File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Yes. It's SH based. (Yes, there was some CS involved.)

Taken in RAW and couldn't find a better way to upload full quality.

What does /p/ think and how could I make this better. (besides the slight points of uniformity with the brushes)
>> Anonymous
hmmm maybe play with the levels a tiny bit to make it a lil brighter, otherwise i like it, very dark dream like
>> Anonymous
>>46691
Isn't the point of it to be dark?
>> Anonymous
>>46690
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Png#Comparison_with_JPEG
>> Raisedead
Not too bad; the brushes make it seem like the perspective is off. I enjoy this type of dark photoography myself quite a bit.
>> Anonymous
>>46716
the copypasta version of this is much more entertaining
>> Anonymous
Needs more zombies.
Very Resident Evil 4-ish..
>> Anonymous
>>46716

>>PNG does not support Exif image data from sources such as digital cameras, which makes it problematic for use amongst amateur and especially professional photographers. TIFF does support it as a lossless format, but is much larger in file size for an equivalent image.
>> Anonymous
Does /p/ really need gif and png uploading capability?
>> des
>>46766
nope
>> Anonymous
>>46716
>>46765
PNG is a great format. The EXIF data issue is not problematic if one shoots in a format that supports EXIF (namely, any) and keeps the file and names the .png accordingly to the original file. If I edit a photograph I shoot past the point of altering the settings on a RAW file, I save copies as a PSD for later editing and a PNG for viewing.

(Don't worry; I convert to a resized JPEG before I post to /p/.)
>> Anonymous
>>46798
>(Don't worry; I convert to a resized JPEG before I post to /p/.)

And bless you for that. I don't have the patience for downloading a 2MB image if it doesn't look like it has loads of potential from the thumb. Especially since almost everybody who posts images that large have boatloads of ISO-grain, no tripod, etc.

Also don't go telling me to get broadband, I've got 24Mbit downstream - 4chan just can't deliver.
>> Anonymous
>>46798
png is a great format, but its just not ideal for photographs. its better than jpeg for certain applications, but for photos jpeg is most definitely the winner
>> ac
>>46820
Not great for sharing photos. Great for editing photos. If you're making a lot of changes to a picture, you don't want to let your JPEG artifacts build up.
>> Anonymous
>>46766
no, /p/ needs RAW uploading capabilities
>> Anonymous
>>46820

No, it IS ideal for photographs, what with no compression and such. What it is not ideal for is the filesizes and thus uploading and downloading pngs.
>> des
>>46830
nope
>> Anonymous
>>46832
do you zoom in 500% when you look at photos people are sharing to look at each pixel? no? save it as a max quality jpeg, or even 10 quality and youll still see very little artifacts. this makes it ideal for sharing photos. also, the way a jpeg and png render color gradients is different. jpeg has a more eye appealing way of doing it, and since photos arent a bunch of sharp color transitions, jpeg actually usually looks nicer, in a subtle way.
>> Anonymous
>>46832
PNG is not ideal. No professional photographers use PNG. They use jpeg, raw, tiff, psd or dng. PNG is good for vector-based images.
>> Anonymous
>>46849
Exactly. Once you have text in an image or simple blocks of colour, use PNG

PNG was designed to be a royalty/patent-free alternative to GIF: lossless compression of small webpage images like headers, buttons and rendered vector images like cartoons, etc. I believe it has NO place in photography.
>> Anonymous
>>46863

Well then you believe wrong.
>> des
>>46869
nope
>>46863
that's pretty much the gist

people trying to get png to replace jpeg or tiff are poorly answering a question no one asked