Broadband speeds are getting faster and cheaper these days. Storage space is getting bigger and cheaper as well.However I still maintain a working hypothesis of trimming the fat. If a file or archive does not need it, then trim it!! I recently bought JPEGMini and was stunned by what it could do. I saved around 55gig of space once it had finished Nom Noming its way through my files.
I do this with archives files of programs, jpegs, music, anything to save space. I never keep a raw file in CR2 format, I always convert to Adobe DNG file. When I export Jpegs for Flickr I always run them through JPEGMini to reduce their size, smaller size equals faster uploads. JPEGMini does not remove the EXIF data from your files.
For inclusion of said photos on my Nexus 7, I also run a program called JPEGClean. This strips out EXIF data which the file does not need, reducing its size by a small amount. It is a free utility as well.
While eating pizza I noticed I was compressing the 12" pizza into my stomach. Is it still a 12" pizza? I would think so. All I have done is mash it to a pulp but in essence it is still a 12" pizza.
So this got me thinking, how small with acceptable appearance, could I get a Jpeg file to go? Hmmm...
Raiding my Lightroom catalog, I found a image of a hard drive which I had taken apart for a macro shot. The CR2 was 26meg out of the camera.
I first took the CR2 file and converted it to Adobe DNG (not loss less). This resulted in 22.3meg a saving of 3.7meg.
Exporting the DNG file to a full 100% JPEG came out at 19.6meg a saving of 2.72meg.
After JPEGMini had crunched its way though the file it had reduced to 4.7meg saving a whopping 14.8meg! Nearly 22meg has been saved from the original CR2 file.
So how much further compressed could I get this file? JPEGMini adds a note to the file so it knows it has already been processed. If you try to process the file again JPEGMini will not do it.
As you can see the 10th run produced a file nearly 3 times smaller than the first run. The example below is 100% zoom of the picture. From left to right they are Hard Drive.jpg, Hard Drive_JPM.jpg and Hard Drive_JPM_10thrun.jpg. You can click on the link to open a new window so you can pixel peep the difference.
As you can probably see from the right hand example, there is a lot of degradation in detail, it looks flatter and there seems to be a lot of colour loss compared to the original jpeg.
You have got to have some serious space issues to want to crunch your data down that much but for those of you who really need that extra kb shaved from your files then JPEGMini and JPEGClean will help!