Simply Image Tools
Open editor

Free · No sign-up · Nothing uploaded

Image tools that never touch a server.

Every tool here runs entirely in your browser using the canvas — so your images stay on your device, processing is instant, and there are no upload limits, sign-ups, or watermarks. One image or a whole batch.

Open the full editorCombine several tools, edit a whole batch at once

Why in-browser?

Most “free” online image tools upload your file to their servers, process it there, and send it back. That is slower, requires a connection, and means a copy of your image exists on someone else’s computer. For a holiday snapshot that may not matter. For a signed contract, a passport scan, a medical form, or an unreleased product shot, it is a real decision — and one those sites rarely make obvious you are taking.

The technical irony is that the upload is usually unnecessary. Browsers have had everything needed to decode, edit, and re-encode images built in for years. These tools use that instead: your file is read from disk into memory, edited on a canvas, and handed back to you without ever crossing the network. You can verify it in about thirty seconds by disconnecting from the internet and using the tools anyway — everything still works.

What that changes in practice

There is no upload wait, so processing starts the instant you drop a file. There are no file size caps beyond what your own device can hold in memory, and no daily limits, because there is no server cost to ration. There are no accounts, and nothing is stored — close the tab and the work is genuinely gone.

The trade-off is honest: your device does the work, so a very large image on an old phone will be slower than it would be on a rented server, and some things — large machine-learning models, for instance — are impractical to ship this way. We say so on the pages where it matters rather than pretending the approach has no costs.

Advice based on measurements

Most published advice about image formats is the same handful of rules of thumb copied between articles. We ran our own tests instead, encoding a fixed set of images through the same code these tools use, and wrote up what the numbers showed — including the results that contradicted what we expected.

WebP turned out to beat JPEG by anywhere from 12% to 70% depending entirely on the picture, not the ~30% usually quoted. Saving a screenshot as JPEG produced a file several times larger than lossless PNG, and blurrier. And quality 100 cost dramatically more than quality 90 for no visible gain. The guides show the full data and how it was collected.