Back to all articles
Comparison

PNG vs JPG – when do you use which format?

PNG or JPG? You face this question for almost every image — web, print or presentation. Both formats have been around since the 90s and both have their strengths, but they shine in very different jobs.

PNG and JPG file shown side by side on a monitor

When PNG is the right call

PNG stores images losslessly. Every pixel is exactly as you saved it — perfect for logos, icons, screenshots, diagrams and anything with sharp edges or flat colour areas.

PNG also supports transparency with an alpha channel (up to 256 steps). That lets you cut out images or layer soft shadows over coloured backgrounds — something JPG can't do.

Where JPG wins

JPG was designed for photos and uses compression that exploits the human eye: less visible detail is discarded. On photos at 80–90% quality, it delivers near-identical images at 10–20% of a PNG's size.

Downside: no transparency, and every save shaves quality. Open, edit, save again as JPG repeatedly and you accumulate generation loss.

Rule of thumb for daily work

Photo, full-bleed image, gradient? → JPG. Logo, icon, screenshot, diagram or anything with transparency? → PNG. For the web, add WebP or AVIF — both can cover either case more efficiently.

Workflow tip: keep masters as PNG (or better, PSD/TIFF) and export the final web version as JPG/WebP/AVIF. That avoids repeated quality drops on resaves.

The re-save killer

Every time you edit a JPG and save it again as JPG, you re-encode lossily. After 10 save cycles you'll spot block artefacts and mushy edges — even at quality 90. With PNG that never happens.

Workflow: keep masters as PNG in Photoshop/Figma; JPG only as the final export for delivery. If you've only got a JPG and need to edit it again, export to PNG in between.

Convert images online now

Try it yourself — free, no signup, right in your browser.

Open Converter