I produce html emails on a regular basis in my work.

Recently I've been baffled by the number of promotional emails I receive which use jpeg for images which would be far better served by a png or even a gif.

I've attached some examples from big name brands in the UK: ebay, Cotswolds (an outdoor clothing company) and The Guardian. They all include images with large areas of flat colour that would show less quality degredation/artefacting and have smaller file sizes if they had been saved as a png. Cotswolds even have their logo saved as a jpeg!

Is there a reason I'm not aware of that digitally savvy companies would use jpeg in these circumstances?

As far as I am aware, png is well supported in all major email clients these days. I understand using a jpeg for a photograph - but not a logo.

enter image description here

EDIT: With regards to file size, it is a misconception that jpeg is smaller.

For image like these (with large areas of flat colour), png will have a smaller file size. Jpeg was designed for photographs.

I saved an image of this style as a png, and a jpeg at the lowest file size possible via photoshop. The png is only 13.7kb. The jpeg is 20kb. The png is around 30% smaller.

JPG enter image description here

closed as off-topic by Stephen Ostermiller Oct 25 '17 at 16:47

  • This question does not appear to be about webmastering within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I'm closing this question as off-topic because it is not about running your website. – Stephen Ostermiller Oct 25 '17 at 16:47
  • "png is well supported in all major email clients these days" - I think you may have answered your own question. Yes, PNG is supported by "major [read: modern] email clients", but for legacy support you may still need to resort to JPGs. Depends on your target audience. – MrWhite Oct 26 '17 at 11:03

Typically a jpeg is smaller in file size. With a jpeg you can select the level of compression however this can sometimes degrade the image.

I only use png images when I wish the image to have a transparent background as it is lossless, therefore larger in file size. Using jpeg for for an image produces a smaller file meaning it is faster to load.

  • Agreed with Matthew, jpg is generally the goto format for optimised solutions not just on emails but on web too. PNG's I tend to use for transparency or on images i require a greater quality for and the cost/size of the files don't matter – Randomer11 Oct 25 '17 at 15:41
  • 2
    I have to disagree here. png and jpeg are designed for different uses. I have edited my post to include some pictures I created for comparisons sake. The png is 30% smaller in file size. – Rhys Mills Oct 25 '17 at 15:47
  • You can go much smaller with both file types in your comparison. The PNG should be below 4kb really with no quality loss. Like this : i.imgur.com/xLv7XJ3.png But you are correct images have different compatible compressions for file type usage. – Randomer11 Oct 25 '17 at 15:58
  • You're not wrong when you say they could be smaller in png, this is why I state this is typically the case. Most people who produce content for the web will only be aware of the basics of compression. I would imagine they've used jpeg because they've been told that's what you should use for the web without knowing any fundamentals behind the technology. – Matthew Jasek Oct 25 '17 at 16:02

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.