Free Photo editor for simple editing and compress file
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Free Photo editor for simple editing and compress file

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    burnaby
    Posts
    976

    Free Photo editor for simple editing and compress file

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    53,392
    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.

  3. #3
    photolady's Avatar
    photolady is offline Lifetime Friend of Site Staff
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    At my computer, cruising VDR and watching your back
    Posts
    23,412
    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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    53,392
    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.

  5. #5
    photolady's Avatar
    photolady is offline Lifetime Friend of Site Staff
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    At my computer, cruising VDR and watching your back
    Posts
    23,412
    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.
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    17,806
    Original pic is 6016x4000 pixels, 300 DPI with original camera compression, at roughly 10 Megabyte in file size:


    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:


    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.

  7. #7
    photolady's Avatar
    photolady is offline Lifetime Friend of Site Staff
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    At my computer, cruising VDR and watching your back
    Posts
    23,412
    That's fine for screen viewing, but have you tried printing them after changing dpi and compressing them?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    17,806
    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?>

  9. #9
    photolady's Avatar
    photolady is offline Lifetime Friend of Site Staff
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    At my computer, cruising VDR and watching your back
    Posts
    23,412
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    17,806
    I see. Fortunately, the OP only needs to view them.

  11. #11
    photolady's Avatar
    photolady is offline Lifetime Friend of Site Staff
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    At my computer, cruising VDR and watching your back
    Posts
    23,412
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    17,806
    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".

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    53,392
    "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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •