Reduce image quality of jpg files

EverythingEverywhere

I upload the highest quality jpg's to Smugmug so I have the maximum amount of flexibility when it comes to my images.

However, much of what I do with my images is use them on my WordPress website. While I have control of the size of the images I display, I was wondering if there was any way to reduce the quality of the images I'm getting from Smugmug so the size of the file is smaller?

If I'm saving my images at 12 out of Lightroom, I could probably get by with displaying them at 8 online without a serious reduction in quality, but a massive reduction in file size.

denisegoldberg

What are you trying to accomplish? I just looked at your blog to see how large the photos are. I also saved one locally to check the size (and yes, it's already deleted!).
The downloaded file showed as 591KB. That's small.

Also - did you mean to allow access to the original images on your smugmug site? I'd recommend that you choose a display size smaller than original and set that as the maximum site. You can easily change multiple galleries at once by using bulk settings. Help page is at http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/1240194-how-do-i-change-settings-for-multiple-galleries-at-once-.

EverythingEverywhere

I don't think 591k is small

There are a bunch of image optimization tools out there which can easily halve the size of a jpg. I've taken the most recent image from my blog (which was 591k, probably the same one you took) and was able to reduce the file size 50% by taking the image quality from 100 to 79.

The reason for this is pretty simple. The smaller the file size the images you serve up, the faster a page will load, and the better you will be ranked in Google.

EverythingEverywhere

When I run my site through the Google Page Speed Test tool, almost all the red flags are due to image optimization. In particular, it gives me:

Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…RQ22c/0/1200x1200/DSC02291-1200x1200.jpg could save 194.9KiB (34% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…00/1357485762_7a496bd31c_o-1200x1200.jpg could save 148.7KiB (30% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…Cm9RS/0/1200x1200/DSC02142-1200x1200.jpg could save 131.1KiB (31% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…63s8T/0/1200x1200/DSC08960-1200x1200.jpg could save 99KiB (29% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…vXV8h/0/1200x1200/DSC06618-1200x1200.jpg could save 99KiB (34% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…QCMPw/0/1200x1200/DSC02124-1200x1200.jpg could save 95.4KiB (32% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…cC9Zx/0/1200x1200/DSC01972-1200x1200.jpg could save 89.8KiB (30% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…rZnhC/0/1200x1200/DSC02281-1200x1200.jpg could save 77.7KiB (30% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…4q2bB/0/1200x1200/DSC02203-1200x1200.jpg could save 76.9KiB (31% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/…etra-2013/i-J7X6r37/0/XL/GMA_0923-XL.jpg could save 58.5KiB (39% reduction).
Compressing https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DBngL7C/2/X2/i-DBngL7C-X2.jpg could save 17.8KiB (41% reduction).

denisegoldberg

The only way I know of to grab smaller images from smug is changing the size of the photo that you are referencing.

Hikin' Mike

@EverythingEverywhere said:
I don't think 591k is small

There are a bunch of image optimization tools out there which can easily halve the size of a jpg. I've taken the most recent image from my blog (which was 591k, probably the same one you took) and was able to reduce the file size 50% by taking the image quality from 100 to 79.

The reason for this is pretty simple. The smaller the file size the images you serve up, the faster a page will load, and the better you will be ranked in Google.

IMO, 591k is huge for an image. But, the smaller file size isn't really going to help you get ranked better. Smaller file size is more for the user. I know if I visit a site that takes too long to load, I leave. If you want to be ranked in Google you might want to read my "SEO for the Photographer" in my signature bellow.

What I would do is to optimize your WordPress photos. That's what I do. I use WordPress for everything except for the galleries. I just resize the photos I want to use in my WordPress (blog) and upload them via Media Library in WordPress.

leftquark

We've done a lot of testing with photos and have found little discernable difference between photos saved at Photoshop quality 10 and photoshop quality 12, despite having ~50% reduction in file size. You can start there, by uploading your originals at a smaller quality size. We are experimenting with some other compression options without reducing image quality but at this time we do everything we can to make sure image quality is king and there are no tools to reduce the file size.

The Google Speed Mobile Test is a somewhat wonky tool because it doesn't actually suggest that the files be smaller because the page loads slowly -- they merely do it purely based on file size. They also don't take into account the fact that many of you come to SM because you want your photos to look their best -- while it may load faster, you could get horrible looking images like Facebook does. If we start hearing SmugMug load times are getting too slow, there's things we could do, but as of now, we do a lot of things to make sure load times are as quick as possible while ensuring high quality photos get delivered.

EverythingEverywhere

@leftquark It would be nice if I could have a setting which determined the level of image quality. Ideally, a variable I could put in the image URL just like I can specify the dimensions of an image in the URL.

I could upload an image of highest quality and have that image available for download if necessary, but otherwise, serve up smaller, lower quality images for people browsing on the web.

I don't know how high of a cost bandwidth is for Smugmug, but I'd guess this could significantly reduce it.

Mike, ideally I don't want to put any images on my webserver. I'd like to keep everything on Smugmug. I think there are definite advantages to keeping images on a dedicated image server.

leftquark

When you upload a photo to SmugMug we generate 10 different display sizes (S, M, L, XL, X2, X3, X4, X5, 4k, 5k). Storing various compression levels of each of these is not the right path, though we can explore options like finding some level of compression that reduces file size while being visually unnoticeable.

One option that might work for you would be to use our custom sizes on your WordPress blog. You could embed just the size that's right for your blog: http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93264?b_id=1644

EverythingEverywhere

Almost every image on my website is embedded from Smugmug. That isn't the issue at all.

It is the file size of the images which are being served.

leftquark

@EverythingEverywhere said:
Almost every image on my website is embedded from Smugmug. That isn't the issue at all.

It is the file size of the images which are being served.

I understand that but since we place image quality over file size, I was trying to find solutions that would result in smaller files, one of which is using smaller dimension photos. I see you're already using custom sizes that match the largest width of your blog (1200px), so you've already done that.

We've been experimenting with some compression to find the point where the human eye cannot detect the photos are compressed but are not implementing any of that at this time.

Google does not rank faster loading pages higher; the most Google has claimed is that they may start lowering the rank of sites that load extremely slowly on mobile. SmugMug sites do not load slow on mobile, despite what Google's awful Mobile Speed Test results may say. Yes, smaller file sizes will help the page load even faster, which is especially important on mobile devices where bandwidth or service might be an issue; if you are finding some images or galleries load too slowly, please let us know so our ops team can investigate.

Looks like reducing the quality of the original will not reduce the file size of the custom/display sizes. I uploaded the same photo at quality 12 and quality 8, then looked at the X2's for both: the file size of the X2's was almost identical (~350kb).