm curious as to what "lossy" means...

Like this?

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Photographic_Experts_Group#/media/File:Webp_-_Jpeg_-_Lossless_comparative.png

I think we all agree that .JPEG is not a good format, if you want quality pictures.

JPG can be a good format if you encode it in 100% quality, but even then - errors will pile up due to compressing.