Return to Answer

I usually save image in Progressive.

I have never experienced/heard drawbacks or rendering problems. And even if some very old browser might not render the progressive effect, they still finally render the image, so not a big issue.

Progressive jpeg are usually smaller in size than the same image without progressive.

I.e. an 8K (max quality) jpg image could easily become a 6K (still max quality) when Progressive is adopted and without loosing a pixel of definition.

Moreover, with image editors like Photoshop, saving an image as jpg Progressive takes nothing (it's just a checkbox in the window that appears when using the "Save As" command), so I usually do it.

I usually save images as progressive.

I have never experienced or heard of drawbacks or rendering problems. And even if some very old browser might not render the progressive effect, they still finally render the image, so it is not a big issue.

Progressive JPEG images are usually smaller in size than the same image without progressive.

For example, an 8K (max quality) JPG image could easily become a 6K (still max quality) when progressive is adopted and without losing a pixel of definition.

Moreover, with image editors like Photoshop, saving an image as JPG progressive takes nothing (it's just a checkbox in the window that appears when using the "Save As" command), so I usually do it.

I usually save image in Progressive.

I have never experinced/heard drawbacks or rendering problems. And even if some major old browsers might not render the progressive effect, they still finally render the image, so not a big issue.

Progressive jpeg are usually smaller in size than the same image without progressive.

I.e. an 8K (max quality) jpg image could easily become a 6K (still max quality) when Progressive is adopted and without loosing a pixel of definition.

Moreover, with image editors like Photoshop, saving an image as jpg Progressive takes nothing (it's just a checkbox in the window that appears when using the "Save As" command), so I usually do it.

I usually save image in Progressive.

I have never experienced/heard drawbacks or rendering problems. And even if some very old browser might not render the progressive effect, they still finally render the image, so not a big issue.

Progressive jpeg are usually smaller in size than the same image without progressive.

I.e. an 8K (max quality) jpg image could easily become a 6K (still max quality) when Progressive is adopted and without loosing a pixel of definition.

Moreover, with image editors like Photoshop, saving an image as jpg Progressive takes nothing (it's just a checkbox in the window that appears when using the "Save As" command), so I usually do it.

I usually save image in Progressive.

I have never experinced/heard drawbacks or renedering problems. And even if some major old browsers might not render the progressive effect, they still finally render the image, so not a big issue.

Progressive jpeg are usually smaller in size than the same image without progressive.

I.e. an 8K (max quality) jpg image could easily become a 6K (still max quality) when Progressive is adopted and without loosing a pixel of definition.

I know on broadband it won't make a big difference on the overall rendering time of the page. But, with image editors like Photoshop, saving an image as jpg Progressive takes nothing, so I usually do it.

I usually save image in Progressive.

I have never experinced/heard drawbacks or rendering problems. And even if some major old browsers might not render the progressive effect, they still finally render the image, so not a big issue.

Progressive jpeg are usually smaller in size than the same image without progressive.

I.e. an 8K (max quality) jpg image could easily become a 6K (still max quality) when Progressive is adopted and without loosing a pixel of definition.

Moreover, with image editors like Photoshop, saving an image as jpg Progressive takes nothing (it's just a checkbox in the window that appears when using the "Save As" command), so I usually do it.