Squash vs Lightroom?

I’ve been using Lightroom to export 1920 pixel wide JPEG’s compressed to 30% for my blog entry images. This seems to get some pretty good compression and still decent photos.

Is there a substantial advantage to using Squash instead or in addition?

I’ve tried to research Squash and I haven’t found much concrete data on how much it compresses.

Thanks.

Try ImageOptim

3 Likes

If you’re already having a working workflow with decent results, stick to it.

1 Like

Google’s Squoosh is easily the best compression app there is for JPGs, and it’s free.

You may be on to something here. I was thinking … a big savings in file size … perhaps …

I looked at ImageOptim and it does save some … may try this out.
It was interesting … it only saved 10% on a 90% quality file, but it saved 30% on a 30% quality file.

However … it is an additional step in my workflow … may not be worth it.

Thanks … looks like Squosh is an online online service … true?

Thanks … I downloaded ImageOptim and tried it out. Looks like this may be a keeper.

Yes. It’s Google.

My experience with all the different jpeg compression applications and online services has been that they all do about the same thing when they are ”set” at the same level of compression.

Your lightroom is set to 30%, and some products like squash, tiny jpeg, and others are set much higher (70% or more) by default. It gives people the impression that they have some ”better” compression going on. When in reality they simply ”turn-up” the compression out of the box.

Of course, when you turn up the compression you also turn up the loss of quality.

Image compression is a balancing act, quality vs file size (page speed).

ImageOptim Offers ”lossless” compression, and that’s achieved by simply stripping the metadata from the image. I don’t know lightroom, but it may very well offer a similar option.

If you turn on lossy compression, which is where you get the most benefit then they all pretty much work the same. Compression is compression, there’s no magic that one product offers over the other when set at the same level.

It’s a matter of workflow and what works best for you. For example ImageOptim will only rewrite the files in place. I can’t stand that way of working. I often want to keep trying different compression settings to try and balance quality vs file size. With an app like ImageOptim, I’d be constantly re-copying the originals back.

Thanks for the additional comments. I didn’t realize that ImageOptim stripped the metadata … not really what I want. I think I’m back to my original workflow and just export my images with Lightroom. Blog header images get a lot of compression … full size finals are high quality.

You can tell imageoptim to leave the metadata alone and also to use lossy compression for further shrinking.

I’m not a 100% optimization person where I have to squeeze out every last redundant pixel.

I’ve been very happy with Squash. I don’t see any significant difference between the original and the Squashed version.

For web use, in general having a super high-res image, or one with absolutely no artifacts is probably not as important as significantly reducing the filesize. (Except perhaps for photo websites or others where the image itself is being closely examined. Even then, thumbnails can be smaller and lossier, with links to the original hi-res images.)

Most of all, I like the Squash animation and squooshy sounds it makes. It is probably the only app that makes me smile when I use it! Maybe a stupid reason not to use Google Squoosh or ImageOpim … but an interesting UI sometimes trumps technical superiority or pricing. (Probably why I like Apple products as well .)

My 2 cents; your mileage may vary.

1 Like

Actually no, they have different compression algorithms. ImageOptim is definitely different from JPEGmini, for example. The former compresses chrominance way more, but also gets you smaller file sizes. If it doesn’t look right in that, then use JPEGmini. ImageOptim is FREE. The fact that it rewrites files in place is an absolute bonus if they already reside server-side. When I have to deal with other people uploading 10MB JPEGS, I just double-click them in my FTP client and ImageOptim takes care of the rest.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.