[mike]

unless you have 4k tv it will probably only look worse close up. tv's sometimes don't have the best resizing algorithms either and have to tweak the photo to fit the 1920x1080 rez (or whatever) screen, physical size doesn't matter. You won't even be looking at the original photo to compare. I run a slideshow on a 24" tv but resize my photos to fit the native resolution 1920x1080. Looks pretty good from across the room...

[Stefan]

and....I have a 4K screen....

[mike]

[Gil]

Very entertaining thread. In iron's defense, all he was asking for was a quick way to downsize batches of jpegs. Maybe the Jpegmini solution will work for him. Maybe I missed it but I didn't see a reference to who his audience is and how they will consume his images. At work I often use Paint to downsize images -- if I don't the web staff will rap my knuckles. So I get them down to 1mb or less with that simple, easy to access program. My audience is consuming news content on the web. Half of users are on mobile. It would be pointless to use bigger files. But on my walls at home I have many 12x18 photos framed. They were shot with 6mp, 12mp, 16mp and 24mp cameras, and you would be hard-pressed to tell which is which without a magnifying glass. But my intended audience does not carry magnifying glasses.

[jcocci]

Iron while you may not see a difference in the photo quality after resavinf the photo there is indeed some loss going on of some kind. But that's not what you asked so no point beating that to death. As for an answer to your original question I am pretty sure paint does not do batch file saving as it's seems you have figured out. I haven't used or even seen it in many years, I'm a mac guy. As said in previous responses there are plenty of other options out there and probably a bunch of free ones, just do a google search and see what's out there. I would just try a few until you find the one that works best for you and are happy with the results.

[Riverside Laker]

I think PhotoScape does batch. I've not tried it though. It's free software.

[Desertsp]

I've always used IrfanView (freeware) for bulk image processing. Maybe overkill for the op, but I'm used to it and it's FAST (being developed when computers had 1/10th of their current processing power, it was coded very efficiently). In addition to re-saving all images in a directory at a different jpeg quality, you can do a bunch of other batch actions like sharpening, resampling / resizing, adding watermarks, and even color balancing.

[Tahoma]

I agree with Desertsp above. IrfanView is a great program for batch processing image files, renaming if desired, and should easily meet your requirements – and the price is right (free). I have used it for batch processing for many years. That being said, if I were in your position I would set the camera to output a RAW file along with the quality of jpg you want for each shot you take. The RAW file allows you to easily change the white balance (among many other things) at a later time (especially if you are like me and occasionally set the camera incorrectly). The RAW file acts like a digital negative, and the RAW converters keep getting better as well. You could reprocess a special image later and get improved results. Enjoy this time. I had a Kodak Instamatic, so pictures of my kids could not compare to what you are going to get. Just make sure that you back them up. A D800 – I am jealous…

[iron]

[Wazzu_camper]

Iron, I did what you said using a 3.4MB jpg and saved it in mspaint which resulted in a 1.5MB file. There is most definitely a huge loss in resolution. as well as the introduction a large amount of artifacts. Here's the original:

normal

Here's the copy:

after_save

if you aren't using the pics for much outside of occasionally viewing on your computer then you may not notice, but if you try to print a lot of those, especially at larger sizes you will really start to see the jpg compression artifacts and I promise you once you start to notice them, you will find them hard to ignore. It is really noticeable in places where there is a a gradient, such as pictures of the sky. You will get what is referred to as banding. While you may not notice it as much on a computer screen, when printed it can be extremely ugly. Just because you personally don't notice it, doesn't mean it isn't happening and there is really no doubt that it is happening. Any time you compress an image you lose information. There is no way around that no matter how much you want to argue it.

[sooperfly]

Iron - here ya go! DXO is offering their slightly older version "9" for free, no catch! Although it's a bit older, your camera is supported! It's free, at least give it a try! https://www.dpreview.com/news/4139888330/grab-a-free-copy-of-dxo-opticspro-9-while-you-can