Why I don’t use the Google WebP Image File Format

WebP developed by Google

In a digital world that's constantly evolving, new file formats are often promoted as the next best thing. One such format is WebP, developed by Google and widely adopted for its promise of smaller file sizes and faster loading times. While WebP certainly has its place on the web, I've made a conscious decision not to use it for my photographs and other images, and here's why.

1. Image Quality Comes First

As a photographer and visual artist, my priority is image quality. While WebP does offer compression advantages, it can sometimes come at the cost of detail, subtle tones, or texture, especially in complex wildlife or bird photography. Even at high settings, I've noticed a slight degradation in fidelity compared to formats like JPEG (at maximum quality). For me, every feather, every reflection, and every subtle gradation of light matters.

2. Color Accuracy and Consistency

I work across multiple calibrated devices and platforms, and maintaining color consistency is crucial. WebP's compression and rendering can occasionally alter color tones, particularly in images with fine gradients or deep shadows. Traditional formats like JPEG or PNG offer more predictable color behaviour across editing software and browsers.

3. Long-Term Archiving and Compatibility

WebP is a relatively young format, and while browser support is widespread, compatibility with professional software, legacy systems, and print workflows remains inconsistent. When working with clients, printers, or archives, I prefer formats that are universally supported and trusted, formats that won't become problematic in 10 years.

4. Transparency? I Prefer PNG

WebP does support transparency, but for graphics, logos, or overlays, I continue to rely on PNG. It's a proven format that preserves edge sharpness and alpha channels with complete reliability. There's no compelling reason to switch when PNG consistently meets professional standards.

5. Control Over File Optimisation

Instead of relying on automatic compression from WebP, I prefer to manually optimise my images using tools like Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, as well as dedicated export workflows. This gives me complete control over file size, sharpness, and quality, tailored to each image's specific purpose, whether it's for display, print, or web use.

In Conclusion

WebP may be ideal for general web use, fast-loading websites, and mass content delivery. But when it comes to artistic integrity, visual storytelling, and professional presentation, I believe in using formats that prioritise quality over convenience. That's why you won't find WebP images on this site, only carefully processed, high-quality visuals that reflect the true essence of the subjects I capture.

Update: Speed is crucial for SEO! That's why I'm now using AVIF.