.
[ TK ],

PNG are well compressed to begin with, and this program has a slider for quality, so maybe try sliding for more quality, or accepting that your PNG image is already optimized and can't be improved, size wise, and still keep visual qualities.

As a challenge, suppose you got a really tiny JPEG from this program, and it pleased you, but then you cranked that little tiny JPEG back into this program to make the file size smaller still ... the point is knowing when to be happy and give up and move on.

Try some direct out-of-camera full size minimum compression JPEGs and see if you can make smaller file copies for sharing that look just as nice as the originals.

In FREE IrfanView, I resize from capture size ( 5 to 20 megapixels ) down to screen size ( 2 megapixels or less ), and then auto sharpen and auto expose, and then save at 85% to 100% JPEG ( minimum compression ), then I have this program squeeze that new file, and I get a file size that is often about 10% of the original and looks just fine on screen -- your mileage may vary ( note, I can also save at 45% to 65% JPEG compression in FREE IrfanView and get a similar result, even side-by-side comparison shows hardly anything different of note between the two, but overlaying them in Photoshop reveals that not-free except-for-today BlackBird Image Optimizer and FREE and non-free versions of Beamr JPEGmini really do maintain "crisper" qualities than merely dropping JPEG compression percentage in FREE IrfanView ... but it's all in the eye of the beholder.

You decide, either way may please you.

But FREE IrfanView has adjustments to lower the color count and increase the compression, even with a PNG file, so play with FREE IrfanView if you have PNG files that seem too big for their intended purposes.
.

.
[ TK ],

What size is your screen?

Why would you need a 1:1 pixel inspection of a digital image that is larger than your screen?

This program is not intended to do anything but keep on-screen perception satisfying while reducing the file size of on-screen images, such as intended for easy emailing and easy uploading and quick presentation from web pages.

Anything larger than 2 megapixels is not intended for screen display.

If you want to present an image that is more than 2 megapixels, that's called printing, which is NOT this program's target.
.

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.

Ivanovitch, it is a small executable because it is a .NET application and all the runtimes are in the .NET framework... it just means there are no significant embeded media components. Now if it were C++ or Delphi and tiny that would be derisable but if it were written in x86 Assembly language it could be an amazingly powerful and fast program in a 1.5Mbyte file.
Size of an executable is context sensitive as to whether it is worth the money or not. Seeing as the core products of this company are file and system cleaners I would not expect a very good image optimisation product from them.

TK: Not sure about this particular software being subscription-based, but either way, the developer is pitching a retail price that's just too high in so competitive a market place. I agree with you though on the need for greater accuracy in the product's description because it's always been my understanding that the application of a quantization process leads to loss, not losslessness, in much the same way that the application of black paint to a white surface will ipso facto inevitably turn it black, not brighter.

MikeR, I am in agreement with both yourself and TK. However, I too do believe it subscription based, on the fact the licence is only good for 1 year.
Perhaps a dev could step in and clear up whether or not, if liked and actually purchased said Optimizer, the $34.95 price tag is lifetime or in fact yearly.

DJ, nothing in the developer's website Terms of Sale indicate that this is rentalware. All I see from this GOTD page is that today's giveaway is of a full product with a 1-year license and as such, is no different to many another. If I'm wrong, then my apologies to you and TK. My own view is that this product's commercial future is already seriously hobbled by what seems to be a one-off price tag in view of the fact that Balesio's Fileminimizer Pictures has been free for many years, and so continues to be.

MikeR, I am going by the vendor offering a 1 year license to us and ASSUME they are offering a license they otherwise would sell to us rather than cheating us with a 1 year license when they only sell unlimited licenses... as it is unclear on their site the license terms they are selling.

MikeR, That is the reason I asked if 1 of their devs or CS reps could step in and clear it up. With these, I never assume anything anymore. Once I thot, because I assumed, it was a lifetime license on a product, only to find out, yes subscription based.

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

Gary, add an extra 365 days to your counting as 1.0.1 was offered July 1st 2017 NOT 2018... they then offered 1.0.2.9 on Nov 1st 2017

July 1st 2018 was ApowerManager 3.1.8

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.

Gary, It is rare to see a giveaways changelog on the vendors website for all to see nowadays... The cynical side of me supects it's because the vendor is not the developer or the developer is ashamed of the number of bugs they've had to rework again and again... or the version number presented is a marketing ploy and really the software is only just completed intial development phase and not as mature as the fake version number suggests or it's a rebrand and resale product that is never developed by the vendors developer they just reskin and rebrand the bought in product. Then again you don't see a full changelog with Microsoft products nowadays...

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.