While scanning some Black Friday deals before going to bed I stumbled across an application that could compress JPEG files in a similar fashion to JPEGmini. ‘aha! But I bet not as good as JPEGmini!’ I thought to myself… A few minutes later... Oh my god!!!!

So I was not going to bed then... What started was an hour's work experimenting with this new application called SpaceSaver which allowed a 500 image free trial. This application claims to be fast due to its modern architecture and reduces the file size of your JPEG images while protecting the image quality.

The first thing I noticed was the very clean interface, it cannot be resized but it is thinner than JPEGMini’s bulky interface. There are options you would expect from an application like this, to have multiple image sizes exported and where to have them sent, either to a new folder or to overwrite the originals. You can drag and drop a folder of images to the GUI or choose a folder by clicking on the plus button.

I like the addition of the Worldwide count of data saved where JPEGmini will only tell you your own saving. I wonder if it can tell where in the world the most space has been saved?

So I decided to have a head-to-head fight with JPEGmini and see who would come out on top. I picked out a recent shoot at the Phoenix Arts Club as the test. This has 311 JPEG images saved out at 2000 pixels on the long side, exported from Capture One. I then made a copy of the exported folder, one for JPEGmini to get its teeth into and one for SpaceSaver to chew on.

Time to queue the bar charts!

Compression Comparison / 2000px / 746 Meg Original Folder Size

OK, so the times were comparable. JPEGmini would start to work on the images as soon as you drop the folder into the GUI whereas SpaceSaver would analyze the images and then get to work so it lost a couple of seconds, but the drop of 61 Meg as a result for an extra 1 second is amazing.

Compression comparison / 5000px / 5.2 Gig Original Folder Size

So let’s hit them both with something bigger. I exported the same set of images but at full resolution, circa 5000 pixels on the long side. Yeah ok, then that’s a big difference in speed and compression!

Large resolution compression comparison

So how does Spacesaver compare with much larger resolution images? I exported three larger images taken from my portrait collection. Resolutions were circa 5000-8000 on the long side. Again the folder was copied twice for JPEGmini and SpaceSaver to work on.

That is incredible! That was then I recalled another thing about JPEGmini. It has a limitation of 128 megapixels. whereas SpaceSaver has no restrictions. I have two panoramic images that are way over 128 megapixels. The dimensions are circa 27000 by 5000 pixels and I have no idea why I took the images in the first place… however, I grabbed them kicking and screaming into SpaceSaver. The first was 63 meg, the second was 87 meg. SpaceSaver thought about it and compressed them down to 19 and 27 meg respectively.

In conclusion, will SpaceSaver become part of my workflow? Hell yes! It is quicker and better than JPEGmini by a long shot and also ( and for me, this is a big thing ) Spacesaver can be used in a Window command batch file so I am one step closer to automating the export, compress, pack, and delivery package system I have been working on. I only need the app to quit after the list of images has been completed, then the batch file can continue its job. Maybe in an update!

You can get a 500 image trial at https://www.getspacesaver.com/ If you use cloud-based storage or home NAS solutions then this will drastically increase its storage potential.