Reducing image size is usually about managing trade-offs, not discovering a magic setting that makes every file tiny and perfect. The safest approach is to work through the variables that matter most: dimensions, file format, and compression level.
Start with dimensions, not quality sliders
Large images often stay large because they contain far more pixels than the final layout needs. If an article card only displays at 400 pixels wide, exporting a 3000 pixel source is often wasteful. That is why a combination of Image Resizer and Image Compressor usually beats aggressive compression alone.
Pick the output format on purpose
JPEG is still a practical choice for photos, PNG remains useful for transparency and crisp UI graphics, and WebP often gives a more efficient web-focused result. The right answer depends on the image content and the publishing target, which is why JPG vs PNG vs WebP: Which Image Format Should You Use? is a helpful follow-up when the format decision is unclear.
Compress in small steps
When you reduce quality too far in one jump, artifacts become obvious. Instead, move in smaller steps and compare the result at the display size that matters. A hero image, a thumbnail, and an email attachment rarely need the same threshold.
Know when a smaller file is not worth it
Some images are already near a sensible balance. If reducing the file by a few extra kilobytes makes text edges blur or gradients break apart, that trade-off may not be worth taking. The goal is not to chase the smallest possible file. The goal is to ship a file that looks right for its job.
Use a repeatable workflow
A practical repeatable workflow is simple: resize first if the pixel dimensions are oversized, convert to a better-suited format when necessary, then compress and compare the real output. That is the pattern the current NOPPAW image routes are built to support.