>>4389498Because filesize != image quality
Even a 7680 x 4320 photo (8k) can be brought under 2MB easily with sufficent JPEG compression. Depending on how complex the photo is, that could be acheived with as little as JPEG-90 and 4:4:2 chroma subsampling. You don't lose anything from that kind of compression, and even if you went so far as JPEG-80 and 4:2:2, you'd still in 95% of cases not see any image degredation.
That's without even discussing resizing, which if you halved the res (which you should do thanks to BAYERBULLSHIT) that would not only cut down on the filesize but still have a 4k image. And to boot, most photos aren't viewed at such high resolutions.
So basically, your shitty huge filesize is just a sign of you being unable to compress and/or resize.
