Compress JPEG
Photo compression with your eyes as the judge: quality control with per-file before/after compare, a target-size mode that reports honestly, EXIF stripped with orientation preserved. All in your browser.
Drag images here, browse, or paste
JPEG, PNG, WebP · verified by file signature · processed one by one within this device's memory budget · nothing is uploaded
Browser encoder; bytes vary slightly between browsers.
Lossless OxiPNG optimization: pixels stay identical, so there is no quality setting. Convert to JPEG or WebP for lossy savings.
Quality is a decision, not a number
Two photos at quality 80 can look flawless and terrible respectively; content decides. Busy textures forgive compression, smooth gradients and text betray it. That is why this page refuses to promise that any format or setting "wins": it gives you the slider, the target-size search when a hard limit is the real goal, and a pixel-accurate compare on every card. Transparent sources converting to JPEG get an explicit matte choice, since JPEG cannot carry an alpha channel.
What JPEG quality actually controls
A JPEG encoder splits the image into 8x8 pixel blocks, converts each to frequencies, and throws away the fine high-frequency detail the eye notices least. The quality setting decides how aggressively it does that. There is no fixed size per quality level: a photo of a brick wall has far more fine detail to keep than a photo of a sky, so the same quality number produces very different file sizes.
A worked example from this page: a 4,000 by 3,000 pixel photo straight from a phone is often 4 to 6 MB at quality 95. Re-encoded with MozJPEG at quality 80 it typically lands between 900 KB and 1.5 MB with no visible change at normal viewing size; at quality 60 it is around 500 KB with slight softening in flat areas. Resizing the longest edge to 2,000 pixels first, which is more than any blog layout shows, cuts each of those numbers by about three quarters again.
Quality misleads when it is treated as a universal setting. Quality 80 in one encoder is not quality 80 in another, and re-saving an already compressed JPEG at a high quality still loses a little each time, since the encoder works from pixels that already carry artifacts. Compress from the original once, pick the lowest quality that looks right for the size it will be shown at, and keep the original somewhere else.
JPEG compression FAQ
What JPEG quality should I use?
For web photos, 75 to 85 is the useful range: below 70 artifacts show in gradients and skin tones, above 90 file size grows fast for differences most viewers cannot see. The right answer depends on the image, which is why every result here has a before/after compare with a draggable divider; look at YOUR photo at the size it will be displayed, not at a rule of thumb.
Why did my JPEG barely shrink?
It was probably already compressed near your chosen quality: JPEG-of-a-JPEG mostly re-spends the same budget. The bigger lever is dimensions: a 4000-pixel photo displayed at 1200 pixels carries 10x wasted pixels, and the resize field removes them cleanly. If a re-encode ends up larger than your original, the tool keeps your original and says so.
Does compressing a JPEG again lose more quality?
Yes, each lossy generation loses a little, which is why this tool never re-encodes behind your back: results come from your original file at your chosen setting, one generation, and "original kept" cards mean exactly that. Keep your camera originals for archives; compress copies for the web.
What happens to photo EXIF and GPS data?
It is stripped, and orientation is baked into the pixels first so nothing rotates. For photos going on the public web that is a privacy feature: EXIF routinely carries GPS coordinates, timestamps and device identifiers. The result card states the metadata decision on every file.
More free tools: Image Compressor · To 100 KB · Image Resizer