Convert JPG to PNG

This conversion runs in the less common direction — most people are looking to go from PNG to JPG to save space, not the other way around. Converting JPG to PNG comes up in a narrower, more specific situation: you need a lossless version of a photo to work with, even though the photo started life as a JPG.

Why you’d deliberately make a file bigger

JPG’s lossy compression is efficient precisely because it’s willing to throw away detail the eye is unlikely to miss. That’s a fine tradeoff for a finished photo you’re going to view or share as-is — but it becomes a real cost if you’re about to edit that photo across several rounds of changes, each involving its own save or export step. Re-saving a JPG repeatedly compounds quality loss each time, since every save re-applies lossy compression on top of whatever’s already there. Converting to a lossless format like PNG before you start editing means everything you do from that point forward — crops, color adjustments, retouching, compositing — happens without that compounding loss, right up until you export your final result (potentially back to JPG, at that point, for sharing).

It’s worth being precise about what this does and doesn’t fix: converting an already-compressed JPG to PNG doesn’t recover any detail that JPG’s original compression already discarded. That loss happened once, when the file was first saved as a JPG, and it’s permanent. What PNG conversion buys you is a clean stopping point — no further generational loss as you continue working with the file.

The other reason: adding transparency later

JPG has no concept of a transparent pixel — every pixel is fully opaque, always. If your plan for a photo involves removing or replacing its background, compositing it over another image, or turning it into a sticker-style cutout, you’ll eventually need a format that supports an alpha channel. PNG does; JPG fundamentally can’t, no matter what software you use. Converting to PNG first doesn’t add transparency on its own — the photo is still fully opaque the moment it becomes a PNG — but it puts you in a format where adding transparency afterward, with an editor that supports it, is actually possible.

What you’re paying for this flexibility

File size, mainly, and often substantially. PNG’s lossless compression handles the smooth, continuously-varying detail in a typical photograph far less efficiently than JPG’s lossy compression does, so a PNG version of an ordinary photo commonly ends up several times larger than the JPG it came from — sometimes considerably more, depending on how much fine detail and gradient the image contains. That’s an expected, reasonable cost for a temporary working file during editing; it’s generally not worth keeping the PNG version as your final, long-term copy once you’re done, since at that point you’re paying the storage and bandwidth cost of losslessness without actually needing it anymore.

How it works

Add your JPG

Works for any standard JPEG photo or graphic you've saved in JPG format.

Decoded and re-encoded as PNG

The pixel data is read from the JPG and saved losslessly — no further compression artefacts are introduced in this step.

Download a lossless working copy

Useful as a starting point if you're about to edit the image, especially across several rounds of changes, or need to add transparency.

Frequently asked questions

Why would I convert a JPG to PNG — isn't PNG supposed to be for graphics, not photos?

That's true for the final, finished version of an image, but the calculation is different for a working copy you're about to edit. JPG loses a small amount of quality every time it's saved, so if you're planning multiple rounds of edits and exports, starting from a lossless PNG avoids compounding that quality loss with every save — even though the original JPG already has whatever compression loss it started with baked in, converting it once to PNG and then editing the lossless copy stops further loss from accumulating.

Does converting from JPG to PNG recover quality that was already lost?

No — this is an important distinction. Whatever detail the original JPG's compression already discarded is gone permanently; converting to PNG just stops things from getting *worse* going forward. The PNG version will be pixel-for-pixel identical to how the JPG actually looked, not a higher-quality version of it.

Will my photo gain transparency by converting to PNG?

No — a JPG photo is fully opaque, and converting format doesn't add transparency where none existed. PNG simply gives you the *option* to add transparency afterward (by editing out a background, for instance), which JPG never supports at all, even if you wanted to add it manually.

Why is my new PNG file so much bigger than the original JPG?

This is completely expected for photographic content. PNG's lossless compression is far less efficient than JPG's lossy compression at representing smooth photographic detail, so a PNG version of a photo is routinely several times larger than the JPG it came from, even though no new visual detail was added — it's simply a less compact way of storing the same pixels.

When does it actually make sense to keep a photo as PNG long-term?

Rarely, for an ordinary photograph you're not actively editing. PNG's lossless guarantee matters most while a file is in an active editing workflow; once you're done and exporting a final version for sharing, uploading, or archiving, converting back to JPG (or another lossy format) usually makes more sense, trading a small, generally invisible amount of quality for a dramatically smaller file.