I'm sure many of you are already aware of this piece of software, but I just found it yesterday, and I'm VERY excited about it's potential to speed up my workflow.
It's called JPEGmini and it's only purpose is to somehow compress a JPG image file while keeping all visible quality in the image. I'm not sure how their algorithm works, but I inspected on some of my own images, and I can't tell any visible differences after I run JPEGmini on a batch of images, even when inspecting at 1:1.
I ran it on a batch of images I recently uploaded to my proofing gallery for a client, and it reduced the file size by an average of 300%. I typically see file sizes of 7-8 MB and sometimes 12MB or higher with images I've done lots of work on in PS. After running JPEGmini, the average is less than 3MB per file. FWIW, I shoot with a D3s and a D3.
The full version of the software is $19.99, but there's a free version that lets you run up to 20 images per day.
**disclaimer: I have no financial interest in JPEGmini, I just found it to be very helpful and thought the community here would appreciate the recommendation.**
Not sure what you're doing in PS, but my full size prints uploaded to the lab only run about 2-3mb. Even 11x14's only top out at 5mb. I see no visual differences in those either. Are you doing all your exports on level 12?
I've been using it for a while and I would say that on most pictures it does a great job...but not on all pictures. You do get artefacts in some images, specially when you have gradients on the sky, at least that's my experience. I use it on the files on my website because it does speed up the loading times a lot. All pictures on my website got the JPEGmini treatment
Alan, I must be doing something wrong then. I consistently run 6 or 7MB for all my completed files, exported from LR4 at 100% quality.
Now, perhaps the problem is that I'm converting from a TIF to a JPG on export. I may need to clean up my workflow. I just always thought that those sizes were normal...
It's a real pain trying to upload 500 files that large to my merchant website...
Well, now we're talking about different things. You mentioned PS originally. 100% quality out of LR for a client's finals is overkill. 85% is more than fine. PS on 10 and LR at 85 result in similar file size.
amonline wrote:
Well, now we're talking about different things. You mentioned PS originally. 100% quality out of LR for a client's finals is overkill. 85% is more than fine. PS on 10 and LR at 85 result in similar file size.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I do the majority of my post work in LR, then run anything that needs extra edits through photoshop and back into LR for export/upload. I'll take a look at 85% quality on my JPGs, thanks for that tidbit.
If you're interested in quality and JPEG export via Lightroom then the below link is very interesting. Everything is not as it seems. 85 and 86% quality for example will result in the exact same file size. Take a look, it's extremely revealing:
tonyhart wrote:
If you're interested in quality and JPEG export via Lightroom then the below link is very interesting. Everything is not as it seems. 83 and 85% quality for example will result in the exact same file size. Take a look, it's extremely revealing:
Tony, thanks for sharing that article. I never knew most of those facts. My workflow will be changing immediately. No more 100% quality JPG on export...
tonyhart wrote:
If you're interested in quality and JPEG export via Lightroom then the below link is very interesting. Everything is not as it seems. 83 and 85% quality for example will result in the exact same file size. Take a look, it's extremely revealing:
There appears to be a huge difference in file size between exporting at 84% and 85% (I've been using 85%). 84% results in a significantly smaller file size with no loss in quality. I guess I'll be tweaking my export presets.
Jeffrey Friedl's analysis is terrific. After reading it a year or so ago, I changed my LR export settings (for 4x6 prints) to 83% for quality, and 6" on the long edge. The average jpeg is 700KB, and at 4x6 they print just fine.
I agree that Jeffrey Friedl's analysis is terrific - thanks for the link!
I think that JPG quality is lost every time you re-save the file, so I would avoid a workflow that involves saving in Photoshop (or Lightroom) and then using a separate program to re-save a reduced file size (eg JPEGmini)
- I think you're better off just saving once - choose a lower quality setting when you export to JPG from PS (or LR)
