Compressing jpeg to a specific file size (Page 3): Thanks to all. I am satisfied that my questions and concerns have been answered.

Dragonophile

Thanks to all. I am satisfied that my questions and concerns have been answered.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

I do it in pse program.
I save as jpeg, select file size, save.
I select around 5 or 6.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Dragonophile wrote:

I want to compress my jpegs to 11mb in size. There... (show quote)

Did they want pixel resolution? I've not seen anyone that's specifies disk size.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Wallen wrote:

We can designate the quality of Jpg compression, b... (show quote)

This sounds reasonable to me but I would not worry about it so precisely.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Dragonophile wrote:

I want to compress my jpegs to 11mb in size. There... (show quote)

I would not be so fussy. If you want <12mb don't worry if you get 11.9 or 10.2 mb, you would be hard pressed to tell the differenced in the images. 2.1 mb, yes you would probably find less IQ and/or a smaller physical size.

Dragonophile

frankraney wrote:

Did they want pixel resolution? I've not seen anyone that's specifies disk size.

Marinetraffic.com specifies all photos must comply with a 12mb file size limit. If I try to upload a larger file, it gets rejected. My Fujifilm X-T4 routinely gives me files larger than this. I know I can reduce the file size by camera setting but I definitely do not want to do this. I reduce file size copies for uploading by jpeg compression, but I keep my originals in original file sizes.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Dragonophile wrote:

Marinetraffic.com specifies all photos must comply with a 12mb file size limit. If I try to upload a larger file, it gets rejected. My Fujifilm X-T4 routinely gives me files larger than this. I know I can reduce the file size by camera setting but I definitely do not want to do this. I reduce file size copies for uploading by jpeg compression, but I keep my originals in original file sizes.

Visiting the site and viewing some of the vessel images, you really should just focus on a pixel resolution in the repeatedly suggested 2048 to 3840px range, on the long side, and leave the JPEG quality at 100%. Worrying about a file-size in bytes is a waste of effort and time.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

lamiaceae wrote:

This sounds reasonable to me but I would not worry about it so precisely.

Likewise.
I'd worry more on the image quality first rather than the exact file size.
If there is a limit, then anything below that with a good quality should be OK.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I would go so far as to say that image quality is NOT an issue here. Viewing vessels on the site gives me images that do not fill my screen. (I looked at a large but not extremely large sample set). I would estimate that any image quality above 70 would not present noticeable degradation.

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

DirtFarmer wrote:

My personal philosophy is: 'If it works, don't fix it'.

For me, Lightroom does the trick. It will strongly resist overwriting the original file. IrfanView can overwrite the file on save. Admittedly, there are sometimes good reasons to do that, but if it opens the door to accidental overwrites. I express my own opinion here. YMMV.

Of course backup is some hedge against that.

I have separate file folders for my photos coming out of the camera and folders in which I edit the files. The way I have IrfanView set up, the default folder for the next save is always the one in which it saved last. Since I never save in the folders where the original files are located, there is no chance that by default it would overwrite an original camera file.

But you are correct. We should use the program we are most familiar with if there are several programs that will do the same things. As a physicist who has worked with computer programming all my career, my interest has always been in how things work and how I can replicate it. So, this comes across into my photography as my desire to be a minimalist with regard tto the use of software. --Richard

Dragonophile

DirtFarmer wrote:

I would go so far as to say that image quality is NOT an issue here. Viewing vessels on the site gives me images that do not fill my screen. (I looked at a large but not extremely large sample set). I would estimate that any image quality above 70 would not present noticeable degradation.

I agree that viewing images on the site doesn't require a large file size. But as I clarified, people download pictures from this site to print in various ways. So best resolution for printing is also an issue.

As I have said, I am hearing that I should not have any concern if I can use file compression of 95-99% and get under the 12mb limit.

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

kenArchi wrote:

I do it in pse program.
I save as jpeg, select file size, save.
I select around 5 or 6.

I use PSE also. I goto: file/process multiple files. For the level of compression that he said was required I would set Resolution to 300 and set jpeg to medium quality. See if that gets close to the mark. The actual file is different for every image, but they will be similar.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Dragonophile wrote:

I agree that viewing images on the site doesn't require a large file size. But as I clarified, people download pictures from this site to print in various ways. So best resolution for printing is also an issue....

That is one reason I generally ignore advice to resize the photos for the web. However, I still think 95 is overkill for the quality factor, even for printing. My default is 80.

As always, they're your images so YMMV.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Dragonophile wrote:

I agree that viewing images on the site doesn't require a large file size. But as I clarified, people download pictures from this site to print in various ways. So best resolution for printing is also an issue.

As I have said, I am hearing that I should not have any concern if I can use file compression of 95-99% and get under the 12mb limit.

You’ll get great results with 90% or higher. You really are worrying about a trivial matter here. Just don’t edit and re-save a JPEG more than once or twice.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

burkphoto wrote:

... Just don’t edit and re-save a JPEG more than once or twice.

Even that is not as big a problem as everyone seems to think. As long as you use reasonable quality levels the changes in the image are incrementally small and eventually reach a saturation point where no change occurs. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=3000