Jump to content


Photo

I'm Sick Of Sending Cds


12 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Wilson

Daniel Wilson

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 29 August 2006 - 10:42 PM

I want to send out several GBs of photos to about 20 recipients. It's a pain in the backside to burn the images onto a CD..I'd rather email them. Winzip sucks at compressing image files..Any ideas?

#2 Nigel C Young

Nigel C Young

    Super Member

  • Advanced Members 300
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,574 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gloucestershire UK
  • Interests:Many and varied.

Posted 01 September 2006 - 07:47 AM

QUOTE (Daniel Wilson @ Aug 29 2006, 11:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I want to send out several GBs of photos to about 20 recipients. It's a pain in the backside to burn the images onto a CD..I'd rather email them. Winzip sucks at compressing image files..Any ideas?


Use MSN.
Nigel.

#3 donmac

donmac

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 01 September 2006 - 12:43 PM

The best way to compress an image is to convert it to a jpeg. This will involve a slight loss in quality. If you have already done this, dont waste your time trying to compress them further.
You may however have tiffs or bitmats and not be willing to accept the loss in quality from jpeg compreession.
Winzip is fine at handling small binary files like documents but image files have different properties and wont respond well to this type of compression.
I dont know of any other decent compression software. (stand by for floods of spam claiming otherwise)
If you want to preserve quality, your only option is stick them on cd.
Don

#4 Daniel Wilson

Daniel Wilson

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 September 2006 - 10:34 PM

QUOTE (donmac @ Sep 1 2006, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The best way to compress an image is to convert it to a jpeg. This will involve a slight loss in quality. If you have already done this, dont waste your time trying to compress them further.
You may however have tiffs or bitmats and not be willing to accept the loss in quality from jpeg compreession.
Winzip is fine at handling small binary files like documents but image files have different properties and wont respond well to this type of compression.
I dont know of any other decent compression software. (stand by for floods of spam claiming otherwise)
If you want to preserve quality, your only option is stick them on cd.
Don


Bingo...they're already jpegs. I found the answer on this forum..see cjthomas's "Has anybody seen this"...www.blubox.com. It DOES compress JPEGS. I managed to send out a 284MB folder of JPEGS by emal in a BLUBOX and it compressed to just 36MB!!..It then extracted to full size and the reciving end.

WINZIP sucks try this BLUBOX stuff..PS you can see what they're doing at another website called www.bluboxes.com.

Problem solved

#5 cjthomasuk

cjthomasuk

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:Henley on Thames UK
  • Interests:Just brought a Nikon D50 and absolutley love it. Also like Snowboading, Tennis and most sports

Posted 04 September 2006 - 03:16 PM

Told you so.....

It is a great bit of software!!

CJ

#6 donmac

donmac

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:46 PM

Hi Daniel and CJ
I have to admit to being quite sceptical about the claims, so I downloaded a trial version of blubox to try out.
I am very impressed. I just compressed 3x jpegs totallimg 300k, down to 135k. Thats a massive saving in file space. I extracted the files and they were identical to the original. Amazing. I need to do some more tests with tiffs and raw files, but my initial reaction is, its a must have bit of software.
smile.gif cheers
Don

#7 donmac

donmac

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts

Posted 04 September 2006 - 10:53 PM

OK
I've done a bit more testing and I am not quite so happy with blubox. The original test I did was with b/w jpegs and they looked fine. But colour jpegs show that blubox doesnt return the files to their original quality. Zooming in shows differences in colour which results in noisy looking photos. Raw files dont compress, which doesnt surprise me, and I dont suppose I would want to anyway as they are basically my negatives. Tiff compressed down to an amazingly small size. A 3.6Mb compressed down to 85kb, thats about 3% of the original size, but not without suffering loss of quality too.
I guess this is a pretty good bit of software for sending lots of jpegs if you are not too worried about a bit of loss in quality (but remember, the recipient needs a copy of blubox too). But its not much use for archiving which is what I had in mind. I wont be buying the full version.
Cheers
Don

#8 cjthomasuk

cjthomasuk

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:Henley on Thames UK
  • Interests:Just brought a Nikon D50 and absolutley love it. Also like Snowboading, Tennis and most sports

Posted 05 September 2006 - 11:29 AM

QUOTE (donmac @ Sep 4 2006, 11:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OK
I've done a bit more testing and I am not quite so happy with blubox. The original test I did was with b/w jpegs and they looked fine. But colour jpegs show that blubox doesnt return the files to their original quality. Zooming in shows differences in colour which results in noisy looking photos. Raw files dont compress, which doesnt surprise me, and I dont suppose I would want to anyway as they are basically my negatives. Tiff compressed down to an amazingly small size. A 3.6Mb compressed down to 85kb, thats about 3% of the original size, but not without suffering loss of quality too.
I guess this is a pretty good bit of software for sending lots of jpegs if you are not too worried about a bit of loss in quality (but remember, the recipient needs a copy of blubox too). But its not much use for archiving which is what I had in mind. I wont be buying the full version.
Cheers
Don


Hi Don

I really only deal with tiff images, i've found that for tiff's by changing the compression setting to Lossless i still get great compression and the images come back extactly the same size and quality.
I've still found it a great way to share a lots of jpegs, when i'm sending photos to friends and family i prefer to be able to send a lot more in a shorter space of time, even if i lose a very small amount of quality.
Thanks Don

CJ

#9 Daniel Wilson

Daniel Wilson

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 05 September 2006 - 11:42 AM

QUOTE (donmac @ Sep 4 2006, 11:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
OK
I've done a bit more testing and I am not quite so happy with blubox. The original test I did was with b/w jpegs and they looked fine. But colour jpegs show that blubox doesnt return the files to their original quality. Zooming in shows differences in colour which results in noisy looking photos. Raw files dont compress, which doesnt surprise me, and I dont suppose I would want to anyway as they are basically my negatives. Tiff compressed down to an amazingly small size. A 3.6Mb compressed down to 85kb, thats about 3% of the original size, but not without suffering loss of quality too.
I guess this is a pretty good bit of software for sending lots of jpegs if you are not too worried about a bit of loss in quality (but remember, the recipient needs a copy of blubox too). But its not much use for archiving which is what I had in mind. I wont be buying the full version.
Cheers
Don


When I use this software I use tif/eps/psd formats if I want to maintain high image integrity. When I'm sending JPEGS my main objective is that the person can view them on a screen or print them. Make sure your setting is on HIGHER QUALITY OVER SIZE in the options when you send jpegs. Let's face it guys there's no other software out there like this..it solves a problem that I couldn't overc ome before.

Cheers

#10 jessielaughlin

jessielaughlin

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 120 posts

Posted 13 January 2007 - 08:38 PM

I would convert to Jpeg. I usually use IrfanView. Its free to dowload, but you have to download google's toolbar with it too. Thats why its free. You can convert many images at the same to Jpegs with this software, it really saves time. Then i would use Gmail to send the files. You can send many large files at the same time with Gmail.I also think it would save your time to send 2 emails instead of attaching all of the files to one. I use Gmail a lot, i even send videos through it easily.

Hope that helped smile.gif

~Jessie

#11 mwookie

mwookie

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:US

Posted 07 May 2007 - 08:06 PM

QUOTE (jessielaughlin @ Jan 13 2007, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would convert to Jpeg. I usually use IrfanView. Its free to dowload, but you have to download google's toolbar with it too. Thats why its free. You can convert many images at the same to Jpegs with this software, it really saves time. Then i would use Gmail to send the files. You can send many large files at the same time with Gmail.I also think it would save your time to send 2 emails instead of attaching all of the files to one. I use Gmail a lot, i even send videos through it easily.

Hope that helped smile.gif

~Jessie



I also use Irfanview a lot for compressing and creating thumbnails for the web. I like it a lot better than the Photoshop stuff, its so quick. If you need to keep the quality and the entire size of the image though, I am not sure its the best option. I am curious about this BluBox and am going to investigate for my needs.



________________
"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today." Abraham Lincoln
Company Projects (Medical Stock Images Sell Microstock Photography)


#12 tom1971

tom1971

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 January 2009 - 12:24 AM

Do ou have to send it out ?
Why not use this service ? box.net

It has a lot a nice features, also for sharing.

#13 togbear

togbear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:57 PM

I use a service 'Files Anywhere' (https://backup.filesanywhere.com/) - not free, but apart from being an offsite backup for my photographs, you can send links to recipients so they view on line with the option to download. Many more features including integration with 'Outlook'.
I send all my proofs and final pics via this service.
They do give a free trial.
-------------------------------
togbear (aka Allen Jackson)
Visit My Website



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users