Printable View
Just bought a DSLR. The jpg file size is big when we use the highest setting to shoot. It is 9 to 10MB each. I would like to find a free (not free download or trial) software to do some simple editing like cropping, adjust brightness, hue etc and most important able to compress the file to smaller size, (preferably less than 1MB each) such that I can send them to my friends and families for viewing.
Any suggestion?
FastStone Image Viewer
Been using it for years now. Easy to use.
http://www.faststone.org/
Video tips on how to use it.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...iewer+tutorial
They even have a portable version.
Just be aware, any time you compress a JPG you're going to lose details. Which DSLR did you buy and did it not come with editing software?
Lossless and lossy compression of graphics, worth the read.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...sy-compression
As for emailing restrictions, yes you need the smaller size, but I never get rid of the original and back them up.
You can make the smaller copies, but you can never make them larger where they look good.
In other words, the more you compress, to make it small enough to email, you'll lose data/details. And if your recipient tries to print them they're not going to like what they see. :eek:Quote:
The JPEG image file, commonly used for photographs and other complex still images on the Web, is an image that has lossy compression. Using JPEG compression, the creator can decide how much loss to introduce and make a trade-off between file size and image quality.
Original pic is 6016x4000 pixels, 300 DPI with original camera compression, at roughly 10 Megabyte in file size:
http://www.SpywareDrGuide.com/Virtua...M_original.gif
6016x4000p_300dpi_NoCompress_10M_original.jpg
(Click this thumbnail to view the above pic)
Here's the same pic compressed to roughly 1 MegaByte in size by reducing it to 72 DPI and using 70% compression:
http://www.SpywareDrGuide.com/Virtua...ompress_1M.gif
6016x4000p_72dpi_70PercentCompress_1M.jpg
(Click this thumbnail to view the above pic)
I really can't tell much of a difference until I've zoomed way in.
That's fine for screen viewing, but have you tried printing them after changing dpi and compressing them?
No, I hadn't ... simply because the OP said the goal was "for viewing."
Just for grins though, I went ahead and printed them both now with a hpdeskjet 940c (inkjet) on plain old 8-1/2 x 11 copy paper (Georgia-Pacific Spectrum "Standard 92") and I certainly cannot see any difference. <shrug?>
You wouldn't unless you used glossy photo paper.Quote:
I went ahead and printed them both now with a hpdeskjet 940c (inkjet) on plain old 8-1/2 x 11 copy paper (Georgia-Pacific Spectrum "Standard 92") and I certainly cannot see any difference. <shrug?>
I see. Fortunately, the OP only needs to view them.
I wasn't speaking of the OP when I said that about resizing jpgs. I was speaking of those that would get them in an email (which OP was asking about size to send them) if they attempted to print them.
I see. I was responding to the "Just be aware, any time you compress a JPG you're going to lose details." Which is true. As you can see in the above example though, even when reducing the original pic to 72 DPI as well as using a whopping 70% compression on it -- which reduces the file size to a tenth of its original size "for emailing" -- it still looks good "for viewing".
Why I have to follow up with data dvds, USB sticks via snail mail and use Syncback when visiting.Quote:
"for emailing" -- it still looks good "for viewing".