JPEG Mini alternative

5 posts
3 Jan 2017
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Not for me but my workplace is considering solutions to re-compress (not resize) images while retaining visual quality taken from site visits that can come in at up to 1GB per project (we have hundreds of 'live ones').  JPEGMini would be ideal but its cost is somewhat prohibitive with its 'server' module being ~$199+ per month as it's not mission-critical but something with fire-and-forget batch-processing would be handy.

Posted 3 Jan 2017
Edited by RedChecker 3 Jan 2017
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
Not quite sure if you are asking for alternatives. inquiring to see if anyone has experience of teh format or just letting other know of the service? Unless your company need the images uploaded to an online server I cant see why they don't just buy the JPEG Mini Pro. Add to lighroom and you have your batch processing sorted too!

If it does need to be online then why not forget the compression requirement and get a Smugmug or TheImageFile pro account? Both offer unlimited storage of jpeg files for a fraction of a jpegmini server charge

Posted 3 Jan 2017
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
redbaron

Not quite sure if you are asking for alternatives. inquiring to see if anyone has experience of teh format or just letting other know of the service? Unless your company need the images uploaded to an online server I cant see why they don't just buy the JPEG Mini Pro. Add to lighroom and you have your batch processing sorted too! If it does need to be online then why not forget the compression requirement and get a Smugmug or TheImageFile pro account? Both offer unlimited storage of jpeg files for a fraction of a jpegmini server charge


The beauty of JPGMini is that I got the impression it's pretty much a fire & forget solution for batch processing and has scripting if needed so it could be tailored for our needs, but no it's nothing to do with websites and working online would not be suitable.

My bosses won't want to have it running through something like Lightroom or Photoshop because at any one time we have ~500-1000 projects that are 'live' and sifting through them all using Photoshop / Lightroom would be a nightmare.  We currently have ~40,000 images on live projects taking up ~1.5TB and new images arrive daily and we backup/wipe the 'live' server once every month so you're looking at ~18TB per year of photos (bearing in mind they're all JPGs).  Any saving that could be made would be a great help to easing resources both in terms of drive space and syncronisation with our offsite backups and second server for our second office.

The closest I've found to something like JPGMini is a free package called Caesium.  In some rough tests it seemed to save ~10% for our images so at any one time that could be a saving of 150GB on our live server... not a monstrous amount by today's standards but also not to be scoffed at either when you consider our backup methodology creates arond 10x the data of the originial files (daily, weekly, monthly, offsite backups).
Posted 3 Jan 2017
riddell
Photographer
riddell

Why are you telling us this?

It feels like a thinly disguised promotion for this program.

Posted 4 Jan 2017
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
riddell

Why are you telling us this? It feels like a thinly disguised promotion for this program.


I was merely explaining to RedBaron why LR/PS aren't really suitable for my employer's needs.  I have already said JPEGMini looks ideal if it weren't for its (IMO) extortionate costs ($199 per month for the 'server' variant) so I posted this thread in the hope somebody may have some sensible suggestions for alternative batch processing / size reduction packages that allegedly maintain the image quality (as JPEGMini claims it does), bearing in mind we're after a fire-and-forget solution that'll sniff out images across and entire drive and automatically work on all of them without further intervention.

But thanks for your comment, it's been most helpful.
Posted 4 Jan 2017
Edited by RedChecker 4 Jan 2017
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join