Converters

JPG to PNG Converter

Convert a JPG photo to lossless PNG in your browser — the file gets bigger, but every further edit and re-save stops adding new compression loss.

Convert images

Converting JPG to PNG by default — drop a JPG file below, or any JPG, PNG or WebP image; the format picker underneath lets you change the target.

Drop images here, or click to choose files

JPG, PNG or WebP · up to 25.0 MB each · 12 files at a time. Large or very high-resolution images are capped so a decode can't lock this tab.

PNG is lossless — there's no quality trade-off to make.

PNG keeps transparency — no background needed.

Converting JPG to PNG will not sharpen a blurry or over-compressed photo

Switching a photo's file extension from .jpg to .png is a one-way re-encode, not a restoration: PNG stores whatever pixels it's handed exactly as they are, but it has no way to guess back the detail a JPEG's compression already discarded when the photo was first saved. If a phone photo already looks soft, blocky around hard edges, or has visible banding in a sunset sky, converting it to PNG locks that exact appearance in permanently rather than fixing any of it — the pixels a PNG stores are identical to what the JPG decoded to, just written losslessly from that point forward. The honest way to think about this conversion is as a stop-loss, not a quality boost: it prevents things from getting worse from here, it doesn't undo what already happened.

Why a platform, editor or print shop still specifically asks for PNG

Plenty of destinations genuinely require PNG regardless of whether the source ever looked better as a JPG. A design tool that expects layered or precisely-edited artwork often insists on a lossless input so its own filters and exports don't compound onto compression noise that's already there. Some content management systems and print pipelines flag or reject JPG uploads outright for print-quality assets, because they've been burned by JPEG artefacts showing up in a final print run. And a handful of upload forms simply allow-list PNG and nothing else. In every one of these cases, the fix is exactly this conversion — not because it improves the photo, but because it satisfies a requirement that has nothing to do with how the image actually looks.

Adding transparency to a photo that started life as a JPG

A JPG can never carry a transparent pixel — the format has no concept of one — so if you're planning to cut a subject out of its background in an image editor, remove a logo's white backdrop, or layer a photo over something else, you need a format that supports an alpha channel before that work can start. Converting to PNG first doesn't add transparency by itself; every pixel in the freshly-converted PNG is still fully opaque. What it does is hand you a file an editor can actually punch holes in, where a JPG target would force it to fake transparency with a matching background colour instead.

Why the file gets bigger, and by how much

PNG's lossless compression has to store meaningfully more data than a JPEG at typical photo quality settings, because it isn't allowed to throw anything away — a photograph with a lot of fine detail, noise, or a wide range of colours, the kind a camera sensor produces constantly, compresses far less efficiently under PNG's rules than a JPEG's lossy encoder achieves. Expect the PNG version of an ordinary photo to land several times larger than the JPG it came from; exactly how much depends on the photo's content, with a busy, detailed image growing more than a smooth, low-contrast one. A flat graphic or a screenshot converted the same direction barely grows at all, because PNG's compression is actually well suited to large areas of solid colour — it's specifically photographic detail that inflates the result.

Keeping a PNG master while a JPG stays your delivery copy

If a photo is going through several rounds of edits — colour correction, cropping, retouching, exporting for different uses — converting the working copy to PNG once and editing that from then on means every save is bit-for-bit exact, with none of the small, cumulative quality loss that comes from repeatedly opening and re-saving a JPG. Keep the PNG as the file you actually edit, and export a JPG from it only at the end, for whatever destination wants the smaller file. That way the compression only happens once, at the very last step, instead of once per editing session.

Questions

Does converting a JPG to PNG make the photo look better?
No — and this is worth saying plainly, because the instinct behind this conversion is often 'PNG is the higher-quality format, so this should look better.' PNG is lossless, but that only means it doesn't add any further compression artefacts of its own; it can't remove artefacts that were already baked into the JPEG before you converted it. Blockiness around sharp edges, colour banding in gradients, and softness from aggressive compression are all decisions the original JPEG encoder made, and a PNG re-encode stores those exact pixels forever rather than reconstructing what a less-compressed version would have looked like. What genuinely improves from here is that the photo stops degrading further — every future edit and re-save keeps it bit-for-bit exact instead of adding a fresh round of loss. If you need real quality back, you need the original camera file or an earlier, less-compressed save, not this conversion.
Why is my PNG file so much bigger than the JPG I converted it from?
Because PNG is lossless and a typical photograph has too much fine detail and colour variation for lossless compression to shrink efficiently — PNG can't throw pixels away the way JPEG's lossy encoder does, so it has to store far more information to reproduce the image exactly. How much bigger depends heavily on what's in the photo: a detailed, noisy image with lots of colour variation, the kind a camera produces in normal light, grows more than a smooth, low-contrast one, and a flat graphic or screenshot barely grows at all, because PNG's compression is actually efficient on large areas of solid colour. This tool's before/after size line shows the exact difference for your file rather than a generic estimate, since the ratio genuinely varies image to image.
Can I add transparency to a photo after converting it from JPG to PNG?
Not automatically — converting a JPG to PNG on its own doesn't add any transparent pixels, because there weren't any to begin with; the resulting PNG is the same fully opaque image, just stored in a format that's now capable of carrying transparency. What it gives you is the right starting format for the next step: open the PNG in an image editor, erase or mask out a background, and save it as PNG again to keep those newly-transparent areas. If you skip straight to converting a JPG to a JPG-with-a-cutout, you'll hit the same wall, because JPG still can't hold transparency after any amount of editing — the format itself is the limit, not the conversion tool.
Should I always use PNG instead of JPG for photos I plan to edit?
Mostly for the editing stage, not the final delivery. If a photo is going through several rounds of retouching, colour correction or compositing, working from a PNG (or converting to one first) means every intermediate save is exact, with none of the small cumulative loss that comes from repeatedly opening and re-saving a JPG. Once the editing is finished, though, PNG is rarely the right format to actually publish or send a photograph in — it's several times larger than a JPG or WebP at a quality most people can't tell apart from the original, so converting back down for the final, shared copy is normal and expected. Treat PNG as a working format for photos mid-edit, not a permanent upgrade over JPG.