File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ffs now on /hr/ my fave board we hav the newfag flood coming in
<<< READ THE FUCKING FAIL LIST
>> Anonymous
IRONY
>> Anonymous
>>235082

PNG is for stupid faggots like you who seem to think bloating filesizes for no appreciable gain in image quality, even when there's no transparency, is somehow a good thing.

Go fucking kill yourself you fat nigger cunt. And lern2spel.
>> Anonymous
>>235097
PNG is a very good file type for certain situations, although the OP is most definitely DOING IT WRONG.
>> Anonymous
>>235097
That's why it says "(when appropriate)"
learn2read
>> Anonymous
>>235105
i think their whole point is that your particular usage is not "appropriate" and you are a "worthless shit"
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
over 4 fucking megs. and if you zoom you can see that its from a compressed image originally anyway. the difference between yours and mine is way past negligible, it's literally undetectable without deliberate scrutiny. congratulations.
>> Anonymous
>>235108

Winrar!
>> Anonymous
>>235108
why do you think you get such nice compression rate, lossy is lossy, if Op could have gotten lossless images from the beginning there would be no room for comparison beetween your 2 images, now if you want to keep your little alpha-channel-lesss, lossy, artifacted file type, sure, go ahead and look like an idiot when you ask "how do I failed tiff"
>> Anonymous
>>235134
I think if OP uploaded the original Colbert pic you'd see that what gave him the huge filesize is the text. so yeah... OP is a hipocrate.
>> Anonymous
I blame /hr/'s fail on the influx of /wg/'s shit.
>> Anonymous
>>235134
We should be able to upload TIFFs. Sometimes neither JPG and PNG cut it.
>> Anonymous
Also, watermarks on porn is sometimes acceptable, but then again, we need an /hrp/ board anyway.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i blame /hr/ fail on all the halo asswipes who think that 1080x720 is /hr/
>> Anonymous
>>235134
youre a seriously dumb shit if you think a lossless version of this image would look any different, even on a huge monitor, without zooming to 500%
poor bastard
>> Anonymous
>>235134
How does that change the fact that a jpg is obviously better for posting the OP's image? You're really looking for points to make where there are none, buddy.
>> Anonymous
>>235108

Fail
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>235108

Artifacts ohoy!
>> Anonymous
op image is watermarked
see bottom right
>> Anonymous
Perhaps everyone in here does not recognize irony.

Also, don't forget fags who just upload some crappy picture they took with their digital camera just because the resolution is 2048x1534 set for printer size.
>> Anonymous
PNG files = automatic failure.
>> Spin The Black Circle !ZV9v1et5Mk
>>235356
saying "PNG files = automatic failure." = AUTOMATIC FUCKING FAILURE


...you ignorant fuck.
>> Anonymous
>>235398
No, he's right.

PNGs are auto failure.
>> Anonymous
>>235356
>>235400
obviously, same idiort
>> Anonymous
>>235400
post count ends with 00 => auto failure. amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>235404
Nope.

But he's right. PNGs suck.
>> Anonymous
>>235108
The differance is his fucking png has nice crisp text and didnt add a second layer a fucking artifacts when he saved it again.
>> Anonymous
>>235242
im going to assume youre too worthless to know what deliberate scrutiny means. if you care that you can zoom in and find artifacts on a picture of stephen colbert with text over it, you have bigger issues than the ones we're discussing. come back when youre doing graphic design for some product, silly kid.
>> Anonymous
ITT, /b/tards who just discovered that they can save-as formats other than JPG with their pirated copy of Photoshop, and now think there's never a reason not to use PNG.
>> Anonymous
Lossless = win.
>> Anonymous
>>235469
Ive been using .PNG in MSpaint for years :P

Fixed: ITT general tards who need to GTFO of photoshop
>> Anonymous
PNG = lossless = win. However, using lossless for photos = fail unless you have a damn good reason.
>> Anonymous
Good work you found artifacts on a non-lossless image... only after zooming to 481%.
>> Anonymous
>>235480
Asshat, the zoom was for emphasis, and because some of you people have shitty screens. I can see the artifacts when it is normal size and even when I zoom out to 75%.
>> Anonymous
Also, /hr/ is all about large images with high quality, so why not keep what quality you have rather than ruining it more and more.
>> Anonymous
>>235481
if you're that concerned about artifacts, you can save it as a 2.5mb jpeg where the artifacts are only visible at 1600% and still have approx 50% filesize
>> Anonymous
>>235497
since when does /hr/ specify you have to edit and resave every image before you upload it, gb2 /p/
>> Anonymous
>>235510
Well typically pictures dont just come with allegedly witty text on them, also pretty much all images can benifit from a bit of editing.
>> Anonymous
ITT: fail
OP here, you do realise this isnt even my picture to start off with, i did not make this, im just saying, there is so much fucking fail on here, mainly to do with 1024 x anything, i dont give a fuck about the background picture of my post, read the text in the thumbnail you fucking jews if ur internet is so fucking shit you cant download 4mb from /b/ in like 3 seconds
>> Anonymous
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>> Anonymous
>>235559
>ITT: fail
OP here, you do realise this isnt even my picture to start off with, i did not make this, im just saying, there is so much fucking fail on here, mainly to do with 1024 x anything, i dont give a fuck about the background picture of my post, read the text in the thumbnail you fucking jews if ur internet is so fucking shit you cant download 4mb from /b/ in like 3 seconds

This isn't /b/.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I AM the creator of that pic and i lol at this thread.