Compress images in bulk
Doing a folder of photos one at a time is the worst part of this job. Drop the whole set in, get the whole set back, and keep the filenames you started with.
Doing a folder of photos one at a time is the worst part of this job. Drop the whole set in, get the whole set back, and keep the filenames you started with.
Up to ten images at a time. Select them all in your file manager and drag them over together.
Every image gets the same width and quality, so the set stays consistent. The table fills in as each one finishes.
One download for the lot, or save any single image on its own from its row.
Every image is a separate upload and a separate transform, and ten is roughly where a browser tab stops feeling responsive on an ordinary connection. If you have a hundred, do them in batches of ten; the settings stay put between batches.
Yes. Each file keeps its original name with the width appended, so holiday.jpg comes back as holiday_1280.jpg. Nothing gets renamed to a random string, which matters when you are matching them back up against something.
Not in one pass, and deliberately so — the point of a batch is that one decision covers all of them. If one photo needs its own treatment, open it on its own from its row in the results table and it moves into the single-image tools.
That row says so and the rest carry on. A batch is not abandoned because one file was a PDF someone had renamed.