Please tell me I am wrong.Ĭreate a Photoshop Droplet, which is a mini-app that you can drag and drop your JPG files onto to do the auto-convert to PNG. So my question: can we control the quality setting for PNG output in Photoshop, or are we limited to either completely on (max compression) or off (no compression)?Īs far as I can tell and know, PS does NOT allow us to choose a custom compression setting. But because of IrfanView's control the wait is less than a third of the time that PS takes to process these. (in the case of my benchmark images the uncompressed version is 91,898mb, the save for web version is 23,699mb, and IrfanView's version at a quality setting of 6 marginally larger at 24,188mb. A compression of 5~6 gives the best time versus file size yield. In IrfanView and ImageMagick we can control the quality setting from 0 (uncompressed) up to 9 (max compression). It also explains why IrfanView is so much faster and still produces nicely compressed versions. This takes about 33 seconds compression time per image with my benchmark images. Next, I checked the 'save for web' option - which resulted in the long wait times again, because it seems PS automatically sets the compression rate to one of the highest (8 or 9). Then, however, I noticed the reason for this: no compression is applied at all by PS, and the resulting PNG files are huge, this being the nature of uncompressed PNGs. I ran RB's image processor on the same list of images as before, and was surprised to see it converted all the JPGs to PNGs in a matter of ~10 seconds. But it is much slower than IrfanView, a tad faster than PS.Īfter some more testing I have to partially retract the words I have written above. It is a command line tool, and easy to use for conversions.Will also work on a mac. ImageMagick is also free and open source. The batch processing you can find under File->Batch Conversion This matters if you have hundreds of images to convert.ītw, Irfanview (windows only) is free to download It's too slow.Īnother issue is that during the conversion process Photoshop cannot be used - while with a simple conversion utility you can leave it running in the background, and continue to use PS for other work if required. That's a rather big difference - and with large numbers of images I just do not have the time to wait for Photoshop to finish the job. For example, I did a quick test to demonstrate the difference in performance:įolder with 10 images in jpg format, 5600px by 5600px. Photoshop is incredibly slow for this type of work. But can I be honest? I'd do that with a more efficient and far faster conversion utility like IrfanView.

Jpg to png converter bulk