I’ve literally never seen anyone do that, leave alone this being done “often”.
I’ve literally never seen anyone do that, leave alone this being done “often”.
Cases on the flipside includes developers using JPEG for everything. 100KB highly artifacted illustrations used throughout web layouts, which would be infinitely better as clear 10KB PNGs.
Because cameras and phones give you JPEGs. The common user doesn't shoot RAW. I cannot see any not-highly-technical user convert JPEGs to anything else.
I occasionally archive some imagery from web and while viewing them in Irfan I am frequently confronted with "This image is JPG with .png extension, would you like to rename it?" prompt, without what I'd probably had no idea how frequently this discrepancy occurs.
> All too often I’ve seen people encoding 8MP photos as PNGs...
And now apparently it's some CMS that was doing that... which doesn't make much sense either. Either way this is just such a patently and obviously dumb thing to do that it makes me doubt your experience is anywhere close to being statistically significant.