Image compression - Fireworks v Photoshop

I wish webp would be supported better in all browsers. It really is time to replace the aging jpg with the far superior webp. Just the global savings on bandwidth and electricity usage would be gigantic.

Jpg compression and quality depend on a number of factors. Photoshop doesn't provide direct control over Chroma subsampling, for example. Other jpg compression tools may remove the extra meta data.

Anyway, the original PS image can easily be optimized down to around a little less than 500kb without hurting the image quality. I used both RIOT and Photoshop's old Save For Web option, and both reduce it to around 480-490kb while the quality remains visually pretty much identical. I always zoom in to 200% or 400% and compare the original with the compressed version. If I can hardly see any difference (barring some barely noticeable artefacting near some edges) I know it's more than good enough.

And Dfosse is correct: the Fireworks version is visible softer even when I visually compare it at 100% - which means Fireworks used a higher compression factor and/or softened the image (which is also often an additional option in apps' jpg compression settings).

Some of you files may have contained ancestor metadata that was striped during your saving and testing.  An 8MB jpg is not usual except from a cameras Application like photoshop save at high quality compression not uncompressed. Changing your large image down in size to 1920x1080 reduces the number of pixels. Pixel data is the bulk of image file data. 1920x1080 image file size will be much smaller than large image files.  Also every save encode the image in the application which if jpeg is not exactly like the image that was encoded.  Each generation looses some image quality.   You can save many times during an edit session all are encoder from the image in memory the  decoded image your are working on.  All the save would be in the same generation.   Its the decode encode decode encode sequence that separate generations.

Can you post the two images?

Are the profiles embedded?

Is there metadata?

JohnGordon1972  wrote I would maybe have expected the current version of PS to do a better job than a year's old version of Fireworks

Actually I would expect the opposite. Back then it was much more important to reduce file size at almost any cost.

I don't know if the compression factor comes in discrete, absolute steps, but I suspect not. The Photoshop dial goes to 12, the Export/SFW dial to 100. In that case, I might suspect that Fireworks cranks the compression up a bit compared to Photoshop.

EDIT: Dave answered that for me. Yes, I'm fairly convinced that's it. What else could it be - as long as both strip away any metadata? There aren't "alternative" ways to compress a jpeg.

It is hard to compare like with like as the quality setting, which impacts compression, does not have a standard between apps. So "80%" in one app can apply a different level of compression to "80%" in another.

Dave

i would stick to working in photoshop/ FIREWORKS is not even used anymore, It like comparing Go live to dreamweaver. What does it matter? one of the programs is not even used anymore..