Community Forums › Forums › Archived Forums › General Discussion › Image optimization
Tagged: image, magazine prro
- This topic has 20 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by aimen01.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 8, 2015 at 10:39 pm #155490aimen01Member
Is there any way to optimize images without any plugin? Kindly suggest the best possible way to optimize images for magazine pro theme?
http://2beingfit.com
ThanksJune 8, 2015 at 10:43 pm #155491Erik D. SlaterMemberThese are excellent:
https://compressor.io/compress (when it works)
https://kraken.io/web-interfaceJust drag in your image and let it do the work 🙂
Anyone else know of any others?
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 9, 2015 at 9:12 am #155576MoodyRivieraMemberBest way to optimize images without a plugin? Easy...Adobe Photoshop.
Optimizing images with a plugin is like using a toy to do professional work. Photoshop is not only the best way, but the *only* way if you really want professional results and real control.
*MoodyRiviera*
June 9, 2015 at 11:26 am #155593Erik D. SlaterMember@moodyriviera: Totally agree with you on not using plugins to optimize images 🙂 Many people don't have Photoshop though ...
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 9, 2015 at 12:37 pm #155606MoodyRivieraMemberOf course it's true that many people don't have Photoshop...that's why I said "if you really want professional results"...because professionals *will* have Photoshop. (Or a decent alternative.)
*MoodyRiviera*
June 9, 2015 at 1:46 pm #155615Erik D. SlaterMember@moodyriviera: You're not wrong ... but I think the point here is that if @aimen01 was a professional then she would already be using Photoshop or any decent alternatives. She wouldn't be using a plugin to do that work for her.
As it happens, it was a professional who directed me to the two sources I provided ... which only compresses images ... they can't make images any more professional-looking than they already were 🙂
If people are using free plugins to compress and/or optimize their images, it is highly unlikely that they will spend money on Photoshop, et al ... and I'm pretty sure you already know that the free alternatives out there are simply not good enough 🙂
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 9, 2015 at 2:25 pm #155618MoodyRivieraMemberWell, we're both right.
Here's how it works for me:
When I answer questions where my "professional expertise" might come into play (which is in design, writing, editing, and graphics) I tend to provide answers that would help guide someone toward a more professional approach....thus my recommendation of Photoshop.
But then, when I try to answer questions on topics where I only have a somewhat "amateurish or superficial" background (questions regarding CSS and PHP, etc.) I usually recommend plugins that I think will work...which is often a bit more of an amateurish approach compared to a real expert who will provide actual code to use.
I guess it's all in where we're standing when we read the questions. 🙂
*MoodyRiviera*
June 9, 2015 at 3:01 pm #155621Erik D. SlaterMemberWell, we’re both right
There is always a chance that we're both wrong ... but at least we gave it a good shot 🙂
I guess it’s all in where we’re standing when we read the questions
Definitely ... because the one thing we can't do is read minds ... so we can only work with the question in hand ... and let things play out as digital nature intended 🙂
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 9, 2015 at 3:15 pm #155622MoodyRivieraMemberI always worry that I'm going to suggest something that's outrageously "simplistic" and "ridiculous" to someone who is a high-level WordPress user...either because I've misread their question or because my own knowledge of most of this stuff is very superficial...but...as you say...just keep doing the best we can to help out.
I've noticed that *your* expertise is at a very high level...way beyond where I'll ever get...so please feel free to ignore any of my inane suggestions. 🙂
*MoodyRiviera*
June 9, 2015 at 4:03 pm #155627Erik D. SlaterMemberOh ... thanks very much for saying 🙂 And I can tell that, generally speaking, I never ignore anything anyone suggests on these forums ... just in case I miss something 🙂 And the higher the level of expertise someone may have, the higher the fall they will likely experience should they happen to advise poorly 🙂
The fact that you put yourself out there - in front of a public forum - and offer advice to people you will likely never meet ... is a good thing 🙂 And it's also OK to offer advice on things you may not consider yourself to be an expert in ... but you know works. When we work blindly on other websites - or images - we can only hope that the advice we give (that we know works) won't clash with something else they already have in place ... or that it won't clash in the future when new things get added 🙂
I can guarantee you that you know a lot more about graphics than I do ... at least in terms of creating them and working directly with the likes of Photoshop, etc. It is absolutely not one of my specialties ... and never will be 🙂
But optimization (search engines, site speed/performance) is also under my list of specialties ... as is functional site design, i.e. the visual side of things from a user-experience perspective, which includes the use of images ... not so much on the creation of images (which is probably where someone like you would come in). Content strategy/marketing is another area of expertise.
One of my general concerns is that images aren't at least compressed before they are uploaded to a server ... which is why I agree with you entirely about why people shouldn't use plugins ... and @aimen01 is clearly looking for a better way to handle that process because she no longer wishes to use plugins to serve this purpose.
With mobile usage moving towards a norm state, it becomes even more important that image file sizes are as small as they can possibly be ... which is why I also agree with you that Photoshop is likely the best paid tool out there for image optimization and (I believe) compression as well. I have found that even after optimization efforts, there can still be room for additional savings through the compression process WITHOUT loss of image quality.
Personally, I curse the cameras that create bloated images in the first place 🙂
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 9, 2015 at 6:03 pm #155647MoodyRivieraMemberErik...thanks for the excellent note here. While I don't totally agree that it's "even more important that image file sizes are as small as they can possibly be"...(I think it's still important that the images look fairly good...and within reason I often tend to "err" on the side of better looks)...I agree with everything else you said here.
Something you mentioned...content strategy/marketing is also very important...but often overlooked or just brushed aside. I remember once, years ago, a guy was telling me about a web site he was going to be working on, and I asked, "Who's going to write the copy?" and he just snorted and said, "My brother can do that...it doesn't really matter."
It's annoying to me when I go to a web site, even some sites created by expert developers, and have to sit and wait while an 800k image downloads. I remember the days when image optimization was big part of the job when creating a web site...even had to worry about "web-safe colors" in those days...now it's all forgotten.
And by the way, while I don't curse the cameras as you do 🙂 I do curse the mobile devices that make beautiful site designs and wonderful images look...ummmmm...well...small.
*MoodyRiviera*
June 9, 2015 at 7:27 pm #155654Erik D. SlaterMemberNot sure if you understood my point about file sizes being as small as possible for mobile devices. I was referring to the physical size of the file ... not the dimensions of the image. This is where compression perhaps differs from optimization (although sometimes the terms are used to mean the same thing). Compression doesn't - and should never - lower the dimensions of the image. It should only strip the bloat that gets generated by cameras - and also any lingering bloat after layer-flattening from software packages - while maintaining the same level of quality.
An image with a file size of 800 KB had better be a pretty high-quality image 🙂 A reasonably detailed 1152x752 png can probably be reduced in file size to under 200 KB without loss. Of course, it all depends on the type of website. If a certain audience expect to see something glossy then quality needs to come first ... but it should still be compressed.
Web-safe colors are no longer a concern these days because devices are now capable of interpreting the full 24-bit color range. Of course, some mobile devices have better-quality displays than others. It's not so much that the standards have been forgotten ... but they have evolved ... and now, the psychology of which colors provoke which emotion play a bigger role now than they perhaps did before 🙂
As for content marketing ... it has been around since the 19th century ... but perhaps got somewhat warped throughout the 20th century ... but it has been coming back into fashion progressively over the last 15-or-so years.
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 10, 2015 at 10:09 am #155730MoodyRivieraMemberErik...yes I totally understand the difference between file size size vs. image dimensions...what I meant was that when I tend to "err" during optimization is that I'll allow an image keep some extra weight (file size) if I think the "look" of the image is more important than keeping the file size down to a bare minimum and ruining the look of the image. If an image is worth including on a page, even though I'm going to compress it, I'm also going to keep it looking good...and with experience and professional tools (Photoshop) that's entirely possible.
*MoodyRiviera*
June 10, 2015 at 12:44 pm #155762aimen01Member@Erik @MoodyRiviera Thank you for insights. I already resize and compress images before uploading to wordpress. But, google pageinsight still shows the further possibility of reduction. I would like to know, what extra steps can be taken to get that done?
June 10, 2015 at 1:05 pm #155764Erik D. SlaterMemberHmmm ... I just posted a reply ... but it's not showing up ...
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 10, 2015 at 1:06 pm #155765MoodyRivieraMemberHi @aimen01,
First, I never believe everything those page-speed web sites say about graphics. I mean...some of them go a bit too far I think, and they often recommend going to with progressive JPEGs, which is something I don't think really helps much.
I know that you did resize and compress your images before uploading...but just for fun I tested two of your graphics, and tried compressing them a bit further, and here's what I came up with;
Zucchini-Health-Benefits.jpg
Your file size: 41k
My file size: 25keat-pineapple-for-weightloss.jpg
Your file size: 25k
My file size: 12kIn both cases my graphics, which were compressed more than yours looked "just as good" in my opinion.
You have lots of graphics on your site, so you probably won't want to re-create all of them...and I really don't think that's necessary. Although I only looked at a few of your graphics, I didn't see any that were outlandishly huge...and were compressed much better than lots of graphics I see on lots of web sites...so maybe just experiment with some heavier compression on future images and see what you can come up with...and try not to worry so much about what Google pagesight says.
*MoodyRiviera*
June 10, 2015 at 1:08 pm #155767MoodyRivieraMemberOne further note: If you *do* decide to start over and re-create all your graphics (which I'm not recommending), don't open the JPEGs you've already created and then apply more compression. Go back to your original images (wherever you got those from) and start over with those when you try your new compression methods...otherwise you run the risk of much lower quality because of compression artifacts...an image should only be compressed one.
*MoodyRiviera*
June 10, 2015 at 10:14 pm #155802aimen01Member@MoodyRiviera @Erik Thank you so much for your help. 🙂
June 11, 2015 at 5:47 am #155763Erik D. SlaterMemberFollowing on from my earlier suggestion, I ran your header image through Compressor.io and got a 58% saving.
I also ran your home page through GTmetrix. The report detected potential savings with some of your other images ... and it also provides you with a link to their their optimized/compressed version ... which you can click on, save and use if you're happy with it.
Erik D. Slater: Digital Platform Consultant • LinkedInJune 11, 2015 at 7:22 pm #155915coralseaitMember@aimen01, if you want some simple tools that will do the job well on a local machine RIOT image optimizer for Windows or ImageOptim for OSX; you'll get great compression with little effort.
You just need to setup your compression guidelines in each and you are off to the races.
-
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Image optimization’ is closed to new replies.