I have nothing against storing and sharing lossless images. But do it efficiently if you're gonna do it. Showing 10+ images that each weight a lot is not effici

I have nothing against storing and sharing lossless images. But do it efficiently if you're gonna do it. Showing 10+ images that each weight a lot is not efficient. Instead, show the compressed image on the website (as it's limited to 720 width anyways), and add a link to the original. Now everyone is pleased. I downloaded the 1.png file and converted it to a JPG and also diffed the origianl PNG with the JPGs I generated (90% in quality and 80%). - Original PNG: 51M - 95% JPG: 13M - 90% JPG: 9.4M - 80% JPG + interlace + strip Plane: 4.7M Comparing the new versions with the original via the PSNR metric (closer to 1 is better [more similar]): - Original PNG vs Original PNG: 1 (obviously) - Original PNG vs 95% JPG: 0.999465 - Original PNG vs 80% JPG: 0.998611 With other (shorter) words: There is no difference for the consumer (a website visitor) between the two, except one uses more resources (RAM + network) and takes longer to download and the other one doesn't. For the archiver (which you seem to consider more than the website user) there is clearly a difference between lossless and lossy files. But those can be linked instead of rendered directly inline.