Prev: Holy Saturday Photo
Next: Tutorial how to use Irfanview 4.25 to rotate, shrink, & renamebatch photos
From: Elmo on 6 Apr 2010 19:08
On 6 Apr 2010 22:31:43 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

> There are plenty of features that work well that generally speaking
> are silly things to do.

I wonder if there is a better way (than Irfanview thumbnail batch mode) to
rotate, shrink, tag, and rename thousands of photos suitable for emailing
select results to friends and family?

One huge advantage of the shrink to 100KB is that just stepping through the
photos in Irfanview is faster (than stepping through the 4MB originals).

Also in Irfanview, the F7/F8 (i.e., move/copy) buttons work faster on the
slected photos out of the thousands shrunk and renamed that get moved to
the "send" folder to mail out.

All in all, shrinking photos to 100KB (you pick the desired size or let
Irfanview pick it for you) for use by email to friends and family works for
me.

But if someone has a BETTER freeware program, I'm all ears! Let us know
what works better than Irfanview to perform the following tasks:
- Handles thousands of photos (one weekend or so)
- Rotates the photos (assuming orientation information is available)
- Sets pixels to a desired number (e.g., 640 long side)
- Renames photos based on GPS, time & date, and other desired factors
- Strips out the EXIF (to keep file size down)
- Reduces the file size (on disk) to something manageable (e.g., 150KB)

If there's freeware out there better'n Irfanview to perform that common
task, please respond with a pointer.
From: Poutnik on 7 Apr 2010 00:27
In article <hpgeu6$57q$1(a)tioat.net>, dcdraftworks(a)Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid says...
>
>
> One huge advantage of the shrink to 100KB is that just stepping through the
> photos in Irfanview is faster (than stepping through the 4MB originals).
>
I prefer using target resolution or one side size,
with given JPG quality.

--
Poutnik
The best depends on how the best is defined.
From: Elmo on 7 Apr 2010 02:00
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:27:16 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> I prefer using target resolution or one side size,
> with given JPG quality.

I recommend setting the long side to something like 640 pixels (works for
me).

If there's a freeware batch program better'n Irfanview for resizing,
renaming, and rotating thousands of pictures, let me know.
From: Chris Malcolm on 7 Apr 2010 09:17
In rec.photo.digital Elmo <dcdraftworks(a)use-author-supplied-address.invalid> wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2010 22:31:43 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

>> There are plenty of features that work well that generally speaking
>> are silly things to do.

> I wonder if there is a better way (than Irfanview thumbnail batch mode) to
> rotate, shrink, tag, and rename thousands of photos suitable for emailing
> select results to friends and family?

> One huge advantage of the shrink to 100KB is that just stepping through the
> photos in Irfanview is faster (than stepping through the 4MB originals).

I'm not suggesting that shrinking file size is silly. I'm suggesting
that shrinking to a fixed file size by means of RIOT is silly. If that
degree of compression is good enough for highly detailed photographs
then many of your photographs could be reduced to half that size
without loss of quality, with consequent benefits of speed, space,
etc..

> All in all, shrinking photos to 100KB (you pick the desired size or let
> Irfanview pick it for you) for use by email to friends and family works for
> me.

Wouldn't shrinking more than half of them to less than half that size
work even better? Because you could do without lowering the quality
any more than is already happening to your most detailed photographs.

> But if someone has a BETTER freeware program, I'm all ears! Let us know
> what works better than Irfanview to perform the following tasks:

I think Irfanview is great, use it a lot, and always for downsizing
and jpeg compression because it's particularly good at that. It's
your use of the RIOT method of compression I'm questioning.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Tim on 7 Apr 2010 23:35
Paul Furman wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>> Elmo wrote:
>>> Tim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are you setting the resolution to 72 pixels per inch? If they
>>>> are to be emailed and viewed on screen the resolution doesn't
>>>> matter at all
>>>
>>> What is the right answer to recommend to batch shrink common photos
>>> to be emailed?
>>
>> Resolution is only applicable to printed images, or applications
>> that show your image on a virtual piece of paper. Something like a
>> word processor, a desktop publishing application or something with
>> "print preview".
>
> Setting 72 ppi could be useful if people want to print a low res web
> image; that'll cause it to print by default at a size similar to what
> you see on screen, where a 300 ppi setting would come out of the
> printer at postage stamp size, but it has no effect on file size on
> disk.

Maybe if you have a very old Mac, but otherwise not particularly close. That
old line about 72 pixels per inch being the screen's resolution is much
repeated, but quite wrong and is exactly the theme of the Scantips "Say No
to 72dpi" site (http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html).
The nominal screen resolution in Windows is 96 dpi, but that is the same for
a 14 inch laptop or a 27 inch desktop monitor.
On my laptop the 15 inch screen is 1400 x 1050 pixels. The screen is 12
inches wide. So the real resolution is 1400/12 = 116.7 pixels per inch. Low
res web images that have their resolution changed to 72 ppi would print 62%
larger than they appear on screen.
My 22 inch desktop screen is 1680 x 1050 pixels. The screen is 18.7 inches
wide. The real resolution in this case is 1680/18.7 = 89.8 pixels per inch.
Low res web images that have their resolution changed to 72 ppi would print
25% larger than they appear on screen.


--
Tim


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Holy Saturday Photo
Next: Tutorial how to use Irfanview 4.25 to rotate, shrink, & renamebatch photos