You're right - I had forgotten about that variation. I've seen differences in the size of images straight out of the camera by a factor of two or more when the camera settings were the same for all. Using one folder as an example, in 238 images the range is about 17 MB to 29 MB, a factor of 1.7. However, taking a sample from the middle, 210 images, 88% of the total, the size was 21.3 MB to 24.5 MB, a factor of 1.15. So it appears to be a fairly steep bell curve, most images in a small range of sizes with some outliers.LeviFiction wrote:I don't know, that's still far too variable. JPG compression is based highly on the content and variation of the pixels in the image.
However, I expect if the images have been edited at different times, came from different cameras, had different compressions applied, the distribution may be a much flatter file size curve. Given that there is no way at the moment to go directly to file size, the OP would need to decide their tolerance on file size and consider bringing the oversized images to a common factor (long side pixels as an example) in a batch process and then decide on a next step.