Image Converter

WebP for anything going on a web page: it is smaller than JPEG at the same quality and supports transparency. PNG when you need lossless pixels or an alpha channel that must survive re-editing, such as a logo or a UI asset. JPEG only when something downstream will not accept anything else.

No, and it makes the file larger. JPEG compression is destructive; the blocking and ringing are baked into the pixels before this tool ever sees them. PNG then stores those exact damaged pixels losslessly, usually at several times the size. The only reason to do it is if you need an alpha channel or a lossless working copy for further editing.

Because the encoder here is the browser's, and it re-encodes from raw canvas pixels with default settings, while a purpose-built PNG optimiser tunes filters and compression levels and can strip ancillary chunks. If your goal is a smaller PNG rather than a format change, use an optimiser, not a converter.

It is all removed. The image is decoded onto a canvas, which keeps only pixels, and re-encoded from there. Camera model, capture date, GPS coordinates, and the ICC color profile are all gone from the output. For publishing that is usually what you want; if you needed the profile, convert with a tool that preserves it.

JPEG has no alpha channel, so transparency has to become some color, and this tool fills it with white. If you need a different background, composite the PNG onto that color first, or use the dedicated JPG converter here, which lets you pick the fill color.

Yes, for photographs. Between 80 and 90 is the range where the file is much smaller than the original and the difference is invisible without pixel-peeping. Below 70 the artefacts become visible, especially around text, logos, and hard edges, and they cannot be undone.