Apple Safari now supports HDR photography!

Apple just wrapped up their 2025 Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), and it was a very big year for photography and HDR display. Apple has been quietly adding substantial support for HDR hardware and software for years. The 2024 updates added HDR photography support for gain maps, the Photos app, Keynote, better support for 3rd-party HDR monitors and more. This year continues that trend with some very significant HDR updates.

Here’s a quick preview of what’s coming in the fall updates for photographers (everything will now be v26 – MacOS, iOS, iPadOS, etc).

 

Safari is adding support for HDR photography

Safari now supports HDR photos! This means more stunning and lifelike photos for the majority of iPhones, iPads, and Apple computers.

At 17% of global web traffic, Safari support closes most of the existing gap in HDR browser support. Combined with the other browser which already support HDR photos (Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi), this accounts for over 90% of all web traffic (per statcounter.com).

The impact for existing HDR hardware is even more significant. Apple laptops and monitors have offered HDR hardware since 2018 and having support in the default browser on MacOS is a big deal. But even more import is the impact this has for mobile devices. The browser engine which powers Safari is called “WebKit” and that’s the key in the v26 updates because WebKit is the basis of all browsing on iPhones and iPads. So while we’ve been able to use Chrome on MacOS for HDR support for a long time now, the iOS and iPadOS versions of Chrome have lacked HDR photo support because they use WebKit under the hood. This means all browsing on an iPhone or iPad will support HDR (even the mobile version of FireFox, which is now the only notable browser lacking HDR photo support under MacOS).

Let’s put that in perspective using some estimated sales volumes. This update unlocks HDR browsing for all the following hardware already in use:

  • iPhone 11 and beyond: thats six years time roughly 225 million iPhones per year for ~1.3 billion phones.
  • High end iPads like the M4 Pro (this is relatively small, ~10 million units)
  • Apple computers since 2018. That’s roughly 100 million devices, of which 8% use Safari to give us ~8 million people with new HDR browsing support.

These are rough estimates based on web sources and ChatGPT, but it would be fair to say that the total impact here is likely more than 1 billion devices which will soon be upgraded to support HDR photos in the browser.

This is a major inflection point for the adoption of HDR, and should help spur significant growth in 2026. Anyone can already share HDR photos with a large audience on Instagram (see how). You can easily share HDR JPG gain maps on your website (use the “full” size option in the WordPress media library). And I have a list of developer resources for those looking to add support via open source libraries or your own custom tools.

As a note for developers, Safari is also adding support for the new CSS “dynamic-range-limit” property to help manage pages with mixed SDR and HDR content (such as feeds, grids, and portfolios). You may specify “no-limit” to allow full HDR, “standard” to show all images within the SDR range, or “constrained” to allow modest HDR (ie some, but not as bright as “no-limit”).

 

Multi-tasking in iPadOS 26

The M4 iPad Pro has the best HDR display for a consumer computing device I’ve probably ever seen. It’s “tandem stack” OLED XDR display offers 4 stops of HDR, 1000 nits full screen, perfect blacks, and outstanding color accuracy. You can even use it as an HDR monitor for your Mac! However, it’s software been somewhat limiting for serious work compared to laptops or Surface Pro tablets (which run full Windows). iPadOS 26 makes the iPad a much more practical device for serious work, which should appeal to photographers who wish to travel light.

iPadOS 26 makes several changes to improve productivity workflows, including:

  • Support for showing multiple application windows and even overlap them, just like MacOS. This makes it much easier to work across multiple applications at the same time.
  • An improved Files app to more easily manage content on the iPad.
  • A menu bar for the familiar and powerful options we’ve come to expect from computers.
  • The Preview app, for better PDF support (including drawing, annotating, and signing).
  • A better cursor, for more precise work with a trackpad or mouse.

So while these aren’t updates aimed at photography, this makes the iPad (which has an outstanding display and camera) a much more powerful and practical tool for photographers.

Here’s a great overview of the updates:

 

A simplified camera app

The iOS / iPadOS camera app has always been pretty simple. That’s either a strength (easy to use) or a weakness (lack of control) depending on your level of skill and goals. I suspect many photographers will view this as a negative. Options such as portrait mode are now more hidden and take more effort to switch.

Personally, I think there are some good ideas in here. Most people don’t think about photos and videos nearly as deeply as photographers and just want it to offer something pretty good with minimal effort or expertise. My main concern is that showing only 2 modes does not seem simpler. It takes longer to navigate, and users who don’t need other modes will probably encounter the anyway by accidentally over-scrolling.

If you don’t care for the redesign, there are many great alternative apps. And that’s really the beauty of using the great camera hardware built into an iPhone or iPad, there are many options to pick the interface and features you like. I recommend taking a look at Pro Camera or Halide (Mark III coming fairly soon with promises of big updates for HDR), which are both great 3rd-party apps.

The primary limitation with 3rd-party apps is that you cannot launch them from the lock screen camera icon. I would love to see Apple let you assign it to your favorite app. If you have a newer phone with a “camera control” button, you can do that and it is just as fast. Just go to iOS Settings / Camera / Camera Control and select your preferred camera app under the “launch camera” dropdown. One tip: there is a momentary pause when you click it because the phone is trying to use FaceID to unlock the phone. If you look at the screen as fast as possible, you’ll open your camera app more quickly from a locked screen.

 

End of life for old Intel-based Macs is now more clear

If you don’t already have an Apple Silicon MacBook Pro,  the M1 and later 14-16″ laptops are truly stunning. Outstanding HDR displays, performance, and battery life make any of them an enormous upgrade over the previous generation of Intel-based processors. But if you’re eager to keep the computer you have for as long as possible, Apple just offered more clarity on when you can expect to start seeing software issues with those old computers.

Apple announced that MacOS v26.x (“Tahoe”) will be the last update for Intel-based machines, no MacOS 27 for you. There may be ongoing security updates for a while, so they should be viable for about 2 more years.

On the flip side, Apple also announced that Rosetta 2 will remain through MacOS 27 (ie good until fall of 2027). So we have about 2 more years before old software stops working on new computers. If you’re still using Rosetta2 for some program, I would contact the vendor and let them know you’d like to see it updated to run natively on Apple Silicon. Not only will that keep working into the future, but the program should run twice as fast. Though candidly, it’s been almost five years and most software which hasn’t been updated for Apple Silicon already is probably a sign that it’s abandoned and you should start considering alternatives. I can’t think of any widely used photography apps which still require Rosetta, but please comment below if you know of any.

 

What’s missing from the v26 updates?

I’m skipping over some minor details like new developer APIs to add an HDR color picker to apps, so even my tailored list for photographers is incomplete. There’s a lot in the v26 lineup. There are also a few things I’ve been hoping to see, but have not so far. WWDC only covers the highlights and there are often many great features which are simply not mentioned in the keynote, detailed sessions, or even in the first developer betas. And many interesting features always come after the initial major updates every fall in the various “dot” releases.

I have not yet seen an indication that the following updates and fixes are in the v26 updates:

  • Support to share HDR images over AirPlay to show them via AppleTV? Most people have big screen TVs and this would be a very powerful way to show gorgeous images.
  • Support for HDR photos in the TvOS Photos app? AirPlay would likely get more use, but this would be a great way to passively update the content on the TV as well as support automatic slideshows on the TV’s screensaver.
  • Fix for the iMessage bug where HDR photos are not transmitted as HDR? Support was announced last year, but hasn’t worked so far.
  • Fix for sending AVIF images via iMessage? This is a great format to save space and share HDR, but so far I’ve only seen them show as unusable thumbnails when texted.
  • Fix for syncing HDR images via iCloud?

If you’re aware of other key updates which you think would be of great interest to photographers, please comment below.

The remaining HDR gaps in the Apple ecosystem are getting smaller and smaller. The overall support is tremendous and it’s great to see year after year improvements and expansion of capability. This year’s Safari support is greatly welcome and will be very high impact.

Yoga Aura – the best HDR PC laptop?

The MacBook Pro has had an outstanding HDR display for nearly five years. There is simply no PC laptop on the market which matches its performance for HDR photography, but some new options from Lenovo are finally getting close. In this review, we’ll look at how well it meets the needs of photographers and how it compares to the MacBook Pro.

The 2025 Lenovo 2-in-1 Aura Edition offers:

  • A DisplayHDR True Black 1000 certified OLED monitor (Lenovo is the only company to achieve this thus far)
    • Up to 1,100 nits peak
    • 14″ or 16″ size
    • Delta e < 1 for great accuracy out of the box
    • Touch screen with a completely flexible hinge lets you use it like a tablet (similar to Surface Pro) or fold it into a tent shape to show movies with a very narrow footprint.
  • Intel® Core™ Ultra 7 256V or 258V CPU
  • up to 32GB RAM
  • up to 1TB SSD
  • WiFi 7
  • BlueTooth 5.4

 

 

HDR display

Display HDR True Black 1000 offers a stunning level of support for HDR photography, and Lenovo is the first company to be certified for this level of performance. I saw the Lenovo 2 in 1 Aura Edition Laptop a couple weeks ago at a conference and was immediately impressed. I ordered one immediately to replace my 600 nits OLED PC laptop. Put simply, this is a stunning upgrade and a truly gorgeous display unlike any other PC laptop I have ever seen (at least with an Intel chip, the SnapDragon version of this laptop caught my attention last year – but Adobe does not support Photoshop plugins under the ARM version of Windows).

The Yoga Aura realistically offers up to 3.5 stops of HDR headroom, very good color accuracy, and a great HDR experience. This is the first HDR PC laptop I can recommend without hesitation, this is a great OLED monitor. If you have a strong preference for Windows and want HDR support in the laptop display itself, this is a very unique and compelling product.

There are options to upgrade the display to a higher (4K) resolution, DO NOT choose the upgraded display. The base resolution is already excellent and the premiums display is actually a downgrade as it offers less HDR capability.

To use the Aura for HDR, it is important that you make a couple of changes in Windows System Settings / Display:

  • Enable HDR mode. This is required for HDR support.
  • In the options available by clicking > next to the HDR toggle, slide the “HDR content brightness” to the far right (100). This ensures HDR highlights won’t clip when viewing content (this is a confusing control and I would prefer to see Windows improved to eliminate it).
  • See my HDR setup and troubleshooting guide if you have external monitors or other questions.

 

How does it compare to the XDR display in the M4 MacBook Pro (MBP)?

  • The Aura offers perfect blacks (as it uses an OLED display).
    • This is nice for watching movies in a dark room, but the benefit is fairly modest for photography.
    • There is a very clear difference under extreme conditions (deep shadow detail when viewing in a dark room), but this isn’t applicable for most real edits.
    • The highly reflective glossy display on the Aura further limits your ability to appreciate the deep blacks unless the room is very dark.
  •  The MacBook Pro (which uses a mini-LED display) offers up to 1600 nits peak vs 1200 for the Aura.
    • In practical terms, this means you’ll see about an extra 0.5 stops of HDR headroom.
    • This is very nice to have, but the Aura does very well.
  • MBP offers more accurate display for very bright HDR content, as it almost always avoids the need to use ABL (automatic brightness limiter):
    • Full screen: MBP offers 1000 nits vs 600 nits for the Aura.
    • 50% window: Aura supports 975 nits
    • Realistically, either can handle a wide range of HDR content under controlled lighting. Where the MBP pulls ahead is when using the display in bright ambient light, which isn’t ideal for editing even if the MBP offers a more accurate display in that scenario.
  • MBP can be more easily used for productivity in bright ambient light
    • The optional nano-texture coating on the MBP significantly reduces reflections for a much more readable display in bright surroundings. If you turn off the display outside, you’ll see a matte black screen with zero reflections.
    • If you similarly turn off the Aura display outside, it’s like looking in a mirror. The reflections are very notable.
    • MBP offers up to 1000 nits SDR (600 via manual controls, 1000 when variable brightness at max and bright ambient light)
    • Aura offers 450 nits SDR
  • MBP is easier to use for HDR thanks to MacOS
    • The MBP supports HDR with default settings. There is nothing you need to do, everything just works and looks amazing by default – whether you wish to edit for HDR, print, or do productivity work.
    • To use HDR in the Aura, you must enable HDR mode in Windows System Settings / Display. You must further go into the HDR sub-section and move the “HDR content brightness” to the right (100) in order to avoid some highlight clipping which you will otherwise see under the default settings.

Overall, this gives the MBP a modest but clear edge over the Aura under controlled lighting. Many photographers probably wouldn’t notice the difference if you didn’t put them side by side in that scenario. But in bright ambient or outdoor conditions, the MBP has a substantial advantage over the Aura. The optional ($150) nano-texture coating is a game changer if you travel with the laptop or otherwise use in bright conditions.

 

Performance for Photography

The Aura offers a few configurations based on display size, with the 16″ offering the highest performance options. The current lineup choices are:

  • 14″ with Intel® Core™ Ultra 7 256V with 16GB RAM (do not buy this)
  • 14″ with upgraded Intel® Core™ Ultra 7 258V Processor and 32GB RAM (for $80, everyone should get this upgrade)
  • 16″ with Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 185H 32GB RAM (the GPU may be upgraded for $200, which is probably not high impact unless you do video as well)

The 14″ comes with a 512GB hard drive and an optional 1TB upgrade (whereas only the 1TB is offered on the 16″). The upgraded processor and hard drive are a no brainer on the 14″, and the upgraded GPU on the 16″ probably isn’t worth it for more users. So you’re probably looking at $1550 for the 14″ or $1700 for a 16″ with a CPU upgrade from 8 to 12 cores to support better multi-tasking. This makes the 16″ the best choice if you do not care about weight. However, the 14″ is 3 lbs vs 5 for the 16″, so it isn’t a trivial difference.

The 14″ scores a very respectable 65.0 weighted score in my G-Bench tests. That’s slightly slower than the 57 in an M1 Max and about half the speed of the 34 in an M4 Max. However, those are the highest level CPU upgrades offered by Apple in laptops which cost roughly $8,000. I do not have performance data for Apple’s entry-level M3 or M4, but I would expect the least capable MBP outperform the Aura – but at a level where the Aura is still competitive.

Black Magic Disk Speed shows 3400 MB/s write and 3800 MB/s read speeds. This isn’t nearly as fast as the M4 MBP (8700 and 5300), but is still incredibly fast. Very few people would notice the difference, this is a very fast internal drive. And if you need external storage, the TB4 ports will support very high speeds.

 

Battery life and fans

I’ve been quite impressed with the battery life on this laptop. I had expected it would lag significantly behind the MBP because it has an Intel rather than ARM processor. Not only did I find that not to be the case, but it actually outperformed the MBP in my (limited) testing. I charged both to 100%, set the display to roughly the same brightness, and then had them play the same YouTube HDR video for a couple hours and a run a series of the same tests in Photoshop. At the end of my tests, the MBP was down to 22% while the Lenovo was 34%. While hardly scientific and your results will vary based on usage, I believe the results at least indicate the battery life on the Aura is generally pretty good. As a photographer, I’ve never seen battery performance on the MBP come close to the all day stats you see for simple tasks like watching video or web browsing, and you’ll similarly find the Aura does well but is going to need an outlet to make it through a full day.

I was rather surprised at the Aura outlasting the MBP for a couple of reasons. The Intel processor was one concern (vs the efficiency of ARM), and the other was heat given my experience with the fans. Unfortunately, the fans run quite often on the Aura on moderate loads. They aren’t terrible, but it stands out in comparison to the MBP, where you almost never hear the fans in normal use. When running my G-Bench test, I measured 22 dB ambient noise most of the time (which is to say zero noise, that’s just the ambient for the room). The fans briefly hit 27 dB, giving an average reading of 23 dB for the entire test. On the other hand, the Yoga was at 38-41 dB most of the time, for an overall average of 37 dB. You are going to hear this laptop in quiet environments.

I initially thought the fans themselves would draw quite a bit of power and be a concern, but these cooling systems seem quite different. The Aura case does not conduct much heat and it relies heavily on the fans to remove heat. The MBP’s case actually is much warmer to the touch and appears to be a significant source of passive cooling that helps minimize fans. This means the Aura is more comfortable sitting directly on your lap, but the hotter exterior of the MBP isn’t a serious concern.

 

Other features (ports, speakers, etc)

The Aura is a well rounded machine which generally compares very well with the MBP in other areas:

  • The Aura offers a touch screen and highly flexible display hinge.
    • You can directly tap, type, and swipe on the screen like a Surface Pro tablet. You can purchase a stylus to help use it as a tablet, which I find very interesting and intend to get in the near future.
    • When folded like a tablet, the keys are disabled. You can just use a stylus or your fingers and don’t need to worry about accidental key presses – even though the keys will be exposed on the bottom.
    • You can also fold it into a tented shape to use for showing movies while taking less horizontal space or to make it easier to use as a tablet without a keyboard under your hands.
    • These capabilities are probably not critically important to most photographers, but they are unique to the Aura and will certainly appeal to some users.
  • Connectivity:
    • MBP offers 3 Thunderbolt 4 ports (TB5 with the Pro or Max MBP). Lenovo offers 2 Thunderbolt 4 ports,  1 very high speed USB-C (USB4) port, and a USB-A.
    • MBP offers an integrated SD card reader and HDMI port. The Aura lacks these, but you can support these via cheap dongles.
    • Both offer a standard 3.5mm headphone jack.
    • Both offer fingerprint readers (to set up the Aura go to Windows settings / accounts / sign-in options / fingerprint recognition). The Aura can also use its camera to log in via face detection.
    • Both offer great wireless connectivity, with the Aura being slightly better for the future (WiFi 7 and BlueTooth 5.4 vs WiFe 6e and BlueTooth 5.4).
  • The speakers on the Aura are excellent and I find compare well with audio experience the MBP.
  • Both have attractive designs that look and feel like high quality computers. However, fingerprints are rather obvious on the Yoga (but you rarely see them on the MBP).
  • The 14″ Aura is half a pound lighter than the MBP, while the 16″ Aura is slightly heavier than the corresponding MBP.
  • The keyboard and trackpad are great on both (I personally find the extra keys on the right side of the Aura keyboard a bit awkward, but it’s probably just a matter of getting used to it so that I don’t alter performance or white balance by accident when trying to click the backspace or enter keys).

 

Conclusions:

The Aura is an excellent laptop for HDR and the first PC laptop which has truly impressed me for HDR. The display is incredible, and I was very happy with performance and battery life for a more friendly laptop. The fan noise is unfortunate, but not a deal breaker. The biggest limitation are the limitations for upgrading to premium options which might appeal to those with larger budgets.

If you need or strongly prefer a Windows laptop for HDR photography, it’s a great option. If you are open to MacOS and have a moderate budget, the MBP is a better option for most photographers given overall performance, premium options (especially the anti-glare screen), lack of fan noise, and the simpler HDR experience offered under MacOS vs Windows.

If you are open to either operating system, this is probably a good way to consider your options:

  • If you are seeking a budget 14″ display, the entry-level MBP is much closer in price and offers excellent value.
    • Both are great options here, but the 14″ Aura is still lower cost and lower weight.
    • If you’re willing to spend a little more, the nano-texture display on the MBP makes it a clearly better laptop for working in brighter environments.
  • If you are seeking a budget-oriented 16″ laptop for HDR, the 16″ Aura clearly offers the best price and value. The Aura is $1,000 less than the cheapest 16″ MBP with 1TB SSD.
  • If you have a budget for $2000-5000, MBP offers a wide range of upgrades which put it in a completely different class of computer than the top-tier Aura. You may select the following upgrades:
    • nano-texture display (highly recommended)
    • Much more powerful CPUs / GPUs
    • Up to 8TB SSD (larger is nice, but this is the one option you can add externally and save money)
    • Up to 128GB RAM (48-64GB recommended)
    • (see my M4 MBP review for details on these options)

The Lenovo 2-in-1 Aura Edition is a very exciting development as it helps bring excellent HDR support to a wider audience. It will be very interesting to see when other PC laptop manufacturers offer similarly premium HDR displays, if higher spec options are offered to compete with the most premium MBPs, and how support for SnapDragon / WinARM evolves over the coming years.

 

Disclosure: This article may contain affiliate links. See my ethics statement for more information. When you purchase through such links, you pay the same price and help support the content on this site.

Gain maps vs Tone mapping HDR

One of the most common mistakes photographers make when sharing HDR is to ignore how your image will look on someone else’s monitor. It’s easy to manage once you understand the issue.

The image below is encoded two different ways, the left side is a simple HDR image (has no gain map). The right side has a gain map. When you view them on a highly capable HDR monitor (one with 4 stops of headroom), they will look nearly identical. Which means you probably wouldn’t notice the difference on the monitor you use to edit HDR.

However, if you view them on a less capable monitor, the gain map on the right will look MUCH better:

  • This is particularly true when viewing on an SDR display, but even an HDR display with a couple stops of headroom will show a degraded result. Any monitor with less HDR headroom than encoded in the image will need to adapt to the display, and the gain map will offer a superior result (and a more consistent one as each browser may use a different approach to tone mapping an image without a gain map).
  • Try viewing this page in FireFox, the image on the left will look terrible (extremely dark). This demonstrates how gain maps offer backwards compatibility.
  • Even if the SDR rendition of the tone map on the left looks ok in one browser, it is uncontrolled and will not look the same way you would intend the SDR to look if you had control (ie not consistent with the version you would print). For example, the latest Safari does a much better job tone mapping this image than Chrome, yet it is very over-saturated (you might like the result, but it is not what I want and that’s the key issue – having an image that looks like you intend). Additionally, we might look at another image where Chrome tone maps better than Safari, you just don’t really know what you’ll get.
  • Note: If you have an HDR display, you may click the buttons below the image to artificially limit headroom and see how the image may look on less capable displays. The red SDR only button will show the SDR result (0 headroom). The green button will show the best possible result on your display (if 4 stops of headroom, both versions of the image will look the same). The yellow “limited HDR” button is not supported yet on all browsers and may look the same as the default (full HDR). On Chrome, it seems to limit headroom to 1 stop.

Note: do to a bug in the widget I’m using, the image below may look very short in Safari / FireFox (this is not an HDR bug, just something specific to my slider). View this post in Chrome, Edge, Brave, or Opera to see the comparison properly.

simple HDR (will tone map to SDR) HDR with gain map (ideal)

Note that gain maps are critical even with high quality image formats (the image on the left is a 10-bit AVIF). While gain maps have the benefit of allowing HDR with the legacy 8-bit JPG format, they are actually much more important as a mechanism to ensure high quality on any display. That adaptation requires a gain map (higher bit depth does nothing to tell the browser how to manage SDR). 

To learn more about how gain map work, see great HDR requires a great SDR base image and gain maps make HDR look great on any screen.

To summarize:

  • A simple HDR image (with no gain map) will almost always look great on your display because you have a great monitor and likely did not edit beyond its capabilities. But this simple image will often look inferior on less capable monitors, and will definitely not be consistent with the version you would print.
  • Encoding an HDR image with a custom gain map ensures the image looks consistently great on any display.

 

If you want to take full control of your gain map to get the best possible result, see the various HDR workflows for exporting with Web Sharp Pro. All of them ensure you control the base SDR in the image for an optimal result on any display. 

For a much deeper discussion of gain maps vs tone maps, please see:

Photoshop now natively supports AVIF for 50% smaller files than JPG

Note: the images in this post are all AVIF (uploaded normally through the WordPress media library).

JPG has been the most popular image format for over 30 years, but it’s days are numbered. There have been several attempts over the years to replace it, but none have broadly succeeded because they either offered too little benefit or didn’t get enough support from browsers and other critical support. We finally have a file format which seems very likely to start replacing in the coming years: AVIF (AV1 Image File Format). And Photoshop v26.8 beta just added support for it (as well as JXL).

 

AVIF is a vastly better image format and it’s supported by every modern web browser. It offers the following benefits over JPG:

  • Vastly smaller files (averaging about 50% smaller in my testing, but 20-80% is typical depending on the image). This size reduction allows faster uploads, faster websites (potentially improving search engine rankings), reduced bandwidth costs, improved battery life on phones and laptops, etc.
  • Improved image quality. AVIF supports supports up to 12-bit depth (vs 8 for JPG). That eliminates the risk of banding in smooth gradients like skies. It also means your images could survive a little bit more editing, which makes AVIF rather handy if you send your images to a lab to be printed (the file size reduction vs a 16-bit TIF is astronomical). And beyond bit-depth, artifacts in AVIF tend to be less obvious than in a JPG.
  • Transparency. JPG doesn’t support it and PNG files are quite large. So this is great for product images, etc on websites.
  • Native support for HDR. While gain maps are critical to ensure high-quality adaptation even with native HDR encoding, this helps further reduce file size (a gain map may be compressed more aggressively, or can be eliminated in cases where file size is more important than ensuring high quality across all screens). See here for more information on why gain maps are important for quality (even in 10+ bit-depth formats).
  • Animation. AVIF offers vastly higher image quality than GIF, and in fact is a video standard at its core (AVIF photos are really just a single frame AV1 video).

 

How does AVIF compare to JPG, JXL, webP, and PNG?

There are several notable alternatives to JPG, how do they compare for photography?

First, a quick note that all the formats below support “gain maps” for HDR. There is a common mis-perception that gain maps are just a hack to allow HDR within the 8-bit limits of JPG. While they have that benefit, they serve a much more important purpose: they ensure that an HDR image looks great on any display (without it, less capable displays or screens in outdoor light will often show a significantly degraded result and will vary from one browser to the next). However, native support for HDR is very helpful as it allows for encoding smaller gain maps as well as the option to skip the gain map when file size is much more important than image quality.

JPG:

  • Pros:
    • The most widely supported image format for the web (100% compatible).
    • Offers a safe and compatible way to share hiqh-quality HDR today (when using a gain map). This is likely to be replaced by AVIF gain maps in the future as support grows, but is very helpful in 2025.
    • Accepted by all social media sites for uploads.
    • Widely supported for smart phones / texting
  • Cons:
    • Files are much larger than newer alternatives
    • Limited quality due to 8-bit depth and artifacts
    • no support for transparency

AVIF:

  • Pros:
    • ~50% smaller than JPG (vastly faster page loads, better search ranking, less data use).
    • 10 and 12-bit support and less distracting artifacts offer much higher quality than JPG.
    • Supports HDR gain maps
    • Supports HDR natively
      • This gives the option to encode HDR at the smallest possible size.
      • (a gain map always offers vastly higher quality, but this gives the option to compress a gain map even further or to eliminate the map if file size is more important than image quality)
    • support for transparency.
    • Widely supported on the web (by all modern browsers).
    • Has excellent support in Adobe software. AVIF is royalty free and has great momentum, so support is very likely to expand further elsewhere.
    • Supports CICP encoding to help reduce file size vs embedding an ICC profile.
  • Cons:
    • Support is excellent in modern browsers, but there are enough outdated browsers that social media support is limited at this time.
      • Use of very old devices or slow updates means compatibility is ~95% today (but steadily increasing). This is the key reason its use is limited. It would be reasonable to use now in many cases, and you can set your website to serve a JPG fallback image if you want to ensure vastly faster page loads while ensuring 100% compatibility for all devices.
      • Affinity can import but not yet export, Capture One has no support yet, GIMP support is available (if you install libheif or libavif).
    • Not an ideal option for large prints (limited resolution, tiling can expand those limits but risks potential quality issues).
    • 12-bits is great for a final image, but is not ideal for subsequent editing.

JXL (aka JPEG XL):

  • Pros:
    • For web use, has benefits generally similar to AVIF (~50% smaller than JPG, high bit depth support, transparency, supports HDR and gain maps, well supported by Adobe)
    • Additionally offers the ability to re-compress existing JPG to JXL with no further loss of image quality, making it very easy to migrate any website to much smaller images.
    • Ideal for printing / subsequent editing due to nearly unlimited resolution and 32-bit support.
    • Has excellent support in Adobe software (including 8-32bit exports from PS v26.8 beta). JXL is royalty free and has great momentum, so support is very likely to expand further elsewhere.
    • Supports encoding color data in the code stream to help reduce file size vs embedding a full ICC profile.
  • Cons:
    • Limited support in web browsers (~14%). Chrome had support under a developer flag and removed it. If Google revisits that decision, JXL could become a very exciting option several years down the road (close to 80% of web traffic is based on Chrome or derivative browsers).

HEIF (HEIC):

  • Pros:
    • For web use, has benefits similar to AVIF (though may not compress quite as well)
    • Well supported on Apple devices (native capture format on iPhones)
    • Supports higher resolution than AVIF without tiling, so it could be often used for print-quality images.
    • Supports color encoding as CICP to save space vs an embedded ICC profile.
  • Cons:
    • Limited support in web browsers (~14%). Due to royalty considerations, it seems unlikely support will expand significantly anytime soon.
    • Lacks 32-bit support offered by JXL for subsequent editing (16-bit support is theoretically pretty good, but actual support for HEIF is often limited to 12-bits).

webP:

  • Pros:
    • ~25% smaller than JPG
    • Widely supported on the web (by all modern browsers).
    • Faster encode speed than AVIF, which is attractive for websites processing very large numbers of images.
  • Cons:
    • Like JPG, it is limited to 8-bit depth and lacks support for transparency.
    • No support for HDR (either natively or with a gain map).
    • Like AVIF, some old browsers lack support (webP support is ~96%).

PNG:

  • Pros: Widely supported as a way to share images with transparency
  • Cons: Very large files (PNG is likely to get replaced by AVIF).

 

How to create AVIF:

There are several tools which support exporting photos as AVIF:

  • Photoshop v26.8 beta
  • Web Sharp Pro v6.4 offers an AVIF option when using this new version of Photoshop.
  • Lightroom (Classic, cloud, mobile)
  • Adobe Camera RAW (tutorial)

 

Below are two copies of the same 1000 x 667 pixel image. The first is a 192 KB JPG, and the second is a similar AVIF which is only 96KB (50% smaller, but slightly higher quality!)

 

Where can you view AVIF?:

AVIF is well supported for viewing in:

  • all modern web browsers (see “can I use” for the latest stats for old browsers).
  • Apple Photos / Finder (iOS 16+ and macOS 13+)
  • Android and Google Photos (Android 12+)

 

AVIF is NOT supported in:

  • Apple iMessage (as of iOS 18, comes through as an icon you cannot view or save)

 

Note: please comment below on any software you feel is critical to add to this supported / not supported list.

 

Which social sites supports AVIF?

As social media sites emphasize support for a wide range of old devices, old apps, old browsers, and old operating systems; it is not surprising that support for a new file will be slow to arrive on social media. Most sites will not accept AVIF uploads, and the ones that do are generally going to transcode the upload to JPG to ensure support on legacy devices (ie it won’t improve the quality of what other see currently, but it will let you upload from a smaller source).

Sites that allow AVIF uploads:

  • Bluesky
  • Discord
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Threads

Sites that do not yet support AVIF (as of 05-26-24): 500px, Flickr, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Twitter, and WhatsApp.

 

Should you share AVIF now?:

You can use AVIF now on your own website if you are either

  • unconcerned about a small number of viewers (mostly with very old devices) not having support
    • Note that the gaps in support are fairly niche and probably not terribly important for most photography sites:
      • 1.3% of browsing involved old iOS (mostly iPhones older than iPhone 8, as they can’t run iOS16). This is probably the only
      • 0.5% Internet Explorer (mostly people running something older than Windows 10)
      • 0.4% old Chrome, , QQ (Chinese browser, 0.2%)
  • willing to batch export both AVIF and JPG and use the script below (which will offer the speed benefit of AVIF to 95% of your audience and ensure the other 5% can still safely see JPG).

However, you should probably otherwise wait a little bit longer if:

  • you prefer simplicity of administering your site over speed / ranking
  • you share everything through social media
  • note yet supported for uploading to a given social media site
  • texting via iMessage.
  • sharing HDR until AVIF gain maps are better supported (a JPG gain map will produce much better quality overall than an AVIF without a gain map due to superior adaptation to all displays). It’s great that we have such widespread support in browsers and Adobe software, but the remaining gaps are still a reason to move slowly at this time.

So we are still early for many use cases, but AVIF is steadily moving towards critical mass and offers extremely compelling benefits over JPG. I encourage you to test it for yourself, try uploading AVIF to see where it works, and send a polite request for support to any services you use which do not yet accept AVIF uploads.

 

How to enable JPG fallback for any AVIF image on your website:

If you’d like to share AVIF now to help offer vastly faster page load times but also wish to ensure that even the ~5% of viewers who lack support still see your images, you can easily automate that. Just batch export both AVIF and JPG versions of your image using the same name, insert the AVIF normally on your site, and use the following script to have the page automatically replace all <img> elements using an AVIF with <picture> elements which use either AVIF where possible but fallback to JPG if not supported.

function replaceAvifImagesWithPicture() {
// Replace <img src=”something.avif”> with <picture> element that has both AVIF and JPG sources
constlogToConsole=true;
if (logToConsole) console.log(‘replaceAvifImagesWithPicture()’);
constimages=document.querySelectorAll(‘img[src$=”.avif”]’);
if (logToConsole) console.log(`Found ${images.length} AVIF images to replace`);
images.forEach((img) => {
constavifSrc=img.src;
if (logToConsole) console.log(`Replacing ${avifSrc} with <picture> element`);
constjpgSrc=avifSrc.replace(/\.avif$/, ‘.jpg’);
constpicture=document.createElement(‘picture’);
// Create and append the AVIF source element
constsourceAvif=document.createElement(‘source’);
sourceAvif.type=’image/avif’;
sourceAvif.srcset=avifSrc;
picture.appendChild(sourceAvif);
// Create and append the fallback image element (JPG)
constsourceJpg=document.createElement(‘source’);
sourceJpg.type=’image/jpeg’;
sourceJpg.srcset=jpgSrc;
picture.appendChild(sourceJpg);
// Create and append the fallback img element
constimgFallback=document.createElement(‘img’);
imgFallback.src=jpgSrc; // Default to JPG if neither source is supported
imgFallback.alt=img.alt||”;
imgFallback.width=img.width;
imgFallback.height=img.height;
if (img.className) imgFallback.className=img.className;
picture.appendChild(imgFallback);
img.replaceWith(picture);
});
}
document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’, replaceAvifImagesWithPicture); // Run on DOM load

How to use your Apple iPad as an HDR monitor

If you have an XDR-branded iPad (such as the M4 iPad Pro), you may use it as an HDR monitor for your Mac. And you can do this even if you do not have any other HDR display. So this may be a nice option for either adding an extra HDR display, or for getting started with HDR using a display you already own (using your big screen TV over HDMI is yet another option).

 

How to set up your iPad as an HDR monitor for your Mac:

On the iPad: go to Settings / Display & Brightness / Advanced and enable “reference mode”.

  • This is like using the HDR Video preset for XDR on your computer (ie limits peak HDR to 1000 nits), it will also disable options like true tone and night shift (as those make color less accurate).
  • In this reference mode, the iPad will offer 3.3 stops of headroom (fixed 100 nits SDR and peak 1000 nits HDR – not the full 1600 nits peak, as that is not the maximum sustained brightness and therefore not suitable for reference viewing).

 

In MacOS: go to Settings / Display:

  • click the “+” dropdown near the top-right and choose to mirror or extend to your iPad.
  • If you are mirroring, you can click stop mirroring to switch to an extended display. Or if you are extended, you may click the “use as” dropdown and choose the option to start mirroring.
  • If you wish to use the iPad as the primary HDR display (which is ideal if your monitor is SDR or limited HDR) and are mirroring, be sure to select the monitor and set the “optimize for” to the iPad. Note that you won’t have any options for the display resolution and are likely to see black bars on the left and right of your monitor (given the aspect ratio of an iPad).
  • Note that when connected, the MacOS view on the iPad is shown via the “continuity” app. You may switch to another app on the iPad and then back as desired.

 

 

If you wish to disconnect, you may click on the iPad icon and then click “disconnect“.

 

One potential use case for a secondary monitor is to show an image you’re editing on the main window and a reference photo on the other. For example, you may wish to show your HDR as a reference on the iPad while editing an SDR virtual copy on your laptop display.

To edit with a reference photo in Lightroom Classic:

  • Connect the iPad as an extended display.
  • In LRC, go to the develop module and click the “2” icon on the far left just above the film strip. This will show another window on the other display. You may <option>-click 2 to show it as full screen.
  • In the secondary window, click on “loupe” at the top (which may be hidden depending on prior use).
  • In the Develop module, view the image you wish to see in the secondary window and then click <cmd>-<option>-<return> to lock that image in the secondary display (you may also use the mouse to click “normal” vs “locked” at top-right of the secondary display, it’s just a bit more work if you don’t recall the keyboard shortcut).
  • Now select the image you wish to edit in the Develop module (the other window won’t change as it is “locked”).
Greg Benz Photography