Skip to main content
gfbugaboo
gfbugaboo
Inspiring
March 15, 2026
Answered

Was it worthwhile to save with Maximum image quality all these years?

  • March 15, 2026
  • 3 replies
  • 89 views

I’ve been using Photoshop Elements for about 7 years and save most of my edited files as JPEG, using MAX quality option (I save the unedited originals, and RAW files when I use them in editing, offline). As my disk storage space now sometimes shrinks below 10 percent free space, I’m wondering whether MAX really bought me anything useful, versus using HIGH, which would have resulted in my having a lot more free disk space. I don’t publish or sell my photos. I sometimes share them with friends, and once in a while show them on my 60-inch TV, and that’s the extent of their use. Opinions?

    Correct answer Glenn 8675309

    It kinda defeats the purpose of a jpg file-   the higher the save quality (the higher the number) the less compression on the image.  For basic online stuff jpg is fine, FB for example compresses everything uploaded to it.   The amount involved between MAX and any of the other quality settings?  You are talking about a few KB per image-    If this was 30 years ago, in the days of 14.4 modems, yeah worry about it.  In todays world, save it as whatever-- the average user won’t even notice, or care.

    Do whatever makes you warm and fuzzy inside.

    You could just save at the default value (7?) and really not notice anything.

    With your HD falling below 10%: it’s time to get another larger hard drive-- I never worry about running out of space- I just add another SSD (I have 3 sitting in a desk  drawer).

    What it boils down to: It you think it’s worthwhile, then is it.   Me? I don’t worry about it, as long as I have an original laying around soumewhere.

    3 replies

    Phinny
    Phinny
    Legend
    March 19, 2026

    Each time a jpg is opened and re-saved as jpg it will lose some quality even when zero edits are made.  However minuscule, these incremental losses in quality will pile up over years and years of opening and re-saving as jpg.  There are a great many cases in which this wouldn’t be of concern.  However there are other cases in which lossless formats like .png, tiff, etc, are a wiser choice even if it means having to buy additional storage.  

    John Waller
    Community Expert
    John WallerCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    March 18, 2026

    I have never used MAX. Waste of space for no discernible benefit. I usually aim for 70% to 80%. I always keep the RAW files.

     

    I found this article helpful:

    https://www.lenspiration.com/2020/07/what-quality-setting-should-i-use-for-jpg-photos

    Glenn 8675309
    Glenn 8675309Correct answer
    Legend
    March 15, 2026

    It kinda defeats the purpose of a jpg file-   the higher the save quality (the higher the number) the less compression on the image.  For basic online stuff jpg is fine, FB for example compresses everything uploaded to it.   The amount involved between MAX and any of the other quality settings?  You are talking about a few KB per image-    If this was 30 years ago, in the days of 14.4 modems, yeah worry about it.  In todays world, save it as whatever-- the average user won’t even notice, or care.

    Do whatever makes you warm and fuzzy inside.

    You could just save at the default value (7?) and really not notice anything.

    With your HD falling below 10%: it’s time to get another larger hard drive-- I never worry about running out of space- I just add another SSD (I have 3 sitting in a desk  drawer).

    What it boils down to: It you think it’s worthwhile, then is it.   Me? I don’t worry about it, as long as I have an original laying around soumewhere.

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices