Progressive JPEGs for web photos - do or don't like?

[maderito]

Opinions wanted . . .

Many image editing applications like PS allow you to save files as "progressive" JPEGs. When subsequently viewed by a web browser, the image is first loaded in low resolution which then gradually sharpens to full resolution.

When browsing photo images, I definitely like standard JPEGs which either pop directly into the web browser window or load line-by-line from top to bottom - depending on the file size and internet connection speed.

When the images are in progressive format, I'm sometimes confused whether I'm looking at a bad image or an image that simply has not been fully loaded. I find it hinders efficient browsing. Maybe I'm impatient. :confused:

I may be wrong, but it seems that progressive JPEGS load in steps from low to final resolution, even if the entire image could be displayed quickly. This method of bringing the image into focus I find distracting - even if happens quickly. My eyes don't usually work that way.

Progressive JPEGs may have their uses for some types of web page presentations - but I'm not in favor of their use for photography images.

Having said all that, I do occasionally enjoy Flash presentations that present images progressively. However, when I load up a Flash presentation, my expectation is that I'll be doing more waiting than viewing. So mostly, I avoid Flash presentations unless the artistry is compelling.

Anyone have thoughts?

[sdommin]

When the images are in progressive format, I'm sometimes confused whether I'm looking at a bad image or an image that simply has not been fully loaded. I find it hinders efficient browsing. Maybe I'm impatient.

I never thought about it much, but I agree. On progressive JPGs, your viewer is looking at your picture and forming opinions about it well before the final image is presented. I've found myself wondering about the image quality of a given photo, then realizing the image isn't complete yet.

[PacAce]

For me I could go either way. When I'm browsing, say, the Shares forum, I'd rather have the images displayed in progressive mode. Since I'm still using dial-up, I don't really want to be waiting around for a full rez image to form in front of me before I can decide whether I should move on or not. With a non-progressive image, I'm so impatient that if after 10 to 15 seconds I only have less than a quarter of the image displayed, I'll click Stop and move on to the next topic. However, if the low rez version was displayed first within that 15 seconds, then I'll have a better idea of whether it'll be worth it for me to wait a little longer so that I can take a better look at the final image.

[Scottes]

I don't like progressive JPGs.

[pradeep1]

For me I could go either way. When I'm browsing, say, the Shares forum, I'd rather have the images displayed in progressive mode. Since I'm still using dial-up, I don't really want to be waiting around for a full rez image to form in front of me before I can decide whether I should move on or not. With a non-progressive image, I'm so impatient that if after 10 to 15 seconds I only have less than a quarter of the image displayed, I'll click Stop and move on to the next topic. However, if the low rez version was displayed first within that 15 seconds, then I'll have a better idea of whether it'll be worth it for me to wait a little longer so that I can take a better look at the final image.

I see your reasoning here PacAce, but unfortunately, you seem to be in the minority here on this forum. :( :p

I like standard one-time-load JPGs. They don't force the user to make any assumptions of the quality. I've made the same mistake sdommin has made when viewing others' work.

[robertwgross]

When I am the person browsing, I prefer progressive JPEG files. If it is a big standard file, and if I have to sit there for a minute or two for the entire transfer before I can tell if there is really anything there, that is a problem. With progressive, I see the first view quicker, and then it progressively sharpens until I see the whole thing correctly.

---Bob Gross---

[PacAce]

I see your reasoning here PacAce, but unfortunately, you seem to be in the minority here on this forum. :( :p

I like standard one-time-load JPGs. They don't force the user to make any assumptions of the quality. I've made the same mistake sdommin has made when viewing others' work.
OK, kindly explain this to me as it seem very illogical to me. If you have a broadband, then downloading the images should not be an issue, right? It should be almost instantaneous, right? Then why will a progressive image be any different from a regular image. Or are you saying that the progressive image downloads take a lot longer than regular image....so much longer, in fact, that you'll have time to wonder if the image has completed downloading or not? I can see this happening for a dial-up but not for a broadband. Or did I misunderstand you completely. Were you talking about dial-up users?

[Avalonthas]

I oly like progressive Jpegs when ur doing high resolution work, such as reviewing satelite footage as it is much better for that type of work, however in terms of photography and wbe viewing, etc, i prefer standard jpegs, as they load almost instantaneouly for me anyways.