Norbert, I prefer Ignite by Fluffy Clouds Ltd. http://www.ignite-it.co.uk/ It compresses at the same time as reduces resolution, which I believe more efficiently uses all the pixel information (compared with first reducing resolution and then compressing). The "suggested" settings will generally give a lower quality than is acceptable, but like FireWorks and SmartSaver, which are also good programs, you have a sliding scale of compression levels and the chance to review a draft before going all the way. PhotoShop does not or did not do that, at least through version 5.0, in which I always select quality level zero for web optimization. Any image compression scheme can be used more effectively by doing some careful testing as well as preparing the base images for maximum compressibility, possibly even reducing contrast. With PhotoShop, I first impart a slight gaussian blur to the image, 0.4 pixels or slightly more. Needless to say, any noise or dust should first be cleaned up. Blur is also one of several options that you can choose to invoke in Ignite, along with disproportionate emphasis on the brighter areas, etc., but the options do not usually make for more efficient optimization. Except the choice of an compression algorithm can make a worthwile difference in compressibility. JPG is certainly the most robust of compression schemes, but there are many tonal images which have large monochromatic areas that actually compress best with GIF. There have been contests on the best optimization of GIF images, which is more scientific. The right GIF compression scheme (preplanning and the choice of the right software) can make a huge difference in efficience. But for JPEG optimization it is more like, "you get what you pay for," the lower the bandwidth, the lower the quality. So, you may also want to recommend a program to your client that does the best job of batch optimization. And for this, either Ignite or Ulead SuperSaver will work. There is also GifWizard, an online service for which you buy tokens, but they've gotten more clunky as they add more features. Even if your client is going to finish with small thumbnails, it is still better to start with high resolution images, as explained here: http://earthfire.com/designs/scanning.html Phil -------- Original Message -------- Subject: NEED: software for compressing JPG images Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:01:56 +0200 From: Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a potential customer who will send out lots of JPG images via his (pretty big) mailing list. I'm trying to talk him into first making those JPGs as small as possible (within the constraints of what image degradation will be acceptable for him). He has Photoshop. Are there any programs out there which do a better job in compressing photo JPGs than Photoshop does? Greetings, Norbert.
