0

I'm trying to reduce the size of my photo. I have tried all solutions given on this website.

My current image size is 159 KB and I have to reduce to 10 KB with 5L x 3.6w.

|improve this question
  • 1
    To achieve a 15x reduction in file size, you're going to be losing a lot of detail -- I'd expect an unreasonable amount. Of course, it depends on the specific image how well the JPEG routines can work -- since it's not just based on pixel dimensions. – TZHX Apr 25 '13 at 5:35
  • 7
    10kb is very small, and it will be hard to get adequate detail for a 5"x3.6" print at that size. (For that matter, 159kb is also low.) Can you explain why you need to do this? What's the goal? Maybe we can find a better overall solution. – mattdm Apr 25 '13 at 10:28
  • 1
    I would recommend all of these as good primers: Reduce file size without losing quality, What are jpeg artifacts...?, and Does reducing JPG resolution decrease, increase, or have no effect on image quality? – dpollitt Apr 25 '13 at 13:42
  • 2
    In addition to the above: you mention that you've tried the solutions found on this site already. Can you explain what didn't work about those? (It may be simply that you're asking for the impossible, I'm afraid.) – mattdm Apr 25 '13 at 13:48
  • 1
    The true crazy compression question of the day still has to go to avp.stackexchange.com/questions/7740/… though. – AJ Henderson♦ Apr 25 '13 at 19:47
-1

Open image in Photoshop CS3. Go to Image->image size->. A small window will show. Put your desired size on the text of document size. If your size is not accepted, uncheck scale style, constrain proportions, and resample the image. After noting your size, check those three options again and then reduce the pixel dimensions. It will decrease you KB size. But it may be not 159kb to 10kb. For that there will be some online software.

|improve this answer
  • Can you explain what online software you're referring to, and why it might do a better job at this than Photoshop's "Save for the Web"? – mattdm Apr 25 '13 at 15:41
  • Also, any particular reason you mention Photoshop CS3 in specific? What about current versions? – mattdm Apr 25 '13 at 15:42
4

I'd recommend playing around with the Save for Web feature in Photoshop. It is designed for making small jpeg files and will allow you to mess around with resizing the number of pixels as well as the compression level and will allow you to preview the results.

A word of warning however, the display dimensions and the file size you are looking for are almost certainly going to result in a horribly distorted image that will not serve the purpose well. 10kb is an exceptionally small amount of information.

|improve this answer
  • I think this is an excellent solution and the 'Save for Web' feature will tell you the projected filesize as well as give a preview of how your file will appear including the jpeg compression artifacts. – Octopus Apr 25 '13 at 19:19
4

I thought I'd pull some comparison shots out to show the sort of reduction you're going to be looking at. Though, of course, the effectiveness of this technique will depend on the specific image you're working with, this example should give you an idea on what you're looking at.

At 157 kb, the image is:

It's a Chimp

This comes from Photoshop CS 5.5's "Save For Web" resizing from a RAW, on Medium Quality at about 20% of the pixel size.

At a shade over 10 kb, this becomes:

It's a Chimp

This is about 10% of the original picture size, and on the Low Quality setting.

Both of these suffer from compression, but this should give you a rough idea of what you're sacrificing for image size.

|improve this answer
  • And, printed out in the dimensions asked for, that's about 77 pixels per inch, which will be apparent but may be passable for the non-picky. – mattdm Apr 25 '13 at 18:48
1

I don't quite understand what "5L x 3.6w" means, but the obvious thing to do here is to just to scale the photo down. I'm presuming that this will be used as a thumbnail or similar (if you're trying to do anything else with a 10 kB JPEG, give up now!) so pure image quality shouldn't be too important.

|improve this answer
  • 1
    It is likely 5 inches in length by 3.6 inches in width, but that is an assumption. – dpollitt Apr 25 '13 at 13:19
  • I considered that as a possibility, but that seemed insane. Why would anyone have a 10 kB restriction for making a 5"x3.6" print (this is essentially @mattdm's point comment on the question). – Philip Kendall Apr 25 '13 at 14:37
  • Hahaha, I know. – dpollitt Apr 25 '13 at 14:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.