Cookies for analytics and advertising
We use cookies for analytics and advertising, both sent to Google. Refusing changes nothing you can see.Read the privacy page
JPG
Up to 100 files at once. Mixed formats are fine.
They convert one after another and download together as a ZIP.
Compressing a JPG re-encodes the photograph so it keeps fewer bytes of detail the eye was not using. Drop a file above and it happens inside your browser — nothing is uploaded. You will usually save between half and four fifths of the size before anything becomes visible, and if the file is already as small as it sensibly gets, we hand it back untouched rather than pretend.
JPEG does not store a picture as pixels. It breaks the image into blocks, describes each one as a set of frequencies — broad shapes first, fine detail last — and then rounds off the fine end. The quality setting is nothing more than how aggressively it rounds.
That works because human vision is far more sensitive to brightness than to colour, and far more sensitive to edges than to texture. A photograph saved at quality 95 is keeping detail nobody can see under any normal viewing condition, which is why dropping to 75 typically removes half to three quarters of the file and leaves an image most people cannot tell apart from the original.
The most common reason a photograph is too large is not its quality but its dimensions. A modern phone produces images around 4000 pixels wide. If that picture is going into an email, a document or a web page, it will be displayed at perhaps a quarter of that — and the other three quarters are bytes carried around for nothing.
Halving the width quarters the pixel count, and the file follows. The resize control under the result does this, and combining a modest resize with a modest quality drop almost always produces a better-looking file at a given size than pushing quality alone. If the image is destined for print, leave the size alone: there the pixels are the point.
Every JPG has been compressed once already, when it was saved. Compressing again does not resume from the original scene — it works from what survived, and rounds that off further. This is why repeatedly saving a JPEG degrades it: each pass is lossy, and the losses accumulate.
In practice one careful pass costs almost nothing, because the second rounding mostly discards detail the first one had already coarsened. What does hurt is a chain of them, so if the original is still somewhere, compress that rather than a copy that has been through three tools.
A JPEG saved at quality 60 and re-encoded at 75 comes out *larger* than it went in, and slightly worse — because the encoder is now faithfully preserving the compression artefacts of the first pass. That is the worst of both outcomes, and a tool that reports it as a success is lying to you.
So every result is measured against what arrived, and when the compressed version is not smaller you get the original back. The file is unchanged, which is the honest answer to "make this smaller" when it already is. Lowering the quality setting will still shrink it, at a visible cost you can then judge for yourself.
Sometimes the better answer is a different format — especially for a photograph stored as JPG.