Tutorial how to use Irfanview 4.25 to rotate, shrink, & rename batch photos
Elmo
(based on the time and date and GPS location of the given photograph)
Assumption: You want to automatically rotate, shrink to 100KB, set to
72dpi, strip out the EXIF data, and rename the new emailable files based on
the EXIF date & EXIF gps coordinates for all photographs in a Windows
folder.
To automatically rotate a batch of photos to the EXIF orientation tag:
* Navigate to your batch of digital photographs in a Windows folder
* Doubleclick on one of the JPEGs to open it up in Irfanview 4.25
* t ... aka Irfanview:File->Thumbnails
* Wait for the Irfanview counter to register all thumbnails (i.e., it may
take some time for the Irfanview counter to register from 1/5000 to
5,000/5,000).
* Control + A ... aka Thumbnail:Options->Select All
* Shift + J ... aka Thumbnail:File->JPG Lossless Operations->Lossless
Rotation with Selected Files
* Start ... aka Thumbnail:Press the Start button
Voila!
To rename based on date & GPS, shrink file size, and set DPI & pixels:
* With desired photos still selected in the Irfanview Thumbnail viewer ...
* b ... aka Thumbnail:File->Start Batch Dialog with Selected Files
* Batch conversion:Press the "Create New Folder" button at top right
* Batch conversion:Name the new folder something like "small pics"
* Batch conversion:Doubleclick on the newly created "small pics"
* Batch conversion:Press the "Use current look-in directory" button
* Batch conversion:Press the "Start Batch" button
* When done, exit out of the batch dialog and then out of Irfanview
Voila!
All digital photographs in that folder will be rotated properly; they will
be renamed based upon EXIF date & GPS data; and they will be shrunk to
100KB and 640x480 pixel size and 72dpi resolution; and all EXIF/IPTC and
thumbnail data will be removed from the emailable copy of the photograph.
Notes:
* Those are my settings, previously saved by Irfanview; your desired
settings may vary.
* Irfanview 4.25 saves the last 15 rename patterns; so you can have a
variety of desired patterns.
* Obviously EXIF information such as GPS coordinates & orientation must be
saved by your camera; press the E button in Irfanview to view your EXIF
data.
* Recommended batch saved settings are the following:
- Set "Batch conversion - Rename result files"
- Set "JPEG/GIF save options" to "Set file size = 100KB (RIOT Plugin)"
- Set "Batch Conversion" options to "RESIZE"; "Set long side = 640 pixels";
"Set DPI value = 72"; and "Preservec aspect ratio".
- Set "Batch rename settings" to "$N-$E36868(%Y%m%d_%H-%M-%S)$E402-$E404";
this appends the date and GPS coordinates to the original file name.
Further improvements are always welcome!
Elmo
> Tutorial how to use Irfanview 4.25 to rotate, shrink, & rename batch photos
> (based on the time and date and GPS location of the given photograph)
I forgot to list a tremendous time-saving setting for this to work with
fewer button presses.
* p ... aka Irfanview:Options->Properties/Setttings->Miscellaneous
Make sure to UNSET the default option "Open Batch dialog in last used batch
folder".
Otherwise, you'll be constantly forced to waste buttons setting the folder
to the current folder.
In summary, the entire process to resize & rename & tag 5,000 files is four
steps to reorientate and four steps to resize, tag, and rename photos:
To orientate (orient?) thousands of photos:
* t
* control + a
* shift j
* "Start"
Then to resize, tag, and rename thousands of photos:
* b
* "Create new folder"
* "Use current look-in directory"
* "Start Batch"
Voila!
Don Wiss
>Tutorial how to use Irfanview 4.25 to rotate, shrink, & rename batch photos
>(based on the time and date and GPS location of the given photograph)
>
>Assumption: You want to automatically rotate, shrink to 100KB, set to
>72dpi, strip out the EXIF data, and rename the new emailable files based on
>the EXIF date & EXIF gps coordinates for all photographs in a Windows
>folder.
That is a lot more than I want to do to my pictures. As not all need
rotating, I do those using IrfanView by hand when checking them out
(Shift-J, etc). Then I use jpegcrop to crop losslessly. I put it first on
my SendTo menu to bring it up with key strokes. Then for reduction I don't
go by byte size, but for a size that fits on a web page. I wrote a program
that reads the image's size and then using an algorithm figures out what to
reduce it to. The reduction is then done by batch using Easy Thumbnails in
command line mode. See:
http://www.fookes.com/downloads.php?product=ezthumbs
Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Paul Furman
> ...
> To rename based on date & GPS, shrink file size, and set DPI & pixels:
> * With desired photos still selected in the Irfanview Thumbnail viewer ...
> * b ... aka Thumbnail:File->Start Batch Dialog with Selected Files
> * Batch conversion:Press the "Create New Folder" button at top right
> * Batch conversion:Name the new folder something like "small pics"
> * Batch conversion:Doubleclick on the newly created "small pics"
> * Batch conversion:Press the "Use current look-in directory" button
> * Batch conversion:Press the "Start Batch" button
> * When done, exit out of the batch dialog and then out of Irfanview
> Voila!
I didn't see any instructions on renaming from exif. OK, I just found
that below.
> All digital photographs in that folder will be rotated properly; they will
> be renamed based upon EXIF date & GPS data; and they will be shrunk to
> 100KB and 640x480 pixel size and 72dpi resolution; and all EXIF/IPTC and
> thumbnail data will be removed from the emailable copy of the photograph.
>
> Notes:
> * Those are my settings, previously saved by Irfanview; your desired
> settings may vary.
> * Irfanview 4.25 saves the last 15 rename patterns; so you can have a
> variety of desired patterns.
> * Obviously EXIF information such as GPS coordinates & orientation must be
> saved by your camera; press the E button in Irfanview to view your EXIF
> data.
> * Recommended batch saved settings are the following:
> - Set "Batch conversion - Rename result files"
> - Set "JPEG/GIF save options" to "Set file size = 100KB (RIOT Plugin)"
I'm not sure this makes sense for most cases, jpeg file size will vary
depending how much detail.
> - Set "Batch Conversion" options to "RESIZE"; "Set long side = 640 pixels";
> "Set DPI value = 72"; and "Preservec aspect ratio".
> - Set "Batch rename settings" to "$N-$E36868(%Y%m%d_%H-%M-%S)$E402-$E404";
> this appends the date and GPS coordinates to the original file name.
Ah, OK, I set up something like that in full screen mode to show fl,
shutter, aperture...
> Further improvements are always welcome!
I almost never use thumbnail view. Just hit 'B' for batch, and save
settings for various needs. I'm finding irfanview less handy with 12MP
files though I've used it for years and always loved the speed. Also, I
use lightroom these days for most batch work but it's quite a lot slower.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Elmo
>> - Set "JPEG/GIF save options" to "Set file size = 100KB (RIOT Plugin)"
>
> I'm not sure this makes sense for most cases, jpeg file size will vary
> depending how much detail.
Actually, that's the beauty of this setting.
No matter what the JPEG size is, it will set it to 100KB (or whatever you
choose). It's magic.
Elmo
> OK, I just found that below.
Just to be clear (for others), the EXIF information is used for the file
naming based on the pattern below:
>> - Set "Batch rename settings" to "$N-$E36868(%Y%m%d_%H-%M-%S)$E402-$E404";
>> this appends the date and GPS coordinates to the original file name.
Which means (AFAIK):
$N = start with the previous name, e.g., "vacation.jpg" ...
$E36868 = use the EXIF date information pattern to follow in parenthesis
%Y%m%d = date format YYYYMMDD
%H%M%S = time format HHMMSS
$E402 = GPS latitude
$E404 = GPS longitude
Where the "_" and "-" are literal characters
_ = literal character
So, the picture originally named "vacation.jpg", taken on 04 Apr 2010 at
12:27:26 automagically is renamed
vacation-20100403_12-27-26_<latitude>-<longitude>.jpg
Note that it would be nice to figure out a way to use colons in the
hours:minutes:seconds part; but Windows barfs on colons.
Tim
Which is exactly why it makes no sense at all. An image that is sharp and
contains a lot of fine detail will be over-compressed and could potentially
be ruined by forcing a file size on it.
--
Tim
Tim
> Assumption: You want to automatically rotate, shrink to 100KB, set to
> 72dpi, strip out the EXIF data, and rename the new emailable files
> based on the EXIF date & EXIF gps coordinates for all photographs in
> a Windows folder.
Why are you setting the resolution to 72 pixels per inch? If they are to be
emailed and viewed on screen the resolution doesn't matter at all, if they
are to be printed then 72 ppi is way too low.
Despite the common misconception, on screen images don't need to have a
resolution of 72 ppi. The only thing that effects its size and quality on
screen is its size in pixels. The size can be changed if it's incorporated
into a web page by a scaling factor, but it's best to make a copy that is
the correct size (in pixels) to start with, and in either case resolution is
irrelevant. For on screen images, the resolution only comes in to play when
the image is displayed in a page based format, like Word or a desktop
publishing program, where the software makes an inaccurate attempt to show
the virtual piece of paper at the same physical size as it is in the real
world.
--
Tim
Elmo
> Which is exactly why it makes no sense at all. An image that is sharp and
> contains a lot of fine detail will be over-compressed and could potentially
> be ruined by forcing a file size on it.
I understand your point but I don't understand the mathematics. Apparently
this Irfanview feature uses something called a "RIOT Plugin".
Googling, I find RIOT stands for the "Radical Image Optimization Tool".
http://criosweb.ro/software/RIOT.dll
It looks like GIMP also utilizes the RIOT (http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot)
Radical Image Optimiation Tool (http://registry.gimp.org/node/20778).
I wish there were a Wikeipedia on this RIOT Radical Image Optimization
Tool; but none yet.
So, I guess, the real question, is how well does the RIOT Radical Image
Optimization Tool work in Irfanview batch mode. (works well enough for me)
Elmo
>> Assumption: You want to automatically rotate, shrink to 100KB, set to
>> 72dpi, strip out the EXIF data, and rename the new emailable files
> Why are you setting the resolution to 72 pixels per inch? If they are to be
> emailed and viewed on screen the resolution doesn't matter at all
Good question!
I thought reducing the DPI from whatever it is from the camera down to 72
DPI lowered the file size (in bytes on disk).
Can you clarify the relationship of DPI with bytes on disk?
Assuming two photographs are exactly the same, except one is 72 DPI and the
other is, say, 1,200 DPI, wouldn't one would be vastly larger in file size
(bytes on disk) than the other?
If the answer is Yes, then that's why I recommend 72DPI for emailed photos.
If the answer is No, then ... you're right ... it's a waste of time to set
the DPI in Irfanview Batch Mode.
What is the right answer to recommend to batch shrink common photos to be
emailed?
Ray Fischer
>Elmo wrote:
>> Assumption: You want to automatically rotate, shrink to 100KB, set to
>> 72dpi, strip out the EXIF data, and rename the new emailable files
>> based on the EXIF date & EXIF gps coordinates for all photographs in
>> a Windows folder.
>
>Why are you setting the resolution to 72 pixels per inch? If they are to be
>emailed and viewed on screen the resolution doesn't matter at all, if they
>are to be printed then 72 ppi is way too low.
Does _anything_ pay attention to the DPI setting?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Catch up - you fuckin' morons
Advanced editors that give a real-time preview option for the print output
do. Like Photoline. It will even show you the printer's eventual
anti-aliasing quality before you even send it to the printer, if you so
desire.
Tim
There will be absolutely no difference in file size. The only difference
will be a few bytes in the file header that read will 72 in one image and
1200 in the other. The part of the image that contains the image
information will be identical.
As an example, here are two images. Both are 800 x 600 pixel JPGs that were
saved with the same settings for compression, but one has a resolution of 72
ppi and the other is 1200 ppi. Both have a file size of 95,277 bytes.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/28/1979560/Res72.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/6/28/1979560/Res1200.jpg
Resolution is only applicable to printed images, or applications that show
your image on a virtual piece of paper. Something like a word processor, a
desktop publishing application or something with "print preview". This
doesn't apply to web browsers, email programs, image viewers or image
editors (in their normal mode).
If you have an image that is 3600 x 2400 pixels and it has a resolution of
1200 pixels per inch, it will print at a size of 3 inches by 2 inches. If
you change the resolution to 600 pixels per inch it will print at a size of
6 inches by 4 inches. That's all resolution means... a conversion factor
from "pixels", which have no fixed size, to a physical measurement such as
inches. It doesn't mean that each pixel contains more information at higher
resolution. A pixel just contains the colour of one dot. Resolution doesn't
mean the same as the resolving power of a lens.
A good page about all of this is http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html
--
Tim
George Kerby
On 4/5/10 9:42 PM, in article 4bba9f9d$0$1665$742e...@news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
Does *anyone* listen to your endless stream of psycho-babble?
Face it, FishHead, if it were not for me, you would have NO ONE to converse.
You should be grateful, bitch!
Paul Furman
> Elmo wrote:
>> Tim wrote:
>>
>>> Why are you setting the resolution to 72 pixels per inch? If they
>>> are to be emailed and viewed on screen the resolution doesn't matter
>>> at all
>>
>> to be emailed?
>
> your image on a virtual piece of paper. Something like a word processor, a
> desktop publishing application or something with "print preview".
Setting 72 ppi could be useful if people want to print a low res web
image; that'll cause it to print by default at a size similar to what
you see on screen, where a 300 ppi setting would come out of the printer
at postage stamp size, but it has no effect on file size on disk.
Paul Furman
If the target size was larger, this could prevent blocky artifacts in
smoothly graded soft areas of the images that would have been reduced by
default compression, but could degrade highly detailed images that would
normally produce larger file sizes.
The way to understand jpeg compression is try saving some files of
varying detail with extremely low quality setting and zoom in on the
results. You will see how it works by simplifying similar areas into
rectangular blocks.
Elmo
> Setting 72 ppi ... [will] cause it to print by default at a size similar to what
> you see on screen, where a 300 ppi setting would come out of the printer
> at postage stamp size, but it has no effect on file size on disk.
Interesting.
Ummm... so what PPI/DPI settings SHOULD we recommend for batch shrinking
and renaming suitable for emailing family photos to others?
300?
600?
1200?
?
me
wrote:
>Setting 72 ppi could be useful if people want to print a low res web
>image; that'll cause it to print by default at a size similar to what
>you see on screen, where a 300 ppi setting would come out of the printer
>at postage stamp size, but it has no effect on file size on disk.
That implies a fair amount of assumption about the
application/feature/driver set up used to print he photo, doesn't it?
html browser vs image viewer vs image editor vs image printing app.
Chris Malcolm
There are plenty of features that work well that generally speaking
are silly things to do.
--
Chris Malcolm
Elmo
> There are plenty of features that work well that generally speaking
> are silly things to do.
I wonder if there is a better way (than Irfanview thumbnail batch mode) to
rotate, shrink, tag, and rename thousands of photos suitable for emailing
select results to friends and family?
One huge advantage of the shrink to 100KB is that just stepping through the
photos in Irfanview is faster (than stepping through the 4MB originals).
Also in Irfanview, the F7/F8 (i.e., move/copy) buttons work faster on the
slected photos out of the thousands shrunk and renamed that get moved to
the "send" folder to mail out.
All in all, shrinking photos to 100KB (you pick the desired size or let
Irfanview pick it for you) for use by email to friends and family works for
me.
But if someone has a BETTER freeware program, I'm all ears! Let us know
what works better than Irfanview to perform the following tasks:
- Handles thousands of photos (one weekend or so)
- Rotates the photos (assuming orientation information is available)
- Sets pixels to a desired number (e.g., 640 long side)
- Renames photos based on GPS, time & date, and other desired factors
- Strips out the EXIF (to keep file size down)
- Reduces the file size (on disk) to something manageable (e.g., 150KB)
If there's freeware out there better'n Irfanview to perform that common
task, please respond with a pointer.
Poutnik
Address.invalid says...
>
>
> One huge advantage of the shrink to 100KB is that just stepping through the
> photos in Irfanview is faster (than stepping through the 4MB originals).
>
with given JPG quality.
--
Poutnik
The best depends on how the best is defined.
Elmo
> I prefer using target resolution or one side size,
> with given JPG quality.
I recommend setting the long side to something like 640 pixels (works for
me).
If there's a freeware batch program better'n Irfanview for resizing,
renaming, and rotating thousands of pictures, let me know.
Chris Malcolm
>> There are plenty of features that work well that generally speaking
>> are silly things to do.
> I wonder if there is a better way (than Irfanview thumbnail batch mode) to
> rotate, shrink, tag, and rename thousands of photos suitable for emailing
> select results to friends and family?
> One huge advantage of the shrink to 100KB is that just stepping through the
> photos in Irfanview is faster (than stepping through the 4MB originals).
I'm not suggesting that shrinking file size is silly. I'm suggesting
that shrinking to a fixed file size by means of RIOT is silly. If that
degree of compression is good enough for highly detailed photographs
then many of your photographs could be reduced to half that size
without loss of quality, with consequent benefits of speed, space,
etc..
> All in all, shrinking photos to 100KB (you pick the desired size or let
> Irfanview pick it for you) for use by email to friends and family works for
> me.
Wouldn't shrinking more than half of them to less than half that size
work even better? Because you could do without lowering the quality
any more than is already happening to your most detailed photographs.
> But if someone has a BETTER freeware program, I'm all ears! Let us know
> what works better than Irfanview to perform the following tasks:
I think Irfanview is great, use it a lot, and always for downsizing
and jpeg compression because it's particularly good at that. It's
your use of the RIOT method of compression I'm questioning.
--
Chris Malcolm
Paul Furman
Html would change things but any program that prints jpegs should use
dpi by default for sizing. That's what it's there for. Same if you drag
into a Word document. Granted, I often have my printer default set to
'best fit' to fill the page.
Paul Furman
Something like 300 if it's high res pics but for grandma to print 100k
email snaps, more like 75 dpi as she'd expect them to print the same
size as on screen.
> 300?
> 600?
> 1200?
> ?
John McWilliams
It's PPI, and definitely not DPI for what you're talking about. If
they're just for viewing on screen, 800 x 600 is a reasonable size. If
for printing, I'd resize to the lesser of 1000 x 1500 or whatever is the
native number of pixels of the image.
--
John McWilliams
Tim
> Tim wrote:
>> Elmo wrote:
>>> Tim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are you setting the resolution to 72 pixels per inch? If they
>>>> are to be emailed and viewed on screen the resolution doesn't
>>>> matter at all
>>>
>>> What is the right answer to recommend to batch shrink common photos
>>> to be emailed?
>>
>> Resolution is only applicable to printed images, or applications
>> that show your image on a virtual piece of paper. Something like a
>> word processor, a desktop publishing application or something with
>> "print preview".
>
> Setting 72 ppi could be useful if people want to print a low res web
> image; that'll cause it to print by default at a size similar to what
> you see on screen, where a 300 ppi setting would come out of the
> printer at postage stamp size, but it has no effect on file size on
> disk.
Maybe if you have a very old Mac, but otherwise not particularly close. That
old line about 72 pixels per inch being the screen's resolution is much
repeated, but quite wrong and is exactly the theme of the Scantips "Say No
to 72dpi" site (http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html).
The nominal screen resolution in Windows is 96 dpi, but that is the same for
a 14 inch laptop or a 27 inch desktop monitor.
On my laptop the 15 inch screen is 1400 x 1050 pixels. The screen is 12
inches wide. So the real resolution is 1400/12 = 116.7 pixels per inch. Low
res web images that have their resolution changed to 72 ppi would print 62%
larger than they appear on screen.
My 22 inch desktop screen is 1680 x 1050 pixels. The screen is 18.7 inches
wide. The real resolution in this case is 1680/18.7 = 89.8 pixels per inch.
Low res web images that have their resolution changed to 72 ppi would print
25% larger than they appear on screen.
--
Tim