JPG vs PNG vs WebP
JPG, PNG and WebP all store images, but they are good at different things. Picking the right one — before you convert — saves you from blurry photos, bloated files or lost transparency.
JPG: photographs and anything with smooth colour
JPG uses lossy compression that is tuned for photographs, where millions of subtle colour gradients let it throw away detail your eye will not miss. The result is small files for photo content. The trade-off is that JPG cannot store transparency, and it smears sharp edges — so text, logos and screenshots look fuzzy and develop blocky artefacts, especially after repeated saving.
PNG: sharp edges, text and transparency
PNG is lossless, so it keeps every pixel exactly. That makes it the right choice for screenshots, logos, diagrams, and anything with crisp edges or text. It also supports a transparent background, which JPG cannot. The cost is size: a photograph saved as PNG is much larger than the same photo as JPG, so PNG is the wrong tool for photo-heavy work.
WebP: a modern middle ground
WebP is a newer format that compresses better than both — smaller than JPG at similar quality, and it supports transparency like PNG. For the web it is often the best of both worlds. The main caveat is compatibility with older software, so for a file you are sending to someone on unknown tools, a classic JPG or PNG can still be the safer choice.
Rule of thumb: photo → JPG (or WebP for the web); screenshot, logo or anything with transparency → PNG (or WebP); optimising for a modern website → WebP.