JPG: the photograph specialist
JPG was designed for one thing — photographs — and it remains superb at it. Its lossy compression exploits how human vision works, discarding color detail we barely notice while preserving the brightness detail we do. The result: photos shrink to a tenth of their size looking essentially untouched.
JPG's limits are equally clear: no transparency (transparent areas become solid), and it struggles with sharp graphics — text and line art develop fuzzy halos under heavy compression. For photos shared anywhere, though, it is the universal, never-wrong choice.
PNG: the pixel-perfect preserver
PNG is lossless: every pixel survives exactly, no matter how many times you save. That makes it ideal for logos, icons, screenshots, and any graphic where crisp edges and exact colors matter. It also supports full transparency, from simple cutouts to soft drop shadows.
The price is file size — PNGs run much larger than JPGs for photographic content. Compressing a PNG still helps (it strips redundancy), but for photos the savings are modest compared to switching to a lossy format. Use PNG where precision matters, not where bytes matter.
WebP: the modern all-rounder
WebP does nearly everything: lossy compression 25–35% smaller than JPG at equal quality, lossless mode rivaling PNG, and full transparency. Developed by Google, it is now supported by every modern browser, making it the technical best choice for web images.
The only real caveat is legacy: truly ancient browsers and some old software cannot display WebP. For web publishing in 2026 that is a non-issue, but if your images must open in decade-old systems, JPG remains the safer bet.
Choosing and converting wisely
The decision tree is simple: photo for the web → WebP (or JPG for maximum compatibility); graphic with text or logo → PNG; anything needing transparency → PNG or WebP. When in doubt, WebP at quality 75–80 is the best default in modern workflows.
Converting formats during compression is encouraged — a PNG photo converted to WebP often shrinks 70%+. But never convert JPG to PNG expecting savings: the pixels are already lossy, and PNG just wraps them in a bigger file. Format changes should move toward efficiency, not away from it.
What compression does to each format
JPG and WebP (lossy) respond dramatically to the quality slider — that is where the big savings live. PNG responds modestly, since lossless compression can only remove true redundancy. This is why the same photo as PNG might barely shrink while its WebP twin drops 80%.
Understanding this saves frustration: if a PNG refuses to get smaller, the answer is not a lower quality setting — it is switching to a lossy format. The compressor lets you change format and quality together, so the experiment costs nothing.
Frequently asked questions
Which image format is smallest?
Usually WebP — 25–35% smaller than JPG at the same visual quality. JPG is next for photos; PNG is largest but lossless and supports transparency.
When should I use PNG instead of JPG?
For logos, icons, screenshots with text, and anything needing transparency. For photographs, JPG or WebP will be far smaller with no visible difference.
Is WebP supported everywhere now?
In all modern browsers, yes. Only very old browsers and legacy software lack support — for those rare cases, stick with JPG.
Does converting JPG to PNG improve quality?
No. Conversion cannot restore data that lossy compression removed; it only produces a larger file holding the same pixels.