Yes, it mostly "blocks" of colors, it's not like a photograph if that's what you mean.
So go for PNG 24 over JPG? What are the differences?
Just got logo designed and delivered in .ai format. Is this fine?
- Thread starter UnripeArbiter
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it mostly "blocks" of colors, it's not like a photograph if that's what you mean.
So go for PNG 24 over JPG? What are the differences?
A good logo designer always works in vectors, in AI preferably. They should then deliver the logo in several formats to you, typically AI, EPS, layered PSD, PDF, PNG, JPG, etc. etc. If I'm making a logo that I know will be used in both web and print, I create two or three verisons of that logo in RGB (screen), CMYK (process) and PMS (Pantone) colour spaces.
A logo usually doesn't have any fonts in it once completed. They should be converted to outlines so that there aern't any issues with viewing it on a computer that doesn't have that font, or alternatively a different version of the font or program (older or newer version of AI for example) so that it gets converted and changed. Delivering a version of the logo with fonts as suggested might be a good idea though.
PNG24 is a 24 bit lossless format that supports transparency. The downside is that it is typically significantly larger than a JPG or GIF. Transparency support in IE6 doesn't exist either, you have to use a hack to make it work. Otherwise transparent areas appear grey.
JPG is a lossy format, and the more you compress it, the more data it loses. Artifacts will start appearing and will get progressively worse the more it is compressed.
It's not "stupid" to suggest JPG for the web. There are plenty of times where a JPG will work just as well or better than a PNG, where transparency isn't an issue and where file size is important. The header above here on WF is a JPG for example. It weighs in at less than 20k. If it were a PNG it would probably be 80-100k.
A logo usually doesn't have any fonts in it once completed. They should be converted to outlines so that there aern't any issues with viewing it on a computer that doesn't have that font, or alternatively a different version of the font or program (older or newer version of AI for example) so that it gets converted and changed. Delivering a version of the logo with fonts as suggested might be a good idea though.
PNG24 is a 24 bit lossless format that supports transparency. The downside is that it is typically significantly larger than a JPG or GIF. Transparency support in IE6 doesn't exist either, you have to use a hack to make it work. Otherwise transparent areas appear grey.
JPG is a lossy format, and the more you compress it, the more data it loses. Artifacts will start appearing and will get progressively worse the more it is compressed.
It's not "stupid" to suggest JPG for the web. There are plenty of times where a JPG will work just as well or better than a PNG, where transparency isn't an issue and where file size is important. The header above here on WF is a JPG for example. It weighs in at less than 20k. If it were a PNG it would probably be 80-100k.
What you mean this on that's on the RevGate theme I'm looking at? >> http://www.wickedfire.com/images/wf/misc/wflogo2.png
crystal fucking clear weighing in at just over 50kb.
If you want to push file size, you're going to lose the argument as we both know that gif format will win hands down with a vector original. The only reason jpgs get so small is because of the compression which kills the finished product. If you ask me, I'll take quality artwork over a few kb any day of the week.
But hey, you're totally welcome to keep livin' in the 90's.
On the default theme it's a JPG...
and yes, you can see some artifacts. However, if that were a gif, it would look way worse because of the gradients and not necessarily be any smaller. File size isn't as much of an issue these days, but shouldn't be disregarded especially on high traffic sites with lots of graphics.
That being said, I personally do use PNGs most of the time.
You can drop the superiority complex though, I've been designing for the web since you were 7. I offered a bit of info and advice on file formats, take it or leave it but don't be a cunt about it.
and yes, you can see some artifacts. However, if that were a gif, it would look way worse because of the gradients and not necessarily be any smaller. File size isn't as much of an issue these days, but shouldn't be disregarded especially on high traffic sites with lots of graphics.
That being said, I personally do use PNGs most of the time.
You can drop the superiority complex though, I've been designing for the web since you were 7. I offered a bit of info and advice on file formats, take it or leave it but don't be a cunt about it.
Quite possibly, but it could be better as a GIF. Without seeing the logo it's a bit hard to say.
Just curious, are most of you guys using the native tools of your illustration/photo software to create optimized web images or perhaps a better suited standalone program or plugin?
When do you use CMYK and do you convert your Pantone colors to CMYK before sending to print?
Agree
Just another example of the piece of shit that is IE. It would be so nice to be able to use transparent shadows on the web.
There are plenty of times a GIF is better. There is no best for everything. You could always use an SVG file, if you really wanted to.
CMYK is for full colour offset printing (cyan, magenta, yellow, black), like for a magazine or colour newspaper ad. Pantone is for spot colour printing, which is using specialized ink colours for things like merchandise, tshirts, some people's business cards, etc. The two (three including the RGB) are independent of one another and a file set up for one shouldn't be used for the other. This is especially true for corporate applications where company colour matching is imperative. Pantone puts out an extensive line of swatch books for matching RGB, CMYK and PMS to each other on both glossy and matte papers. If you do a lot of design work then they are an excellent resource. If all you had was a PMS logo though, you could convert it to CMYK or RGB, but the results might not be ideal.
As I said, there are some fixes for the problem. Supersleight comes to mind 24 ways: Transparent PNGs in Internet Explorer 6, and this one... IE PNG Fix - TwinHelix
Here's a blog link that discusses these and a couple more including a CSS fix I've not tried PNG Transparency Fix in IE6 They're not 100% fool proof (sometimes links are flaky for example). Experiment and find the one best for you.
I agree. There's not one answer to all problems. Going around calling people stupid for suggesting using JPGs isn't cool.
To answer Jizzlobber's question, I use Photoshop for all my image slicing and optimization. Some guys I've worked with really prefer Fireworks though.
I use Illustrator for logos because they should be created in vectors for maximum flexibility. There's nothing worse than getting a small flattened Photoshop file of a company's logo when you have to prepare a large print ad or even better, a bus ad or billboard.
I also use Illustrator for site prototyping just because I find it quick to move things around and resize them and whatnot. I'll then move to Photoshop for the finishing.
so kids.. the basic idea, is only use a .jpg as a final file format. Do all your work that needs to scale for different banner sizes in svg (.ai, .cdr, .eps, etc) Convert what ever is necessary in a master lossless format (tiff) for archive. Then, don't get crazy with the compression settings, and then when saving to .jpg, use the "save for web", or other way to elimnate the need for a self stored thumbnail.
If you've got the money, Photoshop and illustrator are the tools of choice.
If you don't have the money, GIMP, and Inkscape are free and good enough to do almost the same exact jobs.
If you've got the money, Photoshop and illustrator are the tools of choice.
If you don't have the money, GIMP, and Inkscape are free and good enough to do almost the same exact jobs.
The only issue with saving a vector image to jpg is when you have an image that must blend with the theme colors.
You don't convert your PMS to CMYK before sending to print shop do you? Then there are all the colors that are spot, but not PMS like Coke Red. There are a lot of press jobs that are strictly spot, but then this going beyond original post eh? And then you have the hate-hate/blame game relationships between art, pre-press and press where.
Jizz, I would cut and paste it into your template, then slice it and save it as a JPG/GIF/PNG.
Dew, we got a bit off topic yeah, but no, you typically would not convert a PMS file to CMYK.
Dew, we got a bit off topic yeah, but no, you typically would not convert a PMS file to CMYK.
Yeah, it get that way sometimes. I have about years and years of pre-press experience and could tell you some art/print horror stories. :updown:
Agreed, just commenting on cases where outsourced images are to be placed in existing themes.
How about artwork that was sketched out on a napkin at a restaurant by a salesperson with little arrows pointing to red, blue, etc. LOL
Likewise, I've been doing print work for about 13 years... lots of freelance, but I've also worked for a couple different magazines and have sent hundreds of magazines ads to other publishers as well. I've had a couple major screw ups in that time that I will never forget
In my defense for supporting PNG, the OP did say it was a LOGO and not some random image. As for the wicked fire logo, I do not consider the shadowing as part of the logo. It is only there to enhance the logo. Look at coca-cola, look at the Pepsi yin-yang thing, look at just about any other brand logo and you'll see what I mean. Here's a quick example: Corporate Identity, Trademarks, Branding and Logo Design
I think we can agree that the standard logo generally uses blocks of color and little to no gradients. But if you really want to have gradients and pictures of cats in your logo, then you should probably use a JPG.
I think we can agree that the standard logo generally uses blocks of color and little to no gradients. But if you really want to have gradients and pictures of cats in your logo, then you should probably use a JPG.
I woiuld agree that logos typically are simple, usually without gradient, photos, etc. It is nice to now have PNG files supported, at least somewhat in browsers now. It is unfortunate as it always been the IE chooses to basically do their own thing in regards to conforming or following the W3C. Still without seeing it it's pretty hard to determine the propper format.
*Sigh* All the arguing over saying jpeg is stupid...
It's stupid to assume there's only one right format for the web, you pick the format that suits the need.
Design elements such as borders, trims, and other things especially if gradient and need transparency is png-24 as a no brainer. Flat logos, backgrounds and such can be jpg to optimize for load time, and you can tweak the compression as seen fit. Gif if you need some backward compatibility with older browsers, otherwise png-8 works just as fine for transparent elements. (otherwise you get an ugly grey with IE6, and people still use it apparently).
So the suggestion is not stupid, the notion that one answer is always wrong is stupid however.
And if he gets the .ai, well shiat, he can just convert later if another need comes up.
It's stupid to assume there's only one right format for the web, you pick the format that suits the need.
Design elements such as borders, trims, and other things especially if gradient and need transparency is png-24 as a no brainer. Flat logos, backgrounds and such can be jpg to optimize for load time, and you can tweak the compression as seen fit. Gif if you need some backward compatibility with older browsers, otherwise png-8 works just as fine for transparent elements. (otherwise you get an ugly grey with IE6, and people still use it apparently).
So the suggestion is not stupid, the notion that one answer is always wrong is stupid however.
And if he gets the .ai, well shiat, he can just convert later if another need comes up.
- Status