chuck540z3 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Hi Guys, How do you shrink several photographs in "bulk mode", so that it's a one step operation? Right now I'm shrinking each photo separately to upload to Photobucket or send by email, which is a real pain. I'd like to select several photographs at once, pick the reduced size for all of them, then create new smaller files. I have a new Nikon 810 that is 36 mp and the files are HUGE (20 mb+ each), even in jpeg mode, so sending these pics by email or uploading to my ipad is a non-starter without shrinking them. Also, do you guys see any reason to still record in RAW if the Fine jpegs are already bigger than I really need? At 36 mp, I think it's overkill, but maybe there's a reason to still record in RAW. Thanks! Chuck Edited October 17, 2014 by chuck540z3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Janissary Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Look for batch processing, in particular batch resizing. Not sure what platform you use (Mac, Win, Lnx) or what image editing programs you use, but in GIMP, you can do this: https://www.reazul.net/how-resize-all-images-of-a-folder-batch-resize/ I am a Mac user with bootcamp for some Windows applications. When I am on the Win side, I have found IrfanView (free and lightweight) to be supercool for batch editing. You can rename, resize, sharpen etc. all images through a simple dialog box. Also, do you guys see any reason to still record in RAW if the Fine jpegs are already bigger than I really need? At 36 mp, I think it's overkill, but maybe there's a reason to still record in RAW. I don't use RAW but RAW vs JPEG is not about the image resolution. With RAW you have access the rawest form of light capture, so you can do all sorts of post editing (filters, tones, effects, lights etc.) if you have the RAW. No information is lost. With JPEG, you lose quite a bit of info (lossy compression). JPEG still looks good to our eyes because we cannot see lot of what is lost anyway, but those lost pieces are necessary if you want to do substantial post effects. If you are not doing lots of artistic post processing on your images, JPEG is probably just fine. Also, why do you have such large pictures in the first place? If you are taking big print outs, that is probably necessary but if it is mostly for computer viewing, 20MB/image is an overkill. You should be able to dial down your image size in your camera's settings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
huntermountain Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Hands down BDSizer You can batch resize(file size and size of the longest side), add a frame or a copyright text in batch. Just choose what you want in the left column, and drag the files you want resized in the window at the bottom. Small, simple and very effective. And you don't have to install it, it just runs when you click the icon. I stopped using RAW for your everyday photography. The thing about RAW is that it's actually the raw data the sensor recorded. The JPEG images your camera produces are processed from that raw data. If you think you'll do more than some very basic post processing on the images, it's best to start from the RAW data. But with the way the technology has evolved in today's cameras, you can be pretty sure that the JPEG output will be very hard to ameliorate by doing your own processing. Not to mention the time it will take to do that, and we all know that time is the thing we all have to little of... Edited October 17, 2014 by huntermountain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chuck540z3 Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Thanks Guys, Also, why do you have such large pictures in the first place? If you are taking big print outs, that is probably necessary but if it is mostly for computer viewing, 20MB/image is an overkill. You should be able to dial down your image size in your camera's settings. Probably for the same reason you record in RAW. Most of the time, it's overkill and unnecessary, but every once in awhile you get a pic that's either special or you want to really zoom in and the more info, the better. Here's an example of a Golden Eagle pic I took a few months ago. This eagle is only about 10% of the image I captured, but after zooming in (a LOT), there's still some very good detail. I stopped using RAW for your everyday photography. The thing about RAW is that it's actually the raw data the sensor recorded. The JPEG images your camera produces are processed from that raw data. If you think you'll do more than some very basic post processing on the images, it's best to start from the RAW data. But with the way the technology has evolved in today's cameras, you can be pretty sure that the JPEG output will be very hard to ameliorate by doing your own processing. Not to mention the time it will take to do that, and we all know that time is the thing we all have to little of... That's what I'm thinking too. I like to tweak my images just a little and the big jpeg files can be manipulated just fine without going through the RAW step. On this new camera the Fine jpegs take up enough space already, so unless there's a super good reason to record in RAW, which are even bigger files, why bother? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BlueNosers352nd Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I almost exclusively use RAW for all my photography. Gives me the most control over any tweaking I need to do. Can't comment on a auto resizing in bulk as I use Lightroom for all my image cataloging and processing (Photoshop if necessary) and Lightroom will do that for me on export per the settings I tell it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 The excellent picture viewer IrfanView does batch resize. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G_Marcat_Italy Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 For to shrink down the images I post in internet I use RIOT Radical Image Optimization Tool, look here for it LINK maybe it's not the best tool available but I find it useful Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Janissary Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Probably for the same reason you record in RAW. Most of the time, it's overkill and unnecessary, but every once in awhile you get a pic that's either special or you want to really zoom in and the more info, the better. Ok, I think you got the idea, but just to be clear, the reason to record a large jpeg vs raw is not the same. The example you gave (extracting a small portion from a larger image) is a good reason to take large jpeg files. Indeed, this method is useful for taking model pictures from a distance and later crop it out as a way to combat perspective distortion. I did not know that that is your intention. In principle, however, you prefer raw not for that reason, it is mostly for post production including effects, tones, lighting, robust white balance etc. For what you seem to be interested in, raw seems to be an overkill, I think we're in agreement there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dnl42 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I use ImageMagick on Linux. Batch operations are a piece of cake Windows versions of the SW is available for those so inclined. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chuck540z3 Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Ok, I think you got the idea, but just to be clear, the reason to record a large jpeg vs raw is not the same. The example you gave (extracting a small portion from a larger image) is a good reason to take large jpeg files. Indeed, this method is useful for taking model pictures from a distance and later crop it out as a way to combat perspective distortion. I did not know that that is your intention. In principle, however, you prefer raw not for that reason, it is mostly for post production including effects, tones, lighting, robust white balance etc. For what you seem to be interested in, raw seems to be an overkill, I think we're in agreement there. Thanks for your input. I threw my questions out there because I'm not really sure what the heck I'm talking about, so with input like yours, I can determine whether or not I'm making a mistake by not recording everything in RAW. Having said that, you do point out there are times when I should. When I take lots of pics of a specific subject like a completed model, that might be a good time, because I recall the white balance of my CF-18B model a few years ago was all wrong and it would have been nice to have the RAW data for that photo shoot to correct it. I corrected it the best I could with the jpeg images I had, but I'm guessing it would have been easier and more accurate manipulating RAW files instead. Thanks guys for the other links to bulk re-size pics. I'll give them a try. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martin_sam_2000 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I use Irfanview and have had no issues. You can modify and rename pictures singly or in bulk. http://www.irfanview.com/ Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Always use RAW Edit it down from there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Helmsman Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Photoshop: File->Scripts->Image Processor. Lightroom: File->Export Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joel_W Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Chuck, I only shoot in RAW as I have the most flexibility and control in editing, then I convert the final edited image to a JPEG format. Just your WB issue is reason enough to shoot in RAW. Since the camera does all the work, there really isn't any viable reason not to shoot in RAW. For Bulk resizing before uploading in my case to Photobucket, I have been using for years Pixresizer. It's simple to use, allows you to convert to several formats. Here's the link: http://pixresizer.en.softonic.com/ Joel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sluggo2u Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 If you are using Photoshop, look into making an action. You simply record the process once and you can use it over and over. I find using Fast Stone image viewer gives me many more options. You can add watermarks, copyrights, text ballooons, frames, resize, apply levels, etc. They have a standalone called FastStone image resizer that works the same. They also have a screen capture program that can do a lot of neat things as well. And it's free! FastStone Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.