Artists are not going to ever save their work into jpeg because it blurs the image time and time again over simple formatting mistakes and looks shoddy to them. They will continue to use png because they can revise the resolution of the image without it losing quality as fast as jpeg, and it will print out better for random people who want to save the image and print thousands of miles away. They will care about that stranger who wants a random print out of their art way more than any website or data storage you are responsible for. Should that stranger be printing a png? If they have a good printer, sure! If not, its probably going to be fine if the printer is cymk needing to convert rgb imagery born in human brushstrokes.

Lets be clear: A digital illustration is not a photo. A digital illustration is not a photo. A digital illustration. Is. Not. A. Photo. They do not have the same properties. Jpeg is great for photos! It actually sucks for frequently for printing digital art, and the file size of a properly formatted for printing higher resolution jpeg is still technically "large" by the standards of many computers, and artists will not create 4 seperate files to cater to your feelings unless you pay them. This tragedy can be prevented in a few ways.

Really, if youre on this can of beans again you should have talked about the superior choice of PDF, PSD and TIFF up there too.

Its taboo to critique in art world without also making the suggestions to the correct path for revision. But its also taboo to like furry art and save as a jpeg :3

Okay, if you're really looking for yet another argument then let's do this.

"Artists are not going to ever save their work into jpeg because it blurs the image time and time again over simple formatting mistakes and looks shoddy to them."

Why are they saving it "time and time again" in order to achieve the effect you describe, and what trash heap shovelware are they using that does not give them control over the compression level?

"They will continue to use png because they can revise the resolution of the image without it losing quality as fast as jpeg"

Once upon a time, SOP was to use a high resolution master file rather than repeatedly put an image through the compression wringer.

"it will print out better for random people who want to save the image and print thousands of miles away"

1: Who, in 2026, is doing this? 2: Why would an artist want to distribute print quality images without compensation? 3: No matter what the file format, raster graphics always become more grainy the more you upscale them (AI upscaling notwithstanding, and AI is a whole other can of worms in these parts), and the only way you can upload anything approaching a print-resolution image to FA is via an exploit. That is not what this site is for.

"They will care about that stranger who wants a random print out of their art way more than any website or data storage you are responsible for."

Where I'm from, we have a saying: "Don't shit where you eat." If you use the site, don't actively contribute to shutting it down. Besides arguing in support of a thing that does not actually happen, you're advocating a massive technological and financial overhead that are entirely capable of collapsing the local environment (site) to that end. I feel like I've heard some very noisy complaints about almost that exact issue somewhere before...

"Should that stranger be printing a png? If they have a good printer, sure!"

Again, who is this extremely hypothetical entity, and why is the artist transforming them from a potential income stream into a very real burden on the entire platform? The logic and ethics of this are baffling to me.

"If not, its probably going to be fine if the printer is cymk needing to convert rgb imagery born in human brushstrokes."

Cool. We're still catering to a very hypothetical fan with an anachronistic paper fetish and pockets deep enough for printing but not for paying artists, we're doing it wrong in at least two ways, and we're dragging everyone else into our vain fantasy.

"Lets be clear: A digital illustration is not a photo. A digital illustration is not a photo. A digital illustration. Is. Not. A. Photo."

This argument would be valid if it had any actual effect on file sizes, but in reality you're trying to drive home a complete irrelevance. A computer doesn't care whether the image came from a camera, a brush, or a tablet. That is a purely human aesthetic distinction. Compression is basically a function of fields, boundaries, and gradients. Even a simple gradient gives PNG indigestion, and the few otherwise suitable images for the format are almost universally slapped with a gradient background that inflates efficient compression into a multi-megabyte monolith.

"Jpeg is great for photos! It actually sucks for frequently for printing digital art, and the file size of a properly formatted for printing higher resolution jpeg is still technically "large" by the standards of many computers,"

Again, who is printing this, and why is this the default distribution?

"the file size of a properly formatted for printing higher resolution jpeg is still technically "large" by the standards of many computers,"

A boulder is large. A mountain is also large. Therefore, it is best to add mountains to your yard as landscape features.

"artists will not create 4 seperate files to cater to your feelings unless you pay them."

Oh, now we're looking for pay, for two minutes of file management after hours to weeks of artistic effort? Invalid.

"Really, if youre on this can of beans again you should have talked about the superior choice of PDF, PSD and TIFF up there too"

Formats not supported on this (or, in two of the three cases, any) site, you mean.

"Its taboo to critique in art world without also making the suggestions to the correct path for revision. But its also taboo to like furry art and save as a jpeg :3 "

I'm pretty sure I was clear about "the correct path," but if I need to spell it out and extrapolate, then I will.

-GIF for low-colour images with solid blocks of colour and sharp edges.
-JPEG for gradients and/or high complexity images.
-PNG if—and only if—tested and found to be a rare case where file size is maybe only 300% that of a nearly identical high-quality JPEG or GIF.
-Keep an appropriate high resolution work file, and use that for prints, should you find the occasion.
-Keep several copies across multiple discrete pieces of storage media, actually. If you can't bear the idea of artefacting that can't be spotted without flipping back and forth between compressed and uncompressed versions under magnification, then just wait until the work you avoided by not hitting 'Save' twice turns the only copy you can find of your masterpiece into an upscaled thumbnail that somebody happened to save at 90% quality for their F-list account.
-This is a furry art community, not a goddamned print shop.

As to "saving as a JPEG," you actually have to save then convert—a step which you have already declared to be excessive effort for artists, and entirely missing the point that a popular artist's 5Mb PNG can quickly turn into 5Gb of bandwidth on a site which currently displays over 100,000 users currently online and hosts tens of millions of images in any case. This amounts to an estimated 26.4TB of transfer per day, with typical CDN prices ranging from $5-$10/TB, for a conservative estimate of $50,000 per year plus other operational costs. How much ad revenue do you think they're making? But sure, let's pretend that sloth, pride and gluttony are the righteous path, and anybody who says otherwise clearly has no idea what they're talking about and should be patronized at accordingly.

Now, I am not looking to have a suuuuper long debate and I appreciate your info, but it does not change these cores/didnt address points that would be obvious to anyone actually making digital art or selling it as opposed to photography, crafts, or traditional painting:

-artists do not want their work compressed to the point of shoddy details appearing, and unfortunately JPEGS will compress *and* wreck lineart, and a PNG is safer, frequently. Too many users here value crisp lineart to even think of looking in the direction of a JPEG. If your original device you made the artwork on blows up or is stolen, a PNG file format also means that you can avoid lost time (into money) on the piece salvaged online, and still being high quality with no quality deterioration if it was uploaded as a PNG. A JPEG does sadly have restrictions on how many times it can be re-download and then uploaded without it looking "bad". This is because JPEG is inferior at curves and sharp lines. If you make it higher resolution, it can then still be similar in file size to a PNG anyways, so there is *no point* to have two files be both 1MB, 3MB, 5MB and so on if you can choose to preserve work quality with one.

---As mentioned, artists do not want to work with lossy file types that ruin their lineart, sharp edges or curves even if the image has been compressed dramatically. Since we *know* JPEG files deteriorate digital artworks but not necessarily photographs, the distinction of the two *does* matter, and it is curious that you implied they dont. The P in JPEG is for "Photo". Not "Painting" or "Graphic". If you go to school for web design or fine art, this is not really up for debate. Painting=/= photo even if defined as "image". Users should still save a PNG, and upload a JPEG where able, but that brings us back to the end of the above point: what if you lose access to the png? Lossless is specifically encouraged over lossy due to us not living in a Utopia. A "photo" and a "graphic" are not the same. The G in PNG is for Graphic.

- If you look around, you can see people reccomending a JPEG for a lot of fast image sharing, but the frequently mentioned exception to JPEG superiority *is* artwork that has sharp lines and lots of detail. Or any transparent background, which JPEG wont support. This is a massive amount of artwork on FA. Transparency is not negotiable for tens of thousands of images on here. The cons of both file formats pretty much lead to digital artists distrusting JPEG file format. Digital artwork & graphic design (Especially complex) is the consistent scenario where web developers say "well. A JPEG normally would have been fine. But a PNG is probably better ".

https://youtu.be/ww12lImOJ38?si=cnoCQ_VWvY1sx430

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud.....eg-vs-png.html

I can find more details if you want. But, no one will take it seriously if you tell them they should use a file format developed for sharing photos vs a file type developed for sharing graphics.

What *should* be done is for FA to not leave the beast of burden on their users. There is a spectrum of digital literacy on this website.

Nope, not doing this any further. You're wasting my time and depleting my emotional energy with these contrarian arguments. You didn't make a single valid point in the first volley, and I refuse to participate further.