dude seriously just learn PS's batch, it's automatic and so easy, & once you learn it you'll wonder how you lived without it
for example it can resize all images in a folder to thumbnails at whatever size you set, and also sharpen all those images and increase their contrast (good for thumbs cos then they look sharper)... and it'll do all that (or whatever series of commands) you want to a whole batch.
You basically put PS into 'record' (just like a screen recorder almost) and then it records what you do to an image... then that series of things you do is saved as a batch command to run on any folder of images & it just does all the things you did automatically when you hit PLAY.
But anything you do while 'recording' the batch in PS gets recorded/saved to the batch action.
then you just run the created batch-action on any folder of images.
piece of cake for creating thumbs, and also you can tell the batch to rename each image being processed/saved by a batch action with a defined suffix in the title... such as, it'll save every image with the proginal title plus '_thumb' at the end of the title:
original image name: fashion_catalog_image_1.jpg saved batch thumbnail name: fashion_catalog_image_1_thumb.jpg
then when you're doing your html, every thumbnail image ending with 'thumb' can easily be a href linked to the larger image which has the same title but without the 'thumb' at the end... that seriously saves brain ache when you're doing large image catalogs in a lightbox etc!
If your files are larger than 5mb out of photoshop you should be resizing your photos ahead of time anyway. I always export for web and choose 60% jpeg compression and get the smallest dimensions possible for pngs to render at 2x. I haven't ever had the need to export anything over 2mb even for large background images.
As far as PS batch, PS does not handle image compression nearly as well as some of these 3rd party tools. Go look up Photoshop compression vs tinypng or jpeg mini and you'll see how awful it is at compressing files so that they look good after compression.
Also batch is fine for photo galleries and such but doesn't work for this type of application when you are designing a site and tweaking image sizing as you go. I have never once needed a batch resizing option while designing a website.
well thats odd cos i tried the freebie jpeg mini... it resized & saved a large 2592 × 1456 image down to 500px wide (typical web size image) at a size of 31kb.
PS doing the same via 'save for web' created an image identical in quality to the jpeg mini one, but at only 11kb
Good little freebie tho i suppose that jpeg mini.
re: batch Well some web jobs of course involve putting a catalog of products online or a designers portfolio, and in that case you might have hundreds of shots to process.
You'll note the OP uses PS already & says he does a lot of portfolio sites
As i said when doing such portfolio sites you're always gonna have thumbnail rows to prompt to load the larger version, and in such cases thumbnails absolutely look so much better if they are saturated up a bit, then a little extra contrast, then sharpened, then 'fade-sharpened' down about 60% to take the edge off... they stand out a mile better than a straight size-reduced thumb because you lose so much detail in a thumbnail.
of course ps batch does all those things + resize down, compresses for web & save. all automatically. You cant beat it for serious catalog & portfolio work.
Wait so you are using JPEG mini to change dimensions? That is not what it's meant for. These are tools to adjust the compression without adding visible artifacts. I never let a tool change dimensions. That's my job out of photoshop based on the application. On my retina phone I see artifacting in the second one, espeically in the light reflection on the bird. I also see slight banding in the lighting on the wall. I also see a lot of artifacts around the birds when aliasing happens between the bird and the background. As far as i can tell the first one looks better.
what on earth screen have you got? on 4 of mine there's no distinguishable difference. Not on a samsung at 2560x1600, or another samsung at 1920x1200 or the imac at 2560x1440 or the macbook air at 1440x900 or my windows screen at 1680x1050. are you sure your screen or gpu is ok?
yeah i can see some artefacts on both if i set my screen to 1280x720.
I have a 27 inch cinema display. I think i just know where to look for artifacts that I try to avoid. The real issue here is not how small you can get it, it's how good quality you can get it at a smaller size. The reason for this is what happens if your end user decides to zoom in? Your smaller ps batch option makes you look like you didn't take the time to properly compress your image.
Casium is only windows right now except for a buggy beta. A lot of designers like me are Mac only. Interested to see what happens with them in the future though.
"Your smaller ps batch option makes you look like you didn't take the time to properly compress your image."
well spotted. i didnt. i just knocked out the default jpg save and resize for each app at 500px. It yielded one image at 32k and one at 11k... it's not supposed to be some critical web image,
and i'm sorry... without your savant-like skill at knowing "where to look"; on my 4 screens (all excellent or good quality at their various sizes) i see no artefacts of any consequence at regular zoom.
"The reason for this is what happens if your end user decides to zoom in?"
dya think any web friendly sized image - even a 'quality' one - can be zoomed in on and you CANT see artefacts? what on earth are you talking about?
what exactly is your experience here in terms of processing large quantities of images for catalog/potfolio sites? i'm keen to learn more.
Well working at a photo restoration house for a number of years processing images for archive and to deliver to clients for web and print. That's where I learned most of this stuff. The whole point is why over compress with artifacts when an image processed with no artifacts is the difference of less than 50k? I go for quality over size as long as it doesn't vastly slow down load times on web.
"why over compress with artifacts when an image processed with no artifacts is the difference of less than 50k"
has now become 'the point' when your original assertion was that PS is "awful" at compressing images.
"Go look up Photoshop compression vs tinypng or jpeg mini and you'll see how awful it is at compressing files so that they look good after compression."
i have shown in my prev' post that PS is NOT inferior at compressing images and beats one of your claimed superior apps with a same-size image. It's not going to then become worse if we up the file size.