JPEGmini

I believe that "Absolutely Free" should be used only in the case of free applications. Which is not the case with JpegMini.

Perfect addition to my workflow…

One of my unique MUST have tools for pictures!

Great little tool. Drop dead simple to use

Crushes JPEGs without any discernible loss. Other free tools do the job, but JPEG Mini really shines through on large images. I use it on web projects with really large hero images.

LOL. their intro video at their website made me laugh. as if comparing print outs could show more than the screen. but hey, great actors, kudos!

Very simple to use. Pretty. Unfortunately, its jpeg output is not as good as promised (on a par with Adobe Photoshop CS6 but falling behind Preview, ResizeMe and PhotoBatcher): https://foliovision.com/2016/01/best-image-resizer Still for its drag and drop simplicity and acceptable output quality, JPEGmini is well worth consideration.

Awesome, saves lots of space without any noticeable differences.

Perfect addition to my workflow…

I exported 14 images from Lightroom for posting to the web, and then ran them through JPEGmini to see how much space I could save. Surprisingly, JPEGmini skipped every one of the 14 images, and reported that it could not optimize them further. From this I've concluded that Lightroom does a great job optimizing images for the web, so there's no need for me to use JPEGmini.

Awesome job and easy to use

While I didn't spend too much time with this, I found that for my particular images GraphicConverter's "Save for Web" worked a lot better. While JPEGmini improves on Photoshop's "Save for Web", it won't accept .psd files as input (GraphicConverter does). JPEGmini has one thing going for it: It's dead simple. But if you don't mind staring at the screen for a minute to figure out which of the many menus and buttons to press, GraphicConverter is the much better value, and its results are better too.

On their website they have a bunch of impressive-looking comparisons where they have an original photo alongside a drastically smaller compressed version, and the quality is indistinguishable in all cases. I thought it looked cool, so I downloaded the two photos (which they helpfully provide in a zip file) and did my own test using Preview. I simply took the "original" photo and exported it as a jpeg in Preview, dragging the quality slider down until the file size was the same as the compressed version produced by JPEGmini. In all cases when I compared the original, the JPEGmini version, and the version produced by Preview, the results were identical. Often the Preview version was even smaller than the JPEGmini version. Hard to justify $20 when I can't manage to produce results any more impressive than what can be accomplished using the OS's built-in tools…

My only concern is that it doesn't behave like a standard Mac App. For example it is the only app I use among many that breaks Launchbar QuickSend shortcut :(

No lossless or anyway near, it's a good tool, it can save lots of megabytes and the result is pretty good, basically it's an app that studies the compression for each image so it stops compressing when it starts to make visible artifacts, the results are very good, 99% of the original with savings in file size of 60%. BUT, it marks files with a tag to know if it was already compressed, if the algoritm was as good as they talk, then it should not be need any exif or comment tag. So I rip off the comments and exif and tried that image again to know if it would stop compressing, unfortunately it didin't, what I found out is if rip of color information in each iteration. So it's not as good as they talk on their web site, but still very good app. I think it's too expensive. The problem with Photoshop Save for the web etc, is that is not automatically for each photo, some will be perfect with 60%, others with 40%, etc, what this app does, is dynamically adapts to each photo, as that was the purpose for them in the first place (Server Script to save Disk Space). If it didn't rip color information in every iteration (only possible if i rip the "security" tag it puts on files), then it would be perfect app.

Too expensive for what it does. Maybe I'd fork out $4.99 for it, but $20? No way. Especially when there's tried and tested ImageOptim, which is free and - at least during my test - producing the same and at times even better results.

Not impressed, the app just saves an image with ca 79% quality.

You can achieve the same result if you save an image in the Preview.app as jpeg with ca 79% quality/compression.

It takes a little digging to find information on what specifically the app does to compress. Once found it says: "[...] two papers describing the technology have been accepted and presented at the prestigious SPIE Electronic Imaging 2011 conference in San Francisco." I'd be interested in reading those papers, because you still haven't gone into detail as to _why_ you think I should use this compressor instead of the ones built in to OSX. That's like saying DRINK MY DRINK IT'S BETTER without mentioning that you use sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup to make it better.

I'm not a pro, but I took a random photo on my HD and processed it thru JPEGmini, PS's "save for web" (60%), Preview (60%) and GraphicConverter's "save for web" (60%) and I can't see great differences, but for the final file size: -original: 3,1 MB -JPEGmini: 1,6 MB -Preview 60%: 1,5 MB -PS "save for web" 60%: 1,3 MB -GC "save for web" 60%: 687 KB