Photoshop CS6 PNG Compression Options Backwards? (No)

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
I hope this is the right place for this. I was testing CS6 out and when I went to save as a png, The compression options are backwards: none/fastest or smallest/ slow. Shouldn't this be the other way around? To me no compression would mean its a large file making it slower. So none should be with slow not fast.
Photo of Christopher Kennedy

Christopher Kennedy

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 818 Reply Likes
I think they're right.
For PNG, the time is taken by the compression, not by the size of the file being saved.

No compression = fastest save = largest file

Smallest file = Most compression = takes the most time
Photo of Shangara Singh

Shangara Singh

  • 18 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
The misunderstanding is caused by putting compression on/off and file size under one heading Compression. It would help if labels read as follows:

--Compression--
None / Small
Full / Large

or
--Compression--
None / Fast Save
Full / Slow Save

or
--Compression--
None / Large File
Full / Small File

There are other possible permutations but would need mods to GUI.
Photo of Connie Lester

Connie Lester

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
can the dafault be changed to "none"?
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 764 Reply Likes
Most people want PNG files compressed - so the default should be "slow/smallest"
Photo of Connie Lester

Connie Lester

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
The default "should be" what you want it to be. I asked if it could be changed in preferences.
Photo of Cathy Gilmour

Cathy Gilmour

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree with the first comment: I personally wouldn't care much about the time taken to save a document as how long it would take to open it on the web. Eg. High compression, poorer quality but faster to open or download from the web. No compression, higher quality but longer to download or open from the web.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 764 Reply Likes
PNG is lossless -- it's always the same quality.
The only difference is the size of the file, and how long it will take to compress.
Many people are concerned with how long it takes, just as other people are concerned with the size of the file (which affects download time)..
Photo of Cathy Gilmour

Cathy Gilmour

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
One can save an image in 8, 24 or 32 bit PNG format. An 8 bit PNG will only save an image in 256 colours, for example, therefore the end result if one starts with a 24 bit image will be lossy. PNGs were also primarily designed for electronic use on the web where time taken to download an image is more important. The time taken to save an image in the various PNG formats is almost neglible in my experience.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 764 Reply Likes
Not according to the users who requested the option to not compress files so they could save their files faster.
Photo of Cathy Gilmour

Cathy Gilmour

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I would honestly be interested to know for which purpose fast saving is useful when the difference between save times is minimal. That's in my experience of course using screen resolution for web.use as the PNG format was originally intended for.Thanks.
Photo of Chris Cox

Chris Cox

  • 20280 Posts
  • 813 Reply Likes
On larger documents, it is not minimal. And it was web/screen designers who requested the option.
Photo of Cathy Gilmour

Cathy Gilmour

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am asking for what purpose fast conversion to PNGs is useful bearing in mind I am a web and graphic designer and therefore use large and small size PNGs, the latter usually prepared for web use. In my experience the difference in save times is still minimal and even if it wasn't, as a web designer I personally wouldn't sacrifice design time for the benefit of a more efficient web user experience. The speed of broadband for many is still subject to post code lottery!
Photo of Five Arbiters

Five Arbiters

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Today I saved an image with a resolution 10000x5625 that I have been working on for the past few weeks. I saved two versions. Con compressed, and one uncompressed. The uncompressed file ended up being 214 MB, and the compressed version was a staggeringly low 19.3 MB. Major difference. However since I had previously seen this thread, I decided to time both. The compressed version took 1:37 minutes to save, using 16% of my i7 4790k, 4.7 Ghz processor. The uncompressed version took 3.29 seconds. It makes a major difference with larger files whether you do or do not compress. The difference is not minimal. If you can reduce the size by a factor of ten though, you would be a fool if you didn't.