faststone image viewer

L

lucien

Senior Member
Hi, I just started using this program to edit,pp. The camera saves my jpeg large at 1.5mb. However let's say i do an edit or 2 with fast stone the files are now down to 1.23mb. And I just posted an edited jpeg that is down to 512mb. That's like 2/3's of the file size gone. The saved images with edits within the program say 1.23mb, sow where did the other 1/2 go? Is it a jpeg thing, I know it's lossy? Or is it the program? Does anyone know if I'm saving them wrong or ....


Should I dump this program and use lightroom instead? Much longer learning curve though

thanks,
 
Last edited:
L

lucien

Senior Member
I just went into setting and under jpeg. Adjusted quality to best. checked use jpeg quality from the original. And disabled colour subsampling. And disabled optimize Huffman table. Got a bit better result. A 1.53mb became 1.32mb after converting it into a greyscale.
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
The ONLY thing I would use Faststone for, and I love it for this, is to preview raw photos. This program works faster than any other I have access to. But, I would never use it for anything else.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
lucien said:
Hi, I just started using this program to edit,pp. The camera saves my jpeg large at 1.5mb. However let's say i do an edit or 2 with fast stone the files are now down to 1.23mb. And I just posted an edited jpeg that is down to 512mb. That's like 2/3's of the file size gone. The saved images with edits within the program say 1.23mb, sow where did the other 1/2 go? Is it a jpeg thing, I know it's lossy? Or is it the program? Does anyone know if I'm saving them wrong or ....
Click to expand...

Not sure, but based on other messages, I think your camera is a D50. If so, then 1.5MB Large implies its JPG Quality setting is Medium quality. It really ought to be set to Fine Quality, which is 2.9MB Large files (if a D50).

The D50 is 6 megapixels, which means its uncompressed images are 18 MB.
JPG compression of 18 MB down to 1.5 MB is quite a trip. :)

Quality cannot be too high, and certainly JPG Quality cannot be too high. Quality is pretty much the whole point. Don't give it away.

Your photo editors JPG settings should be High also. Like 9 of 10, or 90 of 100 anyway. Even then, repetitive Saves just keep adding JPG artifacts. Lightroom does have advantages, but JPG is the same story anywhere.


Moab Man said:
The ONLY thing I would use Faststone for, and I love it for this, is to preview raw photos. This program works faster than any other I have access to. But, I would never use it for anything else.
Click to expand...

Faststone is Not a Raw editor. :) No lossless features. But look at its menu Settings - Settings - Raw. Default (fastest) is to simply show and use the embedded JPG that is in Raw files. And it gets real bad if not using that default. But sure, it is a preview, same as on the camera rear LCD shows the embedded JPG.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
That's why I always remain in TiFF format until my final save to JPEG. Ultimately JPEG is a lousy format for photography but there's nothing else as practical for online use.
 
L

lucien

Senior Member
ok thanks, I didn't loose that much after I made a few adjustments in faststone. Now I'm over in lightroom and I don't see a search help section. I'm just converting a few samples to greyscale and saving them with some presets. An original is 1.5mb again, the saved greyscale converted files are coming out 512mgs. Does anyone know if I can get anywhere near my 1.5mg in output. Does black and white conversion strip 2/3's of the data/file size off? If so I won't be beating my head on a rock.

thanks,
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
lucien said:
Does black and white conversion strip 2/3's of the data/file size off? If so I won't be beating my head on a rock.

thanks,
Click to expand...

The moment you save as B&W, the file gets a whole lot smaller indeed. That's a lot of color information that gets ditched.
 
L

lucien

Senior Member
I just checked the cam I had it on Normal Large. Just set it to fine. And that cut the amount of pics in 1/2 from 1k to 548 which I don't mind. What I mind is the software taking another 2/3's off my file size just for a simple greyscale. Technically they should be 3mb now, if I'm correct since the change cut the card count in 1/2

ps. Yes it's a D50 good beginner cam ;)
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
lucien said:
ok that's normal behavior then. Then I don't mind. Thanks for clearing that up and it makes sense
Click to expand...

I you go black and white (grayscale technically), the only information required is the intensity of each pixel. It'll range between pure white and pure black. In 8bit that's only 256 variations. Color however requires a lot more information.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
lucien said:
Now I'm over in lightroom and I don't see a search help section. I'm just converting a few samples to greyscale and saving them with some presets. An original is 1.5mb again, the saved greyscale converted files are coming out 512mgs. Does anyone know if I can get anywhere near my 1.5mg in output. Does black and white conversion strip 2/3's of the data/file size off? If so I won't be beating my head on a rock.
Click to expand...

Best help for Adobe products is Google. Just search for the term Lightroom and the feature name you want help for.

Yes, Grayscale is 1/3 the size of RGB. Assuming 8 bit data, RGB is 3 bytes per pixel, and grayscale is 1 byte per pixel. JPG will compress them both smaller,
 
L

lucien

Senior Member
Hi Moab, I'm not comparing faststone to lightroom. But it is easy to use and it does the basics, so to me it's good for someone learning the art/hobby. Lightroom has way more enhancements/modes etc. Don't worry I'll dump it lol
 
L

lucien

Senior Member
thanks guys, it's settled Lightroom wins lol. I might jump over to Raw later down the road. I don't intend on spending a weekend around the computer fixing up my stuff/pics. I'm more of a casual shooter, as I become more serious I guess raw is the way to go. This place is the ultimate source of info
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
If you're not shooting RAW, why not use Capture NX-D which is free? It's not my money but I see little use in spending money on LR for Jpeg only.

Or any other program like Elements or GIMP will do.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
J-see said:
If you're not shooting RAW, why not use Capture NX-D which is free? It's not my money but I see little use in spending money on LR for Jpeg only.

Or any other program like Elements or GIMP will do.
Click to expand...


Raw editors like Lightroom are better JPG editors than photo editors.

Lightroom has lossless editing for JPG too, no accumulated JPG artifacts. Plus the Raw tools are simply better, like white balance and exposure, much easier and better than photo editors.

Of course, if doing that, you might as shoot Raw too, to get full advantage. :)

Adobe Raw is my choice for my wifes little compact camera images. She thinks it takes great pictures. :) But it can't do Raw.
 
Last edited:
J

J-see

Senior Member
WayneF said:
Raw editors like Lightroom are better JPG editors than photo editors.

Lightroom has lossless editing for JPG too, no accumulated JPG artifacts. Plus the Raw tools are simply better, like white balance and exposure, much easier and better than photo editors.

Of course, if doing that, you might as shoot Raw too, to get full advantage. :)

Adobe Raw is my choice for my wifes little compact camera images. She thinks it takes great pictures. :) But it can't do Raw.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying LR won't be doing a better job but for JPEG alone, it's an expensive method if you can do the same with NX-D. You can do some changes indeed but the JPEG won't have any information you can pull out of it like a RAW file. I find 150$ an expensive price for just changing some JPEG pixels.

JPEG is a WYSIWYG format and if you're using LR for that, you can, as you said, just as easily switch to RAW and use LR and the cam to its full potential. You're doing the edits anyways.
 
Last edited:
L

lucien

Senior Member
I'm sticking with lightroom. It gives me room to grow. Later when I start doing Raw I'll have all the tools I need. Let's say I'm using jpegs to get my feet wet ;)

thanks,
 
Top