17 Oct
I immediately stopped her from continue doing that because I remembered when I was using Windows XP, when I rotate and go to the next photo, I get a warning message that says “Because of the dimensions of this picture, rotating it might permanently reduce its quality. Rotating a picture automatically saves it using the original name. To save a backup copy first, see ‘Copy an image’ in Help. Do you want to proceed?”.

I wasn’t really sure at first so I did a test to see if rotating pictures with the built-in photo viewer in Windows will cause any quality loss.
I used a photo that is originally 1MB in size. After rotating 90degrees and closing the image, the file size became 957KB. I tried rotating it back to the original position and file size changes to 969KB. To verify if there are any difference, I used ImageMagick’s compare tool and indeed there were quality loss.
After doing more research on JPEG format, I found out that JPEG file format supports compression, which reduces image size while keeping the image acceptable to the human eye. Unfortunately, to compress images well, the algorithm intentionally loses information. What is saved is NOT the same image as what is in memory; the color of a particular pixel or area of an image will generally will NOT be exactly the same color that was saved. This is particularly true near the edges of objects within the image. Normally this lossy nature of JPEG is not very noticeable. However it can become noticeable when you either load and save a JPEG image multiple times or use a very low quality with a diagram showing sharp color changes.
Now, STOP using Windows XP’s Picture and Fax Viewer, Windows Vista’s Photo Gallery Viewer or Windows 7’s Photo Viewer to rotate your precious digital photos! Once the quality is loss, you can NEVER get it back.
For rotating a JPEG picture without quality loss, you can use any of the programs in this list. There are a total of 81 softwares for you to choose from. One of my personal favorite is called JPEG Lossless Rotator. It is constantly being updated and also free for private non-commercial or educational use, including non-profit organization.
: Copying this article to your website is strictly NOT allowed. However, if you like this article, you can use the HTML code below to directly link to this article.
Easily edit your Photos online Resize Image or Pictures Online Best Online Photo Editor with Photoshop Basic Function Remove ANY MSN Virus with MSN Virus Removal Software and MSNFix Giveaway: 200 FILEminimizer Pictures License To Be Given Away How To Recover Deleted Digital Photos from Digital Camera’s Memory Card Most Convenient Way to Automatically Resize Photos for Email, IM, Blogging and Web galleries!
Have computer technical problems? Get FREE help from Raymond.CC FORUM
25 Responses for "Rotating Photos or Pictures in Windows Photo Viewer Causes Quality Loss"
Great post! Thank Raymond!
hello,Raymond.
if you used picasa there this problem fixed. Windows Photo Viewer is the worst.
Hi Raymond,
Thanks for sharing this.
Really useful information.
Is it good to use ‘Microsoft office picture manager’.
Welcome back my dear Raymond. As always you fix my computer problems. Nice to see you online again. Thanks.
thanks raymond
Thanks Ray
With a macro, I rotated 100 times a small photo and the degradation is barely visible, with Windows 7.
In Windows XP, photo was destroyed.
What annoys me to no end is that my circa 2002 digital camera had a rotation sensor that rotated the image and saved it in the portrait orientation. So when opened in any image viewer or editor it appeared in the proper orientation.
My newer camera, and all other cameras I’ve seen since that boast an “orientation” sensor still save the image in a landscape format, and just set an EXIF flag which most software doesn’t pay attention to, making it an utterly worthless feature, as then you need to process it with additional software (like those you linked) to get it to display properly.
Great advice. Great softwares.
Great to see you back.
This is also why, if you’re working on a jpg photo you shouldn’t repeatedly save it — each time you save the photo, it’s further compressed. Admittedly, it’s surprising how many times you can resave a jpg file without noticing it degrade, but it’s still happening and can’t be reversed. Do all the manipulation on a COPY of the file and save it when you’re sure you’re finished.
The other (better) option is to convert it to a lossless format (e.g. PSD, TIFF), do all the adjustments on that (saving it frequently) and then, finally, save it as a jpg.
FWIW, my personal preference for a viewer is FastStone Image Viewer, which rotates losslessly and seems remarkably powerful for such a neat, efficient little program. I’ve used it for years now.
A very warm welcome back Raymond – to you and your lovely bride.
I look forward to your continued postings and the immeasurable help you give us all. Useful intelligence here and useful tools – thank you.
True, you’ll lost quality unless you make a copy of all your pics first once they are on your desktop (or whatever location you want) and start viewing or rotating from there. Your original ones will remain untouched
You should add MS Paint to the ‘Do not use’ list.
I noticed the loss in quality when using the MS software a while back. From then on I use either Picasa or The GIMP. Especially if you are going to save them in any other format, jpeg, GIF or whatever.
WB Raymond
how about videos? I’m sure you took some that need to be rotated, how do you rotate them?
thanks ray
lol it cracks me up how anyone can post about lossless jpg transformation without mentioning either IrfanView or XnView. they’re free, tiny, fast, portable and whatnot…etc and are great for viewing/rotating (JPEG) photos losslessly. i used to love XnView, but that was before I discovered IrfanView which was kinda more simple and suits my minimalistic preferences better.
also this is unrelated but some of you may be interested in an insanely fast picture viewer. just google FastPictureViewer and no i don’t work for them. i swear.
i hope you’ve learnt something from my post.
Andrew, if you actually looked at the list of alternatives he linked, you will notice that both Irfanview and XnView are listed.
I don’t think this is true for Vista and 7.. This message has never popped up for me.
Val that warning message only shows in Windows XP but not on Vista and 7. However, when you rotate your picture in Vista or 7, there WILL be quality loss.
If you don’t believe me, then go ahead and rotate.
Thanks for the information.
I accidently clicked the box that said to never remind me again. And now I want the warning message back. Do you or anyone know how to get that message back?
Thanks
Great article!
One typo:
Now, STOP using Windows XP’s Picture and Fax Viewer, Windows Vista’s Photo Gallery Viewer or Windows 7’s Photo Viewer to rotate your precious digital photos! Once the quality is loss, you can NEVER get it back.
It should read ‘lost’, not ‘loss’.
Interesting, I never really thought about this before. I think it might be wrong though. Look for factopo to see
not sure this is true.
Lossless rotation only works on JPEGS with dimensions divisible by 8. AFAIK WLPG (is that WPV?) rotates losslessly if possible, if not then it’ll do it’s best.
I’d imagine other software works similarly.
Windows 7 (unlike XP) appears to rotate JPEGs completely losslessly (assuming the pixel dimensions are suitable, which should be true for any camera-sourced images). The trick to any software that does this to adjust the way that the original compressed data is interpreted for display, rather than decompress, rotate, and recompress the image which will always be lossy.
I rotated/saved/rotated/etc a fairly large JPEG 12 times in Windows 7 Photo Viewer, ending up back at the original orientation. Then I loaded that, along with the original image file, into Photoshop and pasted the adjusted image as a layer on top of the original photo.
Using the ‘Difference’ overlay mode and then flattening the layers gave a pure black result. I checked this using Image>Adjustments>Equalize and there is definitely only one brightness level in the image (black, zero). If there was as much as a pixel different between the two source layers, that would have been visible.
Andre
Leave a reply