Popular Space-Saving App JPEGmini Now Available for Windows


Beamr’s space-saving application JPEGmini has gone through a few evolutions over time. What started as a web app to reduce JPEG files by up to 5x without losing quality has since spread to the world of desktops and mobile devices with their space-saving Mac app and high-res photo sharing iOS app.

But through it all Windows users have been left in the dark, having to settle for using the web app. Fortunately, that is no longer the case. As of two days ago, the popular JPEGmini desktop application has made its way onto the PC.

JPEGmini uses a special, patented compression algorithm that decreases photo file sizes up to 5x without any perceptible loss in quality. And while you can do all of that using the company’s web app, the desktop app takes the process one step further by allowing you to use the same algorithm on entire photo libraries.


Of course, professionals often work exclusively with RAW files, but if you’re partial to JPEGs or even if you just have a massive stash of photos in that format from, say, your old point-and-shoot or your smartphone, the $20 Windows app has the potential to save you a ton of space with no noticeable compromises in quality.

According to Beamr president Eli Lubitch:

More than 100 million photos have been optimized to date by JPEGmini users seeking to maintain quality while scaling back valuable storage space. Our expansion to Windows … allows us to accommodate the entire spectrum of photo and media workflow from photo capture, editing and storage to online publishing.

JPEGmini for Windows will be available exclusively from B&H Photo. To learn more about the application and/or grab a copy for yourself, head over to JPEGmini’s website or the app’s B&H product page by following the respective links.

  • Mike

    So much for archiving originals…

  • Scott Simpson

    This article reads like an advertorial or a cut-and-paste news release, so I’ll have to hunt elsewhere on Petapixel to find out whether it measures up to the hype.

  • Zos Xavius

    its all hype. I looked at some comparisons and I could clearly see more artifacting. jpeg is already pretty darned efficient. I would save the $20 personally.

  • bogorad

    Hilarious. What was google thinking developing WebP! ;))

  • Steve

    Anyone remember JPEG 2000? That was meant to be better than jpeg but it never caught on. Not sure why storage space is a concern now? It cost a lot more in 2000.

  • joe

    WOAH. This this could same me a couple hundred thousand bytes of space on my hard drive. oh yea. that doesn’t matter any more.

    Find me a way to reduce the size of my raw files and you’ll get peoples attention.

  • Joakim Bidebo

    I’m already saving 100% of the size of my jpeg. When I’m done with them either upload to web or sending away for print I delete them. :)

    Better compression on native raws would be great tho and not just Adobes DNG.

  • Brunhaupt47

    Congratulations: This is the dumbest post I’ve ever read on Petapixel.

    Pro: Will gain a couple of gigabytes.
    Con: Destroy image quality of every single file.

    (*No matter how you look at it this program deletes information entropy. Files will look worse, even though many people won’t see a difference.)

  • Sporkguy

    It already exists; DNG

  • Roy

    What about the post that introduced JPEG back in the day, also the dumbest you ever read? And MPEG? The dumbest ever as well? And DivX? Let me guess…

  • jelyman

    I use the free version for when I have to show a lot of photos on a web page and they don’t need to be super huge. That’s where it shines. Otherwise, I can’t justify spending the $20. Now if it was $5, I might consider it.