Reducing the file size of digital pictures

[hardy]

I don't plan on editing them, so would I lose quality by opening a picture that is originally 4-5mb in Paint, and saving it. Which would make the file size about 600kb+ in most cases. Is doing this fine?

[yoda313]

It sounds like you are talking about .bmp files if you are using MS Paint. I assume by the file size reduction you are targeting jpg as a final destination.

As with most cases heed this advice:

SAVE YOUR ORIGINAL SOURCES!!!

Just like in video and audio work compressions degrades the overall quality. While it may be visually or auditorally identical to the original you won't get the same output when say printing a full size picture or reburning to redbook cd standard.

So in a short answer converting to a smaller picture is fine for things like emailing or posting on a website (or using slow dial up for instance where size makes a huge difference). But just remember to save the original format. Burn it to a disc or copy to a usb jump drive. That way you preserve the original for future editing should you so desire.

[guns1inger]

I would not use Paint for this. Try the free IrfanView instead. It will also let you convert whole folders in a batch if you have lots to do. But as has been stated above - keep your originals untouched and safe.

[Supreme2k]

If you're using Paint.net, you're on the right track. I've often simply opened then saved jpegs in Paint.net and the size reduced drastically (from 2M to 50k). Many cameras save in very low compression.

Yoda, MS paint open/saves jpg too.

[creamyhorror]

I don't plan on editing them, so would I lose quality by opening a picture that is originally 4-5mb in Paint, and saving it. Which would make the file size about 600kb+ in most cases. Is doing this fine?

Assuming your original pictures are JPG, you're definitely losing quality. Kep the originals. Or, if you really must reduce their filesize, use IrfanView as guns1inger suggested and save them at a higher quality level (you can set it using a slider when sving as JPG). 92% should be more than enough.

IrfanView also has batch processing, so you can do this to a whole bunch of photos at once.

[hardy]

My camera already compresses them to JPG, and they are usually 3 to 5mb.

Do I need to keep the originals if I don't plan on editing them? That's really the only reason why I would need to keep them.

[creamyhorror]

Do I need to keep the originals if I don't plan on editing them? That's really the only reason why I would need to keep them.

I don't quite understand you here. What exactly are you intending to do with your photos? If you want to reduce their filesizes, you have to decide what level of quality you want to keep.

[bendixG15]

Small files look okay for viewing on small computer monitors

Big files are needed for quality prints.

[hardy]

So if I plan on printing them, it should be the original file? Or does it matter.

[yoda313]

Yes it does matter. That is what we have been trying to explain.

For quality prints use the original files.

For emailing or web posting shrinking is ok. But you will regret it if you print from shrunk files. The quality will be lost.

[hardy]

I have a newer compact digital camera. What is the compression rate these days with JPG? I opened one picture up with IrfanView and saved it with 100 quality. The file size was bigger than the original. How can the quality increase from the original?

[drjtech]

The quality did not increase, only the file size increased. Keep your original files stored safely exactly as they are. Use your original files as the source when you make smaller files for e-mail, web, etc. Use your original files (or exact copies thereof) when you make prints.

-drjtech

[creamyhorror]

I have a newer compact digital camera. What is the compression rate these days with JPG? I opened one picture up with IrfanView and saved it with 100 quality. The file size was bigger than the original. How can the quality increase from the original?

Whenever you save a picture as JPG (and many other types of image formats), you lose quality (could be a bit, could be a lot). Saving at 100% is pointless, as you discovered - it results in a bigger file and you still may have lost a bit of quality.

Is there a big need to shrink your photos? Hard disk space is pretty cheap nowadays.

[hardy]

Is there a program that can test the quality and quality loss of a digital picture?

[Supreme2k]

You can always shrink them then print 1 or 2 out to check the quality. Most of the pics that I print are 4x6, so quality isn't a huge deal. If my pics are about 1 meg or so, they're fine for my needs.

You can also archive the originals on DVD to save drive space.

[hardy]

Supreme2k, is Paint.NET a reliable program? I was testing it and these were the results.

Original Pic - 3.97 MB
Resaved as 80% Quality - 908 KB

80% should be good enough, even if I decide to print something like a 4x6 or 5x7 later on down the road... right?

[Supreme2k]

In my experience, yes to all of your questions.

[creamyhorror]

The times I shrink pictures, I usually save at 90-92% just to be safe. I hardly ever print photos anyway.

[hardy]

I could raise the quality to 85% and the file size will still be a lot lower than the original. I think it was around 1.3 or 1.4 MB.

[vhelp]

Get a 1TB external hdd and learn to become organized. Then, dump your originals to it, and compress ones to another (casual) drive. Don't get me wrong, I'm still learning how to organize things myself and its not easy. Something always seems to change my goals. I hate that!

As an experiment, you could try resaving to jpeg again, using another image utility, one that allows you to vary the compression amounts. I experimented on a (pascal) utility to do this just to see how much of a hit in quality I'd loose if I saved at 100%, and I found out that it was not much. So, it might be possible.

Actaully, I was considering a new digital camera myself, to replace my Easyshare C330 because it saves in JPG also. I was considering the Fuji, S1500FD is the model I think. I wrote the ordering number down on the BJ's slip, but chickened out at the end on its sale price, $149 -- It looks really nice..its black! But I don't know if it saves in JPG or a high quality codec.

However, I theorize that digital camer that saves in raw format is best, because then you can use a better jpg (or other codec) to smaller filesize. But, I fear that only DSLR camers support this feature only, though I don't really know for sure..there must be *some* consumer level camers out there that supports some raw type or another, crossing my fingers as I press submit.

-vhelp 5339

[hardy]

I was testing these 2 programs and the results were pretty close.

Original Pic - 3.97 MB
Resaved as 90% with IrfanView - 1.43 MB
Resaved as 90% with Paint.NET - 1.45 MB

I just have to figure out which program I trust more with my digital pictures. I have a question about archiving them on a blank dvd, would there be any quality loss during the burn?

[yoda313]

No burning to disc is just like any other data copying. The file remains intact. Just drag and drop the file and your all set. Though if you really want to be careful try using an external harddrive instead or in addition to the disc (in case of read failures in the future). Or recopy the disc once or twice a year to ensure a new copy.

[hardy]

I thought about burning my pictures to either Verbatim or T Yuden.

[hardy]

I have another question. Is there an easy software that can crop a picture from 4:3 to 3:2? Some programs can do it with a lossless crop. So a 3:2 lossless crop would be automatic, the software would probably let you move it up or down on the picture to adjust to what you want.

[Supreme2k]

This seems to be a decent program for lossless cropping

[hardy]

That is sort of what I'm looking for. lossless cropping with fixed aspects