When you convert an image to JPG (or WebP, or AVIF), you’re asked to choose a quality setting \u2014 usually a number from 1 to 100. What does this actually mean, and what should you choose?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The quality setting controls how aggressively the JPG compression algorithm discards image information. At 100% quality, almost no data is discarded and the file is large. At 1% quality, most data is discarded and the file is tiny \u2014 but the image looks terrible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s not a linear scale. The difference between 95% and 100% is a huge file size increase for a tiny quality gain. The difference between 50% and 60% is visible but manageable. Below 40%, artefacts become obvious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Use when: Printing, professional photography archives, source images you’ll edit later. File sizes are large \u2014 often 2\u20135MB for a typical photo. The visual quality is excellent, but the size penalty is steep. For screen viewing, you won’t see any difference from 90%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Use when: Blog images, product photos, portfolio images, any image displayed on a screen. This range offers excellent visual quality \u2014 indistinguishable from the original to most viewers \u2014 at a fraction of the file size of higher settings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Simple Image Converter defaults to 92% for good reason: it’s the right balance for the vast majority of use cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Use when: Social media posts, email thumbnails, image previews. Slight quality reduction is usually acceptable in these contexts, and the smaller files load faster on mobile connections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Use when: Very small thumbnails, image grids, situations where file size is the absolute priority. At this range, some artefacts may be visible on close inspection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Below 60%, JPEG compression artefacts become clearly visible \u2014 blocky patterns, smeared edges, colour banding. Only use this range when you absolutely must minimise file size and display quality is not important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Not exactly. Quality settings aren’t standardised across different software. A ’90’ in one converter might produce a different file than a ’90’ in another. What matters is the actual visual quality of the output, not the number itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The same principles apply to WebP and AVIF quality settings, but the compression is more efficient \u2014 meaning a WebP at quality 85% will typically look better than a JPG at quality 85%, while producing a smaller file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our recommendation: start at 90% and look at the result. If the file size is acceptable, you’re done. If you need it smaller, drop to 85%. If you can’t tell the difference at 85%, drop to 80%. Trust your eyes over the number.<\/p>\n\n\n\n