Last Chance to Preorder and SAVE $50 on Photographing the Couple Workshop

Reduce Image Size By Up to 5x with No Quality Loss with JPEGmini

May 12th 2013 12:00 PM

Let’s face it, images take up a lot of space on our hard drives. What if you could reduce the size of your image files by up to 5 times without effecting the quality of the image? It sounds crazy to some people but it is actually possible.

jpegmini-1

JPEGmini is a popular app that does this for your image files, until recently it was only available on the web or Mac OS. Windows users were stuck with the web app, which works just as well as the desktop app but is a little slower since it all happens over the web. That all changed recently and JPEGmini is now available for windows as well!

You learn more about JPEGmini from their website and you can buy it as a digital download from B&H for only $19.99. A pretty good deal if you ask me!

jpegmini-2

Why You WOULD Want To Use an App Like This

This is a HUGE space saver, it can allow you to save upwards of 3-5x as many photos on the same hard drive as you have now. But its powers go way beyond just space saving, it is also an app that you need to have if you want to upload your images to your website.

Have you ever wondered how some big websites can upload images at such high quality but still have the images load quickly without slowing down the website? I racked my mind about this for a long time, and that’s when I found JPEGmini and other similar services. Simply convert the photo before you upload and you will have the highest quality possible at the lowest possible file size. Which means your image will load faster and won’t bog down your website.

The other big pro is that you can use this to archive jpegs of client images without having to take a loss in quality.

Why You WOULDN’T Want to Use an App Like This

Saving space is great and all, but there is at least one big reason why you would not want to use an app like this. The biggest reason is that if you are planning on doing any sort of editing for these images you will not have the same latitude you did from the original file and since your editing capabilities are already pretty hampered by the jpegs it would not be recommended to do any sort of professional level editing on these images after being minified.

 

What is your take? Would you use an app like this for archival images? Or just for web uploads? Or Not at all? Let us know in a comment below.

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Comments [8]

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Max

    There’s no need to compress photos on a PC. As for web there’s a better tool: http://optimizilla.com

    | |
  2. Adam Lawrence

    Might work wonders for uploadin your pics on facebook as we all know it rapes quality off large files

    | |
  3. georg1949

    With the price of hard drives dropping ever more (2-3 TB for 120 Euro), who needs this to store fotos? For uploading to the internet it has its purpose however.

    | |
    • Nick Li

      u can still reduce an amount of money though.

      | |
    • Anthony Thurston

      To some people 120 euro is still quite a bit of money. Even if its not, why not get as much out of each drive as you can?

      | |
    • Tobias Vincent Solem

      Quality will always win over quantity.

      | |
    • Anthony Thurston

      In general I agree with you. But in this case, if you are archiving finished jpegs then with JPEGmini there is no quality loss so your point is not really relevant. IF you are archiving unfinished jpegs then I agree that this may not be a good option if you may need to reedit them in the future.

      | |
    • Tobias Vincent Solem

      Why on earth would you want to “archive finished JPEGS”? JPG is a lossy format, you lose image quality and if you ever want to edit those images again, you will further that destruction. JPG works fine for displaying images on the web where speed of loading time is an absolute must have (such as facebook). When that isn’t the case (such as when you want to archive images for posterity) JPG is a horrible format, and why photographers (and camera producers) stubbornly keep insisting on using it I will never know (yes, I know EXIF data, woohoo changes nothing in the actual the image).

      | |