Back to JPEGmini page
JPEGmini free download for Mac

JPEGmini Reviews

2.2.4
16 March 2019

Compress JPEGs up to 500%.

Surfspirit
14 February 2013

Most helpful

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.
Like (4)
Version 1.4.3

Read 21 JPEGmini User Reviews

Rate this app:

radihmod
05 December 2019
Perfect addition to my workflow…
Like
Version 2.2.4
LeMerlot
16 March 2019
One of my unique MUST have tools for pictures!
Like
Version 2.2.4
Rick6
01 August 2017
Great little tool. Drop dead simple to use
Like (1)
Version 1.9.9
Pwenzel
06 July 2016
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.
Like (1)
Version 1.9.9
George6
23 May 2016
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!
Like
Version 1.9.8
Uncoy
05 January 2016
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.
Like (1)
Version 1.9.6
eakster
02 June 2015
Awesome, saves lots of space without any noticeable differences.
Like
Version 1.9
LeMerlot
29 October 2014
Perfect addition to my workflow…
Like (1)
Version 1.8.6
Drdul
12 September 2014
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.
Like (3)
Version 1.8.5
eakster
18 July 2014
Awesome job and easy to use
Like (1)
Version 1.8.5
R1000m
30 May 2014
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.
Like (3)
Version 1.8.4
2 answer(s)
Surfspirit
Surfspirit
10 July 2014
Photoshop Save for the Web and JPEGmini are completely different tools, JPEGmini auto adapts the best compression ratio and stops as soon as it would start to have visible artifacts, try do the same with Photoshop Save for the Web or Graphic Converter etc. .psd files are no good format to it either, because .psd is a Photoshop format that uses bitmap lossless compression, and the purposes are way different
Like (1)
R1000m
R1000m
10 July 2014
@Surfspirit: The "Save for Web" feature of the programs mentioned creates JPG and PNG from any format. So not only does GraphicConverter give better results, it's also more convenient,
Like
Gordon142
19 May 2014
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…
Like (1)
Version 1.8.4
1 answer(s)
Uncoy
Uncoy
05 January 2016
The easy batch processing is a reason to consider JPEGmini. Plus it does automatically make decisions on image quality (no photo professional needed to help the client decide on compression ratios). But yes, for an image pro, there are more convincing alternatives: https://foliovision.com/2016/01/best-image-resizer
Like
Mindplay
24 July 2013
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 :(
Like
Version 1.8.1
Surfspirit
14 February 2013
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.
Like (4)
Version 1.4.3
gryphonent
02 February 2013
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.
Like (3)
Version 1.4.3
Huhaa
18 September 2012
Not impressed, the app just saves an image with ca 79% quality.
Like (3)
Version 1.3
Huhaa
18 September 2012
You can achieve the same result if you save an image in the Preview.app as jpeg with ca 79% quality/compression.
Like (2)
Version 1.3
1 answer(s)
Huhaa
Huhaa
18 September 2012
While ImageOptim seems to go with ca 99% quality which is why JPEGmini may seem like "better" at doing it. Basically they all just "poke" around with the quality % of an jpeg image, no more. While I can do that my self, so I don't see the need to purchase an app for that.
Like (3)
@timi
26 June 2012
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.
Like (2)
Version 1.2
1 answer(s)
ylluminate
ylluminate
16 July 2012
I have to agree. I just don't see any real reason to use this when I normally have very good compression ratios on all of my output. Of course I've been working with images for 15 years and know my way around in terms of compressing things "properly," however looking at some of the other remarks below, it seems that they're taking images with essentially 0 to little compression going on and then shrinking them down to give their "WOW" results on the homepage. Off the top it seems that the only thing these guys are really good at is marketing as they've talked to the right people to give (perhaps loaded) testimonials. I can't say for sure, but there's no way I'm paying $20 to just test an app that seems highly suspect.
Like (2)
Julifos
26 June 2012
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
Like (2)
Version 1.2
1 answer(s)
Julifos
Julifos
26 June 2012
test: http://homepage.mac.com/julifos/archivos/jpegminitest/compr.html note: the "original" there is already a pre-processed PS file (so not quite the true original, but the original in this test).
Like
Fariborz
06 May 2012
This application is gold - really gold! You just drop a hefty photo on it and it no time it shrinks to a tiny one without losing its original quality. What you obtain is NOT a compressed file in a different format but a truly JPEG photo that can immediately be used like its original. Amazing. Fariborz AMIRSHAHI - Verona (Italy)
Like (2)
Version 1.0
4 answer(s)
avv3lenato
avv3lenato
01 June 2012
Have you compared to ImageOptim? It's free! Hai fatto un paragone con ImageOptim, che è pure gratis?
Like (2)
Fariborz
Fariborz
01 June 2012
Yes, I just did it. I dropped a 1.8 MB photo on both of them. ImageOptim changed it to 1.7 MB file while JPEGmini reduced it to tiny 1.2MB. As for the quality, ImageOptim slightly (however still visibly) darkened the image whereas JPEGmini preserved its original quality as usual. I reassure you that JPEGmini is the unquestioned winner - hands down. Ciao!
Like (3)
avv3lenato
avv3lenato
01 June 2012
THX!
Like
Fariborz
Fariborz
01 June 2012
I just forgot to tell you that there's a "lite" version free of charge on MacApp store in case you want to give it a go. ;-) Buona giornata.
Like (1)
mymon
06 May 2012
I'm not a big fan of double compression Every photographer knows that compressing already compressed file (JPG) is not a good idea no matter how great the algorithm is however this is a must have app for all who have web galleries In my opinion JPEGmini's algorithm is an absolutely class PS users may compare Photoshop's "save for web" but in my opinion it's not even near JPEGmini
Like
Version 1.0
2 answer(s)
Cowicide
Cowicide
08 May 2012
> PS users may compare Photoshop's "save for web" > but in my opinion it's not even near JPEGmini Has anyone run a comparison and posted this online? I'm skeptical until I see it.
Like (1)
mymon
mymon
08 May 2012
Make your own test ;] On their website you can compress your test photo Drop an >8MB file and compare it to what you get from PS ;) The only advantages of PS is that it can save to web from RAW but if you do a large JPEG photos (not RAW) you can compress it on your SD/CF card and HardDrive and save GB like I did
Like