Forum Moderators: not2easy
I'm off to see what happens with fireworks.
It is interesting the difference in the amount of exif data between the cameras. Another difference may be the memory card since the new cameras has one of them newfangled high speed sd cards.
I never had much luck trying to get small images in Photoshop. I ended up finding a freeware thumbnail program (thumbs plus) that does a really good job as a batch. Then you can use the web gallery feature with the thumbs.
The freeware program strips the EXIF and ITPC data from the image and at 400px max dimension the largest image file I usually get is around 40k but most are around 20-30k.
you should be able to write an action and batch process whole folders of files with a single click (available in ps 6.0)That was the kind of answer I was looking for until I found the jpeg stripper, which was exactly what I needed.
I don't use photoshop but the size of a jpeg file depends on the pixel size and the jpeg quality.Yes but there is more. When you download images from your digital camera as jpegs you get a bunch of other stuff besides the information necessary to render the picture. You get a file with all your camera's settings for the picture. You may get additional data specific to the viewer that comes bundled with the camera. Usually, a thumbnail is embedded along with the image for your lcd viewing. I never considered it a problem until I got this new camera and the extra data was 65 kb. That means a thumbnail at 80X60 pixels saved at low quality was 66 kb. My old camera was adding 12 kb to every picture. I never considered that a problem but since the new program is so effortless I will strip all my images which will save about 45 mb in storage. In addition, some of the larger gallery indices have 30 thumbnails. Those pages will lose 360 kb which can be a big difference in download time over a 56k.