Back to SmallImage page
SmallImage free download for Mac

SmallImage Reviews

3.0b2
12 October 2009

Remove metadata info from JPEG images.

Ryan
02 January 2005

Most helpful

elegant and straighforward utility... unlike the e-mail feature of iPhoto, actually makes your images small enough to email without loss of resolution.
Like (1)
Version 1.4.1

Read 22 SmallImage User Reviews

Rate this app:

Buzzard
01 September 2013
Download link doesn't work any more, and I have been unable to find an alternate one.
Like
Version 3.0b2
Uncoy
05 January 2011
Really quick, with a nice set of options. Output at 80% very nice. Not as sharp as the PS output, but then the price is quite a bit different. Curious about what graphics engine Fabien is using under the hood for resizing and recompression. He might have switched to core graphics for version 3 (what I tried). I'll be trying this as the final step with my Aperture photos to try to avoid the colour jump issues with different browsers.
Like
Version 3.0b2
info-843
02 September 2010
This program did exactly what is said it would do, I'm very happy with how it performed. I needed to strip metadata from images and this program did that fast and without loss of image quality. Very handy. Cheers.
Like
Version 3.0b2
Lambsporriegetta
08 May 2010
Why would you want to do this in this day and age? The metadata is the information about the image. If you took the image then you can write that fact into the metadata to protect yourself legally from thieves. That information as well as the host of other information that can be embedded such as GPS info, place names, peoples names, date shot, camera used, to name but a few are priceless. Try looking here instead... http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/xee.html and see what information is available in your images.
Like
Version 3.0b2
Janitor
21 February 2008
Any chances this get a Leopard update?
Like (1)
Version 1.4.1
Jack-Daw
12 July 2007
I like this app and find it very useful. However, even when a folder full of images have finished processing, the wheels keep turning giving me no indication that the process has finished. This leaves me no option but to force quit everytime. I would love to continue using this great app, but would love it even more if this tiny problem is fixed.
Like
Version 1.4.1
Aikousha
11 July 2007
Errr... Why are all the files I processed with this, MUCH bigger afterwards? I definitely had it set to remove all 3 types of metadata, and left the quality checkbox OFF. If this worked right, it should have removed between 16K and 24K from the files, but instead nearly 60K was added to most of them. And when reviewing both the "cleaned" and non-cleaned images, the quality was listed the same, and the cleaned files showed no meta-data. What's up with this?!?
Like (1)
Version 1.4.1
Ryan
02 January 2005
elegant and straighforward utility... unlike the e-mail feature of iPhoto, actually makes your images small enough to email without loss of resolution.
Like (1)
Version 1.4.1
Anonymous
11 October 2004
Simple to use, useful, nice design - does exactly what it is expected to do, and seems to do it well! Glad to have found it, thanks to the developer (a fellow Swiss citizen, I have discovered!).
Like
Version 1.4.1
Anonymous
12 July 2004
while it does re-compress yer image, not purposefully or aggressively, based on the simple fact that you are saving a .jpg as a .jpg this is not for pros, so what? it is very handy tool. thanks to the dev :)
Like
Version 1.4.1
Anonymous
12 March 2004
The ReadMe files are aliases in the version I downloaded here.
Like
Version 1.4.1
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
12 March 2004
what you do not understand is that you did not download that file or any other file "here"... you clicked a link for a download, and that resides on the developer's server, not the MU server. you downloaded it from the developer.
Like
Version 1.4.1
Anonymous
06 October 2003
Ep! Looks like you already found it yourself. Thanks! Now if you could only do the same for GIFs, and maybe add a progress bar... :)
Like
Version 1.3.1
Anonymous
04 October 2003
This problem for adding a directory never happened to me ! I just tried on two different computers and it works fine. Can anyboy else report this bug ? Anonymous, could you please email me so we can work out this problem ?
Like
Version 1.3
Anonymous
04 October 2003
Adding a directory of images causes the program to beachball for a while, then either unexpectedly quit, or work normally again, but the directory name is never added to the list. Having to add files individually is no fun, especially since I have many images in separate subdirectories. It genuinely seems to reduce filesizes without recompression, though. Fabien, please fix how directories are handled so I can shrink all of my pictures without having to add them to the list individually!
Like
Version 1.3
Anonymous
29 September 2003
This upgrade makes SmallImage a contender. Kudos!
Like
Version 1.2
Anonymous
11 September 2003
After contacting the authors of the "mogrify" command I am now sure that the image is being recompressed, therefore inducing a loss of quality for high-quality JPEGs. I will soon release a version 1.0.1 with a modified documentation reflecting this. A new version 1.1 will be released soon, where you'll ba able to choose wether you want a quality change or not and letting you decide what quality you want. I appologize for the false advertisement.
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
10 September 2003
If your image has only one type of profile, removing the other two will of course not lower the filesize more. As for the quality loss, for some kind of images (I'm not sure which, yet) there is indeed a slight quality loss. You must understand that SmallImage is just a front-end to the "mogrify" command from the ImageMagick package. This command is not supposed to lower the quality of the image, and if it does I can't do anything about it except contact the author (which I'll do). As soon as I find out nore about this I'll post a fixed up version. Now, mark, be assured that I really appreciate any kind of comment, good or bad. But when you write: "don't bother wasting your time downloading this", I can't agree. SmallImage is free, I did it only to give a (hopefully) useful tool. Try it ! If you like it, good, if you don't, trash it. I got some very good feedback from people who tried my program, so maybe it is worth it, maybe not...
Like
Version 1.0
Mark113
10 September 2003
THE CLAIMS MADE BY THIS PROGRAM ARE FALSE. Sorry to get all bold there, but try it for yourself (or don't bother wasting your time downloading this and take my word for it): select an image, making sure it has no custom thumbnail, then reduce it with this program four times - once removing the ICC color profile, once removing IPTC, once removing the EXIF info, and once removing all three. Compare file sizes. Well, shucks, they're all about the same. Within a kilobyte or so of one another. What is the conclusion? The huge file size reductions, which really do occur, are the result or re-saving the JPG file, thus upping the compression and resulting in, yes, a more compressed and therefore lower quality image. This conclusion is borne out by opening each file in JPEGView, an OS 9 app that can show the compression ratio for an image (why can't I find an OS X app that does this? Hello, freeware developers...). I used a picture from my digital camera, with the original image showing a 11:1 compression ratio, but, surprise, when examining all of the other files, they show a ratio of 28:1. Whoops. Not knowing too much about ICC, IPTC, and EXIF metadata, it really can't be all that big, can it? What is EXIF data but a few bytes cataloguing a few pieces of information? And last time I mistakenly hit "Include ICC color profile" when saving a file in Photoshop, it added no more than a kilobyte or so. I wish metadata were making JPGs bloated, but it just isn't so. SmallImage accomplishes its huge file size reduction by the simple action of further compressing your image. Maybe one or two extra KB from removing the metadata, but that's all. Too bad. not sure if this is a purposeful sham by the author, or if he didn't quite know what was going on, but it sure doesn't do what it says. Please excuse the verbosity of this post, but I was pretty disappointed (and gullible). Also note that this is not a personal attack on the author...
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
09 September 2003
EXIF is killed......but picture quality afterwards is ROTTEN!!!
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
09 September 2003
Great ! I tested it and no image quality reduced.
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
09 September 2003
Wrong ! The image itself isn't modified at all ! Only the comments, EXIF datas, ICC profiles are removed from the file.
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
09 September 2003
Not true!! The file-quality will be reduced heavely!!
Like
Version 1.0