Springy, Paint.net has been taken over by: www.warrenpaint.com so that won't work anymore.

Springy: in fairness both to this developer and every other in this particular sector, "almost anything" can absolutely not do what software of this kind is intended to do. I wonder if you're confusing the dimensions of an image with the size of the image file, because yes, the former is easy, the latter not-so-much: reducing an image file without perceptible loss of quality is far from easy. As to those 250% enlargements you mention : software of this kind isn't intended for such task nor does it pretend to be, so the relevance of your comment is elusive.

Tiffanie,

FYI, the website for Paint.net is getpaint.net .

MikeR,

I stand corrected. I am probably talking about dimensions as you suggest.

.
[ Springy ],

No, increasing or spreading out pixels and interpolating or creating imaginary in-between pixels is not quality loss, it's ... increasing or spreading out pixels and interpolating or creating imaginary in-between pixels, and there are plenty of upscaling schemes that claim not to introduce noticeable artifacts, or claim not to reduce noticeable quality in the final presentation ( pixel peepers will never be happy, but they are not appreciating the photographic presentation, they are scrutinizing the technology ).

If you wanted accurate in-between information from the original photographic subject, then you'd have to capture it in the first place, try using a higher resolution camera.

I am presuming from your comment that you like to print JPEGs larger than their native 1:1 resolution of the presentation device, such as sending a 3000 pixels-across image to land on a printer as a 6000 pixels-across presentation.

All printers can handle that with their native internal stochastic algorithms and sub-pixel variable dot interpolation algorithms, no software needed.

This program, however, saves a smaller file size ( not a smaller image size ) with better perceptual qualities than merely saving that same file with greater JPEG compression would in order to produce a similar small file size.

It sounds like this program has no value for your intended purposes.

That happens with all tools -- no need to criticize a screwdriver when you are looking for a hammer.
,

Peter Blaise,

Picasa ?

Perryntx, Yes my 111 pictures are gone. WTF! Not in my recycle bin. I guess they disappeared somewhere in the internet. I'm uninstalling. It optimized mine to zero.

.
[ Perryntx ],

Great reminder lesson -- always test on COPIES -- thanks.
.

Perryntx: The fact that the recycle bin isn't displaying them doesn't mean those 111 images are gone. The fact that you can't find them doesn't mean they're 'somewhere on the internet', either: you'd have to be running a very strange set-up indeed if the consequence of an unsuccessful batch re-sizing tossed everything straight into cyberspace.

You need to use a freeware recovery app like Recuva Portable as soon as possible. Download it to a USB memory stick and run it from there. (NEVER install recovery software on a hard drive from which images have just been 'lost' otherwise the recovery installation itself might well over-write the very files you're trying to retrieve.) More information here:

https://www.ccleaner.com/recuva/features/portable-version

If you already have 'Search Everything' on your PC -- and really, there's no reason why every computer user, everywhere, doesn't have this little freeware gem -- then of course, use it before any kind of recovery attempt to seek out all the image files on your computer and order them by date.

For future reference, if you don't already have it, go here:

https://www.voidtools.com/

MikeR, Thank You Mike. That is some good info. I do have a backup of the pictures. What angers me is how easily they were deleted. The reason I say they were lost in cyberspace is because they ask you to upload the picture.

wosa, A log is a log. Better late than never. It's a start, at least they gave one.

Gary, I think you mean last year July 1 2017

https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/?s=Black%20Bird%20Image%20Optimizer

TK, and cooper:

You are both correct. I thought it very odd that it was offered again just over a month later. No wonder there are so many changes in between.

At the exact moment I was posting, wosa was also posting the Changelog, so it was not in response to my post (in case anyone thought it was). Had I known the Changelog was being posted, I would have made it clear that my question is regarding the Changelog is not on the website where it normally would be found. To learn that it is distributed as part of the installed program is odd, and not the way to distribute that information.

I doubt the developer will respond, but I would not expect no more care exerted to potential customers as they devote to making their website clear with lots of information.

Thanks again for having eyes clearer than I did at 4 A.M. EDT and always value your comments.

TK,

It is pretty easy these days to put together a software program using "off-the-shelf' parts as you have mentioned today and also in the past. Some of the "behind-the-scenes" packages are open source, but that aspect is often not mentioned. If ffmpeg were to self destruct today, we would be scrambling to find the ones that could still do a lot of video conversions (something similar could be said for the PDF SDKs).

You are correct; changelogs are becoming more scarce as the days pass, and for many of the reasons you mention. Little do they know how important it can be just to get enterprise-level companies to approve a purchase without the changelog in the original submitted proposal. When I am competing with another person submitting for the same proposal, but they have a changelog for their software, the odds are greatly in their favor. As a result, I have to leave out software just for lack of a changelog; otherwise, it is too much of a risk. If the developers simply recognized the value those multiple sales orders would have meant, they surely would have made an effort to supply any and all documentation needed to get their product in the door. I have seen it make and break a software company. When their competition's product makes it, they often have excuses, but never realize they did it to themselves.

You are also right about the embarrassing number of bug fixes. I like the honesty when they leave it in, and hate it when they simply leave "bug fix" out of changelogs. Since software commonly has bug fixes for nearly every version, it really does not hurt them in the situation I mentioned. The most important aspect is whether the software can do the job, and having a changelog ensures they are committed to making improvements.

For this Black-Bird Image Optimizer program, it probably would not have made it on the first aspect.

Thanks again, and I really do enjoy reading your comments.