JPEGmini

levihaynes

levihaynes

Suspended / Banned
Messages
341
Name
Levi
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking for comments on what people think of this utility.

It uses jpeg compression, keeps the original picture size/quality, and makes the file sizes much smaller.
The resulting file is simply a jpeg and can be opened like any other picture.

http://www.jpegmini.com/

From what I can see it works great, however I'm cautious about using. Are there any experienced users out there?
Maybe someone can comment on the programs strength/weaknesses or limitations. It only supports jpeg.

The reason why I'm cautious is because I don't want to use the utility and then later find problems with its techniques.
It would defeat its purpose keeping the original full size images. On the other hand it looks perfect for posting pictures on the web.

For those that haven't heard of this program yet... the free version allows you to compress 20 photos per day. Give it a go.
 
I tried it a while ago, works well but no better than photoshop's save for web option in terms of the results. I'd always keep the originals regardless though.
 
jpw said:
I tried it a while ago, works well but no better than photoshop's save for web option in terms of the results. I'd always keep the originals regardless though.
Click to expand...

In this case there would be no benefit purchasing the program for web content.

What about compressing full size images, the equivalent of using number 12 on the quality slider in photoshop?

The idea would be saving storage space, but still have perfect size/quality originals. Its the only benefit I see to the program. Any thoughts??
 
Last edited:
levihaynes said:
In this case there would be no benefit purchasing the program for web content.

What about compressing full size images, the equivalent of using number 12 on the quality slider in photoshop?

The idea would be saving storage space, but still have perfect size/quality originals. Its the only benefit I see to the program. Any thoughts??
Click to expand...

Storage is so cheap these days it isn't really worth reducing them further, jpgs are small files already. The only benefit I can see is for web use if you don't already have something that does the same thing.
 
Last edited:
jpw said:
Storage is so cheap these days it isn't really worth reducing them further, jpgs are small files already. The only benefit I can see is for web use if you don't already have something that does the same thing.
Click to expand...

Thats a very valid point. So really its a waste of time!
 
Easy Thumbnails does exactly the same thing and it's free!

I've used it for years with no problems at all and it does simple editing - resizing, sharpening etc and also batch processing.

Just set the quality to 85% with no resize and there you are.
.
 
Another vote for eazy thumbnails. If you want to keep the original full size but lower the actuall file size theres several free program that will do that, I would use photoshops save for web option and take the quality down (but I would keep the originals as well)
 
Hi Everyone-

I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Mitch Schneider, and I work at JPEGmini. I just wanted to add a point to this thread regarding Photoshop and JPEGmini. Using the “Save for Web” feature in Photoshop on each image isn’t really time efficient. When you first go into the Save for Web feature, the default quality is the preset “JPEG High”. You can change the quality level, and compare the “Original” and “Optimized” photos unit you are satisfied with the quality. But this “manual” optimization of photos is really time consuming. Even if you do choose a higher quality setting in photoshop, did you know that it sometimes reduces the image quality? According to Michael Zhang, “don’t ever use a quality of 7 when saving JPEGs with Photoshop. Either use 6, or something higher than 7 if you want to actually increase the quality of the photo.” I actually blogged about it. You can read it here.
 
JPEGminiMitch said:
Hi Everyone-

I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Mitch Schneider, and I work at JPEGmini. I just wanted to add a point to this thread regarding Photoshop and JPEGmini. Using the “Save for Web” feature in Photoshop on each image isn’t really time efficient. When you first go into the Save for Web feature, the default quality is the preset “JPEG High”. You can change the quality level, and compare the “Original” and “Optimized” photos unit you are satisfied with the quality. But this “manual” optimization of photos is really time consuming. Even if you do choose a higher quality setting in photoshop, did you know that it sometimes reduces the image quality? According to Michael Zhang, “don’t ever use a quality of 7 when saving JPEGs with Photoshop. Either use 6, or something higher than 7 if you want to actually increase the quality of the photo.” I actually blogged about it. You can read it here.
Click to expand...

I'm still finding it hard to see what JPEGmini has to offer. It seems like other packages do the same for free, or without the limitation. Tell us why we should part with our cash to buy your companies program.
 
A little while back I accidently exported a whole batch of pics at a really low setting from lightroom (someone else had used it and not reset it) I didn't notice untill I went to move the folderand only noticed by the size, even at 100 % it was just about impossible to see any real difference.
Try saving an image at jpeg 2 then the same image at 12, layer them and align them and turn the top layer to difference, you might be supprised at how little difference there is. Certainly on a web sized pic theres no way you'd see any difference.
 
Jpegmini is great.

It's only downside is when you already have pretty small files and then use jpegmini. The quality really suffers. However, using it to 950kb files, down to 300kb and there is no noticeable difference in file quality.

It's only £10 - even if you buy it and only use it a few times, it's hardly going to matter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top