JPEG | Blog | Iminify

Bar chart of file sizes for a photo at four print sizes, 8x10 to 24x36. PNG bars run from 11.3 to 70.6 MB and JPEG bars from 1.4 to 6.5 MB, with a dashed line at Etsy's 20 MB limit.

How many pixels does an AI print need? 300 per inch, and at 16x20 our PNG is over Etsy's download limit

The usual answer is 300 pixels per inch of print: 2400 x 3000 for an 8x10, 4800 x 6000 for a 16x20, 7200 x 10800 for a 24x36. A square Midjourney 8.2 HD image is 2048 x 2048 and a square Gemini 4K image is 4096 x 4096, so neither reaches a 16x20 at that rate without more pixels. (Shops write DPI. Here it means pixels per inch of print.) From a 4K Gemini picture we made 16x20 files of 4800 x 6000 pixels: the PNG is 35.8 MB, over Etsy's 20 MB per file for digital downloads, and the JPEG is 3.6 MB.

Nov 6, 2026 7 min read

Two rows of seven squares, one per test post. After the default wp media regenerate, four squares are red and read 404 and three read 200; after --skip-delete and the rewrite, all seven read 200.

Convert your existing WordPress images to WebP without a plugin: what regenerate breaks

On a WordPress 7.1.4 test site, one filter and wp media regenerate turned the resized copies WordPress makes of five full-colour (4:4:4) photographs into WebP files with 62.5% of the JPEG copies' bytes. All 25 WebP copies, five sizes of each photograph, also scored lower. The filter and regenerate also left four of our seven test posts pointing at copies WP-CLI had just deleted, and took the srcset off all seven inserted images that had one. The version below leaves no address broken and gives six of those seven their srcset back: the filter, regenerate with one flag, and a rewrite that changes an address only where a WebP exists. The recipe as printed needs WP-CLI and a shell on the server.

Nov 5, 2026 8 min read

Bar chart of bytes Chrome downloaded at phone size for five 4K JPEGs on a Next.js static export page: 55.2 MB as they are, 10.2 MB as Smart JPG at full size, 1.29 MB at 1200 px wide, 767 KB through next-image-export-optimizer.

WebP
JPEG

Next.js static export images: the default loader breaks them and unoptimized ships the original

We built a page with five photographs in a Next.js 16.4.3 App Router app, set output: 'export', left the image settings alone, and next build finished with exit code 0. In Chrome none of the five images loaded: every src pointed at /_next/image, an endpoint a static export doesn't contain. Setting images: { unoptimized: true } fixes that, and the export then serves the file you put in public/. Chrome at phone size downloaded 2.4 MB for five 1800 px photographs, and 55.2 MB when the same page held five 4K Gemini JPEGs. This post compares that flag, next-image-export-optimizer and resizing the files first by what Chrome downloaded at phone size and at desktop size. The table is in the second section, and the choice we'd make follows the three options.

Nov 4, 2026 7 min read

Iminify blog cover on a blue gradient with a pixel pattern: "Should you compress before your CDN does?"

WebP
JPEG

Should you compress images before your CDN re-encodes them? Measured through Next.js, wsrv.nl and Photon

The Fjord, one of our five test photographs, is an 852,461-byte JPEG, the master every score below is measured against. Iminify's Smart level makes it a 568,598-byte JPEG. We sent both through Next.js 16.4.3's image optimizer at its default, WebP at quality 75. Next's WebP of the master weighed 321,790 bytes and scored 66.98 against the master on SSIMULACRA 2, where 100 means no difference from the master. Its WebP of the Smart file weighed 314,578 bytes and scored 64.30: 2.2 percent fewer bytes for 2.7 points. Should you compress before a CDN or optimizer re-encodes your image? In our tests, on five JPEG photographs through Next and wsrv.nl, only losslessly. A lossless repack, which made our uploads 2.4 to 5.6 percent smaller, changed nothing in 80 of 80 Next responses. And in 40 of 40 comparisons at no more bytes, asking Next for a lower quality setting scored higher than the lossy first pass. If nothing re-encodes after you, compress first.

Nov 3, 2026 7 min read

Four teal circles on a transparent background, above the same image converted to JPG with Pillow, where the strips behind them came out magenta, white, black and black.

Why does a transparent PNG turn black as a JPG? The colour hiding underneath

We made an 800x400 test PNG with four strips that look alike: the same teal circle on a transparent background, four times over (the fourth with a soft shadow). Then we turned it into a JPG with Pillow, Python's imaging library, using its convert("RGB"). The four strips came back magenta, white, black and black. Nothing was added. Those colours were already in the PNG, sitting under the transparency. A JPG can't store transparency, so whatever writes it has to put something behind the picture. Some tools paint white. Some just reveal the colour stored under the transparent pixels, which is often black. And Chrome's canvas, the drawing surface web pages use to edit images, paints black whatever was there, because the HTML standard says it must. If you want white, or any other colour, you have to choose it before the JPG is written. Iminify's JPG output puts white behind the picture, and PNG to WebP keeps the transparency instead.

Nov 2, 2026 8 min read

Ten squares: 4 filled for tools that kept the IPTC AI tag at their defaults, 6 hollow for tools that dropped it, beside the title Does compression remove the AI tag?

Does compression remove the AI tag Merchant Center asks for? 10 tools, WordPress and Iminify tested

Google's Merchant Center help says: "Don't remove embedded metadata tags such as trainedAlgorithmicMedia from such images. All AI-generated images must contain the IPTC DigitalSourceType trainedAlgorithmicMedia tag." (Merchant Center's help page is dated February 2024; we read it on 26 October 2026.) So we put that tag on two AI images, a harbour scene from Nano Banana 2 (a JPEG) and a bakery illustration from the original Nano Banana (a PNG), ran them through 42 command-line runs and Iminify, added three larger JPEGs for a WordPress 7.1.3 site, and read the tag back with ExifTool each time. Each tool's default decides whether the tag survives, and neither lossy nor lossless predicts it. Of the ten tools in our table, four keep the tag at their defaults and six drop it, and for nine of them we found an option that flips that. Iminify, which is our product, lost it at every level that compresses: it survived in 6 of 51 uploads, and those six came back byte for byte unchanged. One ExifTool command puts the tag back for 514 to 568 bytes and, on the nine files we checked, leaves every pixel alone.

Oct 30, 2026 8 min read

Two cards for the same photograph: the JPEG saved at quality 80, 449 KB, score 75.6, and the WebP made from it at quality 90, 531 KB, score 71.3.

Why is my WebP bigger than the JPG? Measured on 40 JPEGs and 4 PNGs

One photograph of our corpus, the Fjord, saved as a JPEG at quality 80 weighed 449,258 bytes. Converted to WebP at quality 90, it weighed 531,474, which is 18% more. Scored against the corpus master it came from (a JPEG saved at quality 92), the bigger file was also the worse picture: 71.3 on SSIMULACRA 2, a score where higher means closer to the master, against 75.6 for the JPEG. Google's WebP FAQ says a WebP can grow larger than its source and names three situations. We measured each on five photographs and four graphics. A WebP comes out bigger when its quality is set too high for the JPEG it came from, when it is lossless, or when a PNG already squeezed to 256 colours goes to lossy WebP. A fourth cause, which the FAQ doesn't list, is that WebP isn't always smaller than a good JPEG even at the same score. Whichever it is, keep the smaller file when the two look alike.

Oct 29, 2026 7 min read

Two cards under the title "Do AI images hurt SEO? The file can.": a Gemini 2K picture as delivered, 3.95 MB, largest paint 20.3 s; the same picture resized to 720 wide, 104 KB, 1.4 s, in Lighthouse's mobile test.

Do AI images hurt SEO? What Google's pages say, and what a 2K Gemini picture did to a page

We put Gemini pictures on a plain article page, one size at a time, and ran Lighthouse's mobile test on each. Straight from the generator, the 1K file (1.06 MB) took 6.2 seconds to become the page's largest paint (LCP), the 2K file (3.95 MB) took 20.3 seconds and the 4K file (10.51 MB) took 52.4 seconds. Google's target for that metric is 2.5 seconds. Do AI images hurt SEO? In the Google pages we read, nothing marks an image down for being AI-made. The file is another matter: the same 2K picture, resized and compressed to 104 KB, took 1.4 seconds. Iminify's compressor also drops the C2PA manifest that marks a Gemini file as AI-made, and Google's Merchant Center asks sellers to keep an IPTC tag that says the same.

Oct 28, 2026 8 min read

Two white cards on a blue gradient: WebP at quality 75, 35.1 KB, score 68.0, and AVIF at quality 47, 25.5 KB, score 68.8, beside the headline "A quality of 75 ships as WebP 75, or AVIF 47 if enabled".

What image quality does Next.js ship? WebP 75, AVIF 47 if you list it, and by default a 90 becomes 75

We built a Next.js 16.4.3 app with four images on one page, two of them declared with quality={90} and quality={100}. All 36 image addresses in the page's HTML said q=75. We also asked the image endpoint for q=90 directly, and it answered HTTP 400: "q" parameter (quality) of 90 is not allowed. That is Next 16's default: the list of allowed qualities is [75], and the component moves anything else to the nearest entry. This post follows the 75 to the encoder, in WebP and in AVIF if you switch it on, across 867 requests to a self-hosted /_next/image on nine source images. The default WebP puts one of our five photographs at 1080 px above 70, the "high quality" mark on SSIMULACRA 2, a perceptual score. AVIF at the same setting was 36.5 percent smaller across our 27 image and width combinations, and more than 3 points below WebP on score in 8 of them.

Oct 27, 2026 7 min read

Two enlarged crops of the same red text saved as JPEG at quality 80, one at 4:2:0 and one at 4:4:4, beside the title. The 4:2:0 crop has a duller, browner red.

Why is red text blurry in JPG and WebP? Chroma subsampling, measured

On a test page we made full of red text, no quality from 30 to 100 lifted a plain 4:2:0 encode (no -sharp_yuv) past 58.2 on the SSIMULACRA 2 scale, which runs to 100: JPEG (cjpegli) reached 57.9, WebP 55.2, AVIF (avifenc) 58.2. The same JPEG written at 4:4:4 scored 81.6 at quality 90. That gap is chroma subsampling: 4:2:0 keeps colour at a quarter of the detail that brightness gets, and 4:4:4 keeps all of it. It's why red text looks blurry in a JPG or a WebP. The fix is 4:4:4 for JPEG and AVIF, -sharp_yuv for lossy WebP (which narrows the gap), or lossless WebP on a flat page; What we'd use has the numbers and commands.

Oct 26, 2026 6 min read

Bar chart of the saving range for each kind of JPEG: camera and AI originals 8.6 to 16.3 percent, editor exports 5.1 to 9.4, web-sized files 2.4 to 7.7, and an Iminify Smart output 0.0.

JPEG

How much does lossless JPEG compression save? 25 files, every pixel checked

Lossless JPEG compression with mozjpeg's jpegtran -copy none took between 0 and 16.3 percent off the 25 JPEGs we tested. Together they shrank 9.5 percent, from 164.1 MB to 148.5 MB, and the median file lost 6.6 percent. Every one still decodes to the same pixels. Where a file lands depends on where it came from. Camera and AI originals saved 8.6 to 16.3 percent, files exported from an editor 5.1 to 9.4, and thumbnails and sample photos sized for the web 2.4 to 7.7. The one file that Iminify's Smart level had already compressed, the Smart file below, saved nothing. Cloudflare's documentation says its lossless mode saves 21 percent on average "compared to unoptimized image files", with no figure for JPEG alone (page updated 21 April 2026). We didn't run it, and the best of ours saved 16.3.

Oct 23, 2026 8 min read

Grid of results for one iPhone photo sent in seven formats to three AI APIs: Claude's and OpenAI's read JPEG, PNG, WebP and GIF and refused AVIF, TIFF and HEIC; Gemini 3.8 Flash read all seven.

Can ChatGPT read HEIC? What five AI tools list, and what three APIs did with an iPhone photo

On 11 October 2026 we sent the same iPhone photo, a 1.7 MB HEIC of two greyhounds looking into a café, to three AI APIs (the interfaces developers use, not the chat apps). Gemini 3.8 Flash answered "Two leashed dogs looking inside a stylish, cozy restaurant." OpenAI's API replied "The image data you provided does not represent a valid image." Claude's API returned an error naming the four types it takes: JPEG, PNG, GIF and WebP. So can ChatGPT read HEIC? OpenAI's help page for ChatGPT lists three image types: PNG, JPEG and non-animated GIF. HEIC isn't one of them. Convert the photo to JPG before you attach it: JPEG, the same format as JPG, is on every format list we read from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and xAI. Iminify's HEIC to JPG page converts it without an account. Two of the lists we read name HEIC: Google's image page for the Gemini API and xAI's FAQ for the Grok app.

Oct 21, 2026 7 min read

Try it on your own images