compress pictures

[Dim]

In MS-Outlook 2003, I used to copy MS-Excel graphs and paste them into
e-mails using Paste Special HTML format. That way, I was able to get an
e-mail with 4 bar-graphs in less than 160KB.
I am now under MS-Outlook 2007. The HTML format is not available anymore in
the Paste Special options. I tried to use the Compress option for all the
pictures in my e-mail but even with the max compression, my e-mail size is
6MB at best.
I don't want to send the graphs in the Excel format because I don't want to
publish the data that is behind the graphs. I want the graph as a picture.
Any idea about how I could, easily if possible, get back to a more or less
160KB e-mail size for 4 graphs ?

 

[Roady [MVP]]

Could you post your exact steps to reproduce for Office 2003? Pasting a
graph there only gives the option to paste it as Microsoft Office Excel
Chart Object or as Picture (Enhanced Metafile). There is no option to paste
as HTML (which sounds reasonable as it isn't text what you are trying to
paste).

Pasting a single graph as a picture with default picture settings (no
compression applied manually) only produced a 33KB message here.

 

[Dim]

In Office 2003:
1) in Excel, go to the graph sheet. Select the full graph. CTRL-C.
2) in Outlook (Word as editor), new e-mail. Paste Special - picture
(enhanced metafile). Then select the pasted picture, CTRL-X. Paste Special -
HTML format.
With that procedure, I think I had roughly the same size as the one you
report. 33KB times 4 + some KB for additional text is in the range of 160KB.
I haven't anymore Office 2003 now.

In Office 2007, if I do the same till Paste Special - picture (enhanced
metafile), for one graph, the e-mail is 2MB large according to properties
after saving the e-mail.

How did you do to get a 33KB picture in Office 2007 ?

 

[Roady [MVP]]

Ok, you have a graph on a separate sheet which is a difference as the graph
would be larger. But even then, with default settings, it produced only a
150KB for me which is a graph that uses multiple colors and shades and a
black background (which usually is harder to compress).

For a simple standard graph from Excel 2007 (as from my first reply) it
would now produce a 41KB message. If I tone it down with the colors so it
would more resemble a graph designed in Excel 2003, it would go down all the
way to 10KB. And that is still without doing anything other than copying it
from Excel and pasting it as a picture in a new message.

When you paste it as a picture, select it and then select the Picture
Tools-> Format tab
Which size is reported in Height and Width (both in units and percentage)?

Did you actually see a difference in size when you cut the pasted picture in
Outlook 2003 and then pasted it again as HTML? You should have gotten the
exact same results as the only reason why you would get HTML as a paste
option would be that you have copied from a HTML body now. In my testing, I
got the exact same sizes (as expected).

 

[Dim]

Height 4.89"
Width 7.93"
That was not the original size. It is only 78% of original. No cropping.
I reduce the picture in Office 2007 to the same size.

Yes, I had a very significant size difference in Office 2003. That's why I
used that two step paste-process. The HTML option was not available at the
first paste.
I can't check of course but I think my default e-mail format was Rich Text.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

If you switch to HTML format, do you notice a difference in size?