Photoshop CS metadata bloat

JM
Posted By
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
Views
1515
Replies
41
Status
Closed
I recently upgraded from PS 6 to CS and I just realized that PS is inflating the size of my JPEGs by about 7k with metadata. As a web developer, I find this unacceptable.

I’ve never used Save for Web, I don’t like Save for Web, and I have no intention of using it in the future. I’ve always used Save As. How can I disable metadata in JPEGs saved with Save As?

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

JB
Jonathan_Balza
May 24, 2005
"I’ve never used Save for Web, I don’t like Save for Web, and I have no intention of using it in the future. I’ve always used Save As."

Unbelievable.

No matter how hard I try, I absolutely cannot come up with a good reason to NOT use "Save for Web." If the only reason you are using "Save As…" is because you "always have," then I’d say that it’s time to get with the program – literally.

I would think that as a WEB developer, you would want to use the save method that is FOR THE WEB. One of the main purposes behind "Save for Web" is to do exactly what you want – strip out the metadata. There are others as well, but since you’ve never used it, you wouldn’t know.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
If you like it you’re free to use it. I’ve always seen it as a "wizard" for people who don’t know enough about the underlying aspects of image optimization to do it directly. Not to mention it’s slow, cumbersome, and annoying.

What I want is to optimize my images as I see fit, which I was always able to do using Save As until I "upgraded" to CS. I know the other purposes and I don’t need or want them. At least through v6 I never had to worry about stripping out useless metadata because it wasn’t secretly added to my files in the first place.

So, to repeat my question, is it possible to save JPEGs with Save As without metadata?
C
chrisjbirchall
May 24, 2005
I’ve always seen it as a "wizard" for people who don’t know enough about the underlying aspects of image optimization to do it directly.

Then you’ll know all about utilities such as Jpeg Cleaner for stripping out metadata.

Not to mention it’s slow, cumbersome, and annoying.

Hmmm. Then you must be using a different CS to me!

What I want is to optimize my images as I see fit

Hmmm. I wonder what all those number setting thingies are in Save for Web?!!

So, to repeat my question, is it possible to save JPEGs with Save As without metadata?

Yes. – it’s called Save for Web!
L
LenHewitt
May 24, 2005
Agree entirely, Jonathan
S
SpaceGirl
May 24, 2005
wrote:
If you like it you’re free to use it. I’ve always seen it as a "wizard" for people who don’t know enough about the underlying aspects of image optimization to do it directly. Not to mention it’s slow, cumbersome, and annoying.

What I want is to optimize my images as I see fit, which I was always able to do using Save As until I "upgraded" to CS. I know the other purposes and I don’t need or want them. At least through v6 I never had to worry about stripping out useless metadata because it wasn’t secretly added to my files in the first place.

So, to repeat my question, is it possible to save JPEGs with Save As without metadata?

No. you are using the wrong tool. Use "save for web". That’s what it is there for.
JB
Jonathan_Balza
May 24, 2005
"Save for Web" is most definitely not a "wizard." To me, it’s more like an "invaluable tool." I won’t bother going into why, since obviously you aren’t interested in making proper use of the tools you have.

To answer your question – no.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
Actually, no, I didn’t know about JPEG cleaner — never needed it before. Thanks for the tip, chris, I’ll check it out. It’s just too bad that I have to use an extra program to do something I used to be able to do with just Photoshop.

Since no one has actually answered my question, I take it that it’s not possible. That’s a real shame. You know, it would be really easy for Adobe to put a Metadata checkbox in the Save Options section of the Save As dialog — to go with Layers, Alpha Channels etc.

I don’t even know why you guys are arguing with me — I’m not trying to change the way you do anything. In fact, since you obviously feel so strongly about Save for Web, how would you feel if you suddenly couldn’t use it anymore after upgrading?
JB
Jonathan_Balza
May 24, 2005
"It’s just too bad that I have to use an extra program to do something I used to be able to do with just Photoshop."

That’s the point. YOU DON’T NEED another program. Just use Save for Web.

And I did answer your question.
MM
Mick_Murphy
May 24, 2005
If you really want to use Save As, then record an action to copy your image into a new file and save that as a JPEG. That will strip all the metadata out.
BL
Bob Levine
May 24, 2005
The real question is "Why upgrade if you refuse to change the way YOU do things?"

Bob
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
Unfortunately that’s not true, Mick. That will disassociate the new image from the metadata of the original, but not the default garbage Photoshop adds.

If I create a new 1×1 pixel image and save it as a JPEG — no thumbnail, no color profile, quality of 1, baseline standard, it still comes out as a 9k file because of the default metadata. That’s my problem.
TD
Thee_DarkOverLord
May 24, 2005
Just curios to why you dont want to use "Save for Web" J? it does what it sais on the tin, and you have full controll still?

The best advice i can give is, except good advice when its given, learn to realsie there is always room to learn, since taking on that attitude, I have learnt so much more from the people here.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
Bob: Because I was using 5.5 on the computer I upgraded and I wanted layer sets. I also didn’t know this was going to happen. Why would I want to change the way I save images when it’s worked fine for years?
TD
Thee_DarkOverLord
May 24, 2005
Why would I want to change the way I save images when it’s worked fine for years?

its called progress J. Tell me why you are not using chalk and slate?
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
DOL: Fair question. I just don’t like it — it slows me down, I find it cumbersome, it presents the options in a way I don’t care for, and offers no advantage.
BL
Bob Levine
May 24, 2005
You’ll need to take the good with the bad. It is what it is. Your stubborness is a bit suprising. You’re simply wasting your engery. If you want those files saved without metadata, you’ll need to use SFW.

Bob
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
How does it represent progress? It doesn’t do anything I couldn’t do with Save As for the past 5 years.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
Whether I need to take the good with the bad is a whole separate question. First I needed to know if there was a way around the flaw. Since there apparently is not, now it’s time for a "feature" request. More of a bug fix if you ask me.
TD
Thee_DarkOverLord
May 24, 2005
ok, if you say so? I kinda understand where your coming form, if it aint broke dont fix it, but IMHO i think you need to jsut get over it and move on, thats not ment in a snide way, just want you to have all the advantages we havbe at your disposal, move along or get left behind.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
Not only "if it ain’t broke don’t fix it", even more so, "if it works, don’t break it". I’m not going to let it stop me, I’ll get around the problem one way or another, but it is very irritating.
S
SpaceGirl
May 24, 2005
wrote:
Actually, no, I didn’t know about JPEG cleaner — never needed it before. Thanks for the tip, chris, I’ll check it out. It’s just too bad that I have to use an extra program to do something I used to be able to do with just Photoshop.

Since no one has actually answered my question, I take it that it’s not possible. That’s a real shame. You know, it would be really easy for Adobe to put a Metadata checkbox in the Save Options section of the Save As dialog — to go with Layers, Alpha Channels etc.

I don’t even know why you guys are arguing with me — I’m not trying to change the way you do anything. In fact, since you obviously feel so strongly about Save for Web, how would you feel if you suddenly couldn’t use it anymore after upgrading?

I answered. I said "no".
C
chrisjbirchall
May 24, 2005
I’ll get around the problem one way or another, but it is very irritating.

Jeez man – life’s too short!

Just to compare, I’ve done a Save As: Ctrl+Shift+S, navigated to a folder, Set the Jpeg compression and Hit Enter.

Same file: Ctrl+Alt+Shift+S, Set the Jpeg compression, Navigated to a folder, and hit enter.

Same number of Keystrokes! And the settings are "sticky" for next time.

Sorry I was wrong. There is one more step in Save for Web: Lock the door so no-one will see you using a… a… (can hardly get myself to say the word) WIZARD !!
S
stevent
May 24, 2005
If you have Irfanview installed (& the plugins), then you can use the JPEG Lossless Operations plugin to remove the metadata (to clean a directory, use in thumbnail view).

As for the save for web question, well image optimisation is still very important, and the save for web feature gives you much more control over the filesizes, transparency, modifying using channels (vector shapes etc), browser previews and more.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
chris: Good to see you’ve got a sense of humor about it. Since you like the feature, I doubt you’d be happy if it got pulled out from under you.

steven: Thanks for the tip. I’ve used Irfanview before and that batch processing sounds like a decent practical solution.

If you’re able to reap those advantages from using SFW, that’s great. To each his own.

I personally get no advantage from it in terms of filesize, transparency, etc. The only preview I need to see is compressed vs. uncompressed, which I can do in Save As by selecting / deselecting Preview. I’d be curious to know just what that "channels" feature is doing — in the end it’s a flattened, compressed image.
S
stevent
May 24, 2005
The Channel modifier lets you use a text layer or vector shape or alpha channel to modify Jpeg quality, putting emphasis on areas of the image that need higher quality than others (like a text layer, or foreground object).
The same feature can also be used for dithering.
C
chrisjbirchall
May 24, 2005
What Stevent is saying is that if you are really serious about optimizing for the web (something which goes much deeper than merely stripping out metadata) Save for Web is the choice of the professional.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 24, 2005
I get the gist of what the effect is supposed to be — but how (and how well) does it actually work? Does the JPEG format actually allow different regions of an image to be compressed with differing quality levels, or is that feature just changing the way Photoshop compares the original pixels?
C
chrisjbirchall
May 24, 2005
Does the JPEG format actually allow different regions of an image to be compressed with differing quality levels

Do a search for "weighted optimization" in Photoshop’s Help pages. There’s a very good explanation of the process and the various way of achieving it.

Chris.
JB
John_Bean_UK
May 24, 2005
wrote:
but how (and how well) does it actually work?

Instead of asking why not try it?
You might surprise yourself 🙂
DM
dave_milbut
May 25, 2005
don’t encourage experimentation. i’ve been told that it might lead to harder drugs!

today it’s save for web, tomorrow, who knows. maybe swf slide shows! <shudder>
JM
J_McCarthy
May 25, 2005
Do a search for "weighted optimization" in Photoshop’s Help pages. There’s a very good explanation of the process and the various way of achieving it.

Unfortunately that doesn’t explain what Photoshop is actually doing. I tried to find some information about it and didn’t find much, but this page <http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/weighted/> seems to shed a little light on it.

Unless you’re using the JPEG2000 format, Photoshop isn’t actually performing "regional compression" (region of interest), so my guesses are a) that it’s blurring the "less important" areas, or b) it’s comparing the pixels differently based on the masks. I don’t see either of those techniques offering a significant benefit.

JPEG isn’t typically a very good format for images like text. The weighted optimization feature relies on masks, and they seem to emphasize the masks created by text and vector layers — images that are typically best optimized as GIF or indexed color PNG.

To me it sounds like a gimmick. If anyone has an example that actually demonstrates a useful benefit from this feature, show and tell.

Funny Dave! Good to see everybody has a sense of humor.
LM
Lynch_Mike
May 25, 2005
J,
Sorry, I gotta jump in here.
I use SFW almost daily & I love it.
I don’t think of it as a "wizard".
I think of it as a specialized tool in PS that I use to strip the metadata. (So I don’t have to go to a different program and learn a new method to do what I can now do in 2 steps.)
I can click SFW, use my personal favorite (50%) .jpg settings. And click save to my SFW folder.
Which is where I always go to select images for emailing. Click Click done.
OK, I spent a while learning to "tune" my images and played with all the settings. (Check out B&W gifs! < http://www.icdc.com/~lynch/Photographer/Publ/Jive5/JFT-wsj.h tml>) If you think about it, you’re trying to do this the hard way. (because you you think the easy way will be to hard?)
<soup commercial>Try it, you’ll like it!</soup commercial> -Mikey
TH
Tina_Hayes
May 25, 2005
OMG! When save for web came anout..what was it? Version 5.5? It was a Godend!

Up until then weight was unacceptable for web use. I used to use Ulead PhotoImpact simply to properly optimize before Adobe got smart with save for web.

Do your *end users* a favor and use it!

Saving full color photos at 50% perserves quality and makes a decent file size for web use.
S
SpaceGirl
May 25, 2005
wrote:
OMG! When save for web came anout..what was it? Version 5.5? It was a Godend!
Up until then weight was unacceptable for web use. I used to use Ulead PhotoImpact simply to properly optimize before Adobe got smart with save for web.

Do your *end users* a favor and use it!

Saving full color photos at 50% perserves quality and makes a decent file size for web use.

50%?! Are you kidding, that looks aweful! 70% is more like it. Try viewing a 50% jpeg on a LCD and you’ll see all the horrible artifacts that are otherwise missed on a regular display.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 25, 2005
Mikey: I’m preparing images for client’s websites, usually images that are part of a layout that I’m building — requires more care than images destined for email. I don’t want to go to a different program either. That’s the problem. I never had to before, and now I do. I have tried it, I don’t like it. But you like it, you should keep using it.

I don’t know how many times I have to say that I’m not interested in convincing anyone to not use SFW . I just want to be able to do what I always have in Photoshop.

Tina: By weight do you mean compression (AKA quality) level? I am doing my end users a favor: they get images that (collectively) are better optimized than 90% of sites out there.

Saving full color photos at 50% perserves quality and makes a decent file size for web use.

So does a quality setting of 7. And most of the images I save are not full color photos anyway.
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
May 25, 2005
You dont have to go to another program. Just use the appropriate tool. I´d never consider ‘Save As’ when saving for web. Not since Photoshop 5.5 anyway.

Use a hammer for a nail, a screwdriver for a screw. Even if you didnt like the hammer, you´d look stupid using the screwdriver for nails.

All the functionality you want is in the program, so lets get over the ‘the program is buggy and I have to use another’ attitude. OTOH, you could stay with Photoshop 5.5 and ‘do it the way you always have’ ad infinitum. Photoshop changes a lot between major versions, so a lot of other changes might bug you from your 5.5 workflow to CS2. But please dont come here to the user forum complaining every time..

… Instead, find the Feature Request forum and post your wishes there.

I´m not unsympathetic to your cause (although I dont see a valid explanation of your attitude); when the GIF89a plugin was removed from PS 6, it disturbed my workflow – as well as some 1000 distributed Photoshop actions of mine for resizing and exporting standardized GIFs for large internet bookstores – in a way that would now put the SFW interface in the face of my clients every time they exported a GIF. Which in turn meant that my wish of getting standardised GIFs in return was seriously jeopardized (users would now fiddle with settings…). = Valid cause of complaining.

BTW, the weighted optimisation thingie have never worked properly for me.

Mathias
C
chrisjbirchall
May 25, 2005
Nicely put Mathias.

But after thirty three posts I reckon we’re just going to have to accept JMc will probably continue knocking nails in with his screwdriver.

….just hope none of his clients find out!

Chris.
JM
J_McCarthy
May 25, 2005
I´d never consider ‘Save As’ when saving for web.

To each his own.

Use a hammer for a nail, a screwdriver for a screw. Even if you didnt like the hammer, you´d look stupid using the screwdriver for nails.

All anyone sees is the result, and I stand behind the quality of the result. There are plenty of developers creating low quality images with SFW. Whatever tool you’re using, you need to know what you’re doing to get a good quality result — SFW doesn’t do the thinking for you.

.. Instead, find the Feature Request forum and post your wishes there.

I will. First I had to see if there is already a way to turn of the problem.

I´m not unsympathetic to your cause (although I dont see a valid explanation of your attitude . . . = Valid cause of complaining.

I take your word for it. You should take mine.
LM
Lynch_Mike
May 25, 2005
Use a hammer for a nail, a screwdriver for a screw. Even if you didnt like the hammer, you´d look stupid using the screwdriver for nails.

On the other hand, using a hammer for a screw is an advanced carpenter’s procedure to avoid splitting wood when not predrilling a hole in many cases.
(And yes, I am an advanced carpenter. <http://www.icdc.com/~lynch/contractor/index.htm>) -Mike
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
May 25, 2005
Yes, but we´re splitting wood here, Mike.
C
chrisjbirchall
May 25, 2005
using a hammer for a screw

over here a hammer’s called a Birmingham Screwdriver! <grin>

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections