JPG vs PNG: Which Should You Use?

Use JPG for photographs and PNG for graphics. That one line settles the great majority of cases, because the two formats were built for opposite kinds of picture, and almost everything else about the choice follows from that.

JPG is lossy: it makes files small by discarding detail the encoder judges you won't miss, which is a brilliant trade on a photo and a poor one on a logo. PNG is lossless: it gives every pixel back exactly and can store transparency, which is what graphics need and photographs don't. Ask one question — is this a photograph, or is it a graphic? — and the format usually names itself.

The difference at a glance

Choose JPG when

• It's a photograph. Continuous tones and subtle gradients are exactly what JPG's compression was designed for, and the file is a fraction of the PNG size with no difference you'd see.
• The file needs to be small and it's photographic content — a gallery, a product shot, an email attachment.
• A form demands JPG outright, which many application portals do.

If a JPG is still too heavy, don't reach for PNG — that makes it bigger. Compress JPG is the right lever, and our guide on compressing a JPG without artefacts covers where the quality line sits.

Choose PNG when

• You need transparency. JPG has no alpha channel at all, so a transparent background becomes a solid white box — the single most common way people ruin a logo. Our guide on alpha transparency explains why.
• It's a logo, icon, screenshot of text, or line drawing. Flat colour and sharp edges are what PNG handles perfectly and what JPG smears with fuzzy artefacts.
• You'll keep editing and re-saving it. Every JPG save re-compresses and loses a little more — see generation loss. PNG never degrades on save.

A heavy PNG shrinks with Compress PNG, which keeps transparency intact while it works.

The one that catches everyone: a photo saved as PNG

This is the most common mistake in the whole topic. A screenshot of a photo, a camera image exported as PNG, a picture dropped into a design tool and saved out — the file balloons to several times what it should be, because PNG can't discard photographic detail the way JPG can. If that's what you have, PNG to JPG often cuts the size dramatically with no visible loss; our guide on that conversion covers the one case where you shouldn't. It's also the first thing to check when you're asking why an image is so big.

Going the other way, JPG to PNG can't undo the damage — it gives you a lossless copy of an already-lossy image, usually larger. It's the right move only when you're about to edit, or need transparency added, not as a quality upgrade.

There's a third answer: WebP

If the image is going on the web, you often don't have to choose. WebP beats JPG on photos and matches PNG on transparency, at smaller sizes than either — JPG to WebP and PNG to WebP handle it. The catch is compatibility: a few older tools and forms still reject WebP, which is why JPG and PNG remain the safe defaults when a file has to work absolutely everywhere.

FAQ

Is PNG better quality than JPG?
For graphics and anything with transparency, yes — PNG is lossless and JPG smears sharp edges. For photographs there's no visible quality gain, just a much bigger file, so JPG is the better choice.

Which is smaller, JPG or PNG?
For a photograph, JPG — usually by a lot. For a flat-colour graphic or screenshot of text, PNG can actually be smaller as well as sharper. It depends entirely on the content.

Should I use JPG or PNG for a logo?
PNG, almost always. Logos need crisp edges and usually a transparent background, and JPG delivers neither. Better still, keep the logo as a vector and export PNG when you need a raster — see raster vs vector.