12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Photo type for website Webp VS JPG

by Mike Sam
10 replies
  • WEB DESIGN
    • |
Hello Everyone, i need some expert help here: I was uploading photos in my website and so many advised to use (webp)format which is a great quality in such small size compared to JPG. But the issue is, i noticed that i can't add a photo description, tags or keywords to the photo info. When i do and save using photoshop it is blank (i checked with other and seem to be, this is the type of photo, no info can be saved). The question is, is it better to use JPG type, add description, tags, keywords and photo info since it will be better for the website SEO or it won't make any difference ?
#jpg #photo #type #webp #website
  • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
    Originally Posted by Mike Sam View Post

    Hello Everyone, i need some expert help here: I was uploading photos in my website and so many advised to use (webp)format which is a great quality in such small size compared to JPG. But the issue is, i noticed that i can't add a photo description, tags or keywords to the photo info. When i do and save using photoshop it is blank (i checked with other and seem to be, this is the type of photo, no info can be saved). The question is, is it better to use JPG type, add description, tags, keywords and photo info since it will be better for the website SEO or it won't make any difference ?
    Not familiar with Webp and always tend to go with JPEG or PNG-24 if l need a transparent background, but l do always scale down after turning it into a Smart Object since it saves as many pixels as possible, then turn it back into JPEG for your site.
    Signature
    Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11756999].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rootanna507
    The size of WebP lossless images is 26% lower than that of PNGs. Comparable JPEG images at an analogous SSIM quality index are 25-34% smaller than WebP lossy images. Transparency (sometimes referred to as the alpha channel) is supported by lossless WebP for just 22% more data.

    JPG is the best between webp vs jpg
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757010].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Sam
    Any particular reason why?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757018].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savidge4
    Originally Posted by Mike Sam View Post

    Hello Everyone, i need some expert help here: I was uploading photos in my website and so many advised to use (webp)format which is a great quality in such small size compared to JPG. But the issue is, i noticed that i can't add a photo description, tags or keywords to the photo info. When i do and save using photoshop it is blank (i checked with other and seem to be, this is the type of photo, no info can be saved). The question is, is it better to use JPG type, add description, tags, keywords and photo info since it will be better for the website SEO or it won't make any difference ?
    The file type was created in 2010 by Google... that being said the transition to its use is a bit spotty ( to say the least ) at this point

    In order to get the tags you are looking for you would ( are required to ) use the <img> tag. even though Webp files suggest the <picture> tag. you would have to program what is called a "fallback" set of image types - meaning if you were to use the <picture> tag you would want to implement a <img> fallback and within the fallback <img> tag you would be able to insert your ALT tags.

    I fond this article that explains this ( https://ole.michelsen.dk/blog/using-...ages-html-css/ )

    As useful as Webp is.. its a bit of a pain. I would say that we are approaching the point that Google will hardcore try to implement this or will basically drop it.

    Is it really worth it? Yeah kinda - if you have the ability to implement the code.
    Signature
    Success is an ACT not an idea
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garybehl
    Both WebP and JPG are common image formats used for websites. WebP provides better compression and smaller file sizes without significant loss in image quality, resulting in faster load times and a better user experience. However, JPG is widely supported across browsers and devices, making it a more compatible option for wider access. Consider your website's specific needs and target audience when deciding between the two formats.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757452].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Elvlin
    webp is better optimized, from size to loading speed. if your site have a lot of picture than better use webp
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757453].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tewelrogers
      Originally Posted by Elvlin View Post

      webp is better optimized, from size to loading speed. if your site have a lot of picture than better use webp
      Maybe I am wrong but I have found a disadvantage of "webp" image format on the internet:
      "An animated WebP image requires higher CPU usage than a GIF image does. The decoding of a lossy WebP image may take 2.2 times longer than that of a GIF image. If the image is lossless-compressed, it takes 1.5 times longer.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757626].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author savidge4
        Originally Posted by tewelrogers View Post

        Maybe I am wrong but I have found a disadvantage of "webp" image format on the internet:
        "An animated WebP image requires higher CPU usage than a GIF image does. The decoding of a lossy WebP image may take 2.2 times longer than that of a GIF image. If the image is lossless-compressed, it takes 1.5 times longer.
        Depends on the end user browser and I would suspect in some cases the server side as well.

        The issue is it ( Webp ) is not a "Universal". its really an outlier at best. as much as it may be a good thing... it simply does not play well straight across the board. I dont think I have ever checked specifically... but how does it play with Apple products? I can imagine not well actually.
        Signature
        Success is an ACT not an idea
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757908].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jduck1979
    Pretty much always jpg/jpeg for photographs and general graphics

    png/gif additional options for things like site logo + button type things

    Had a few memes I've saved off twitter end up being saved in "jfif" format, which Wordpress doesn't seem to like if I try to reuse them on there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757669].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Johns23
    There is no doubt WebP supports metadata, the ability to add information like descriptions and keywords can depend on the specific software you're using to save the image. You can convert it using any online website like cloudconverter that support WebP metadata if preserving this information is crucial for your website.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11757979].message }}

Trending Topics