1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Enhancing Images worth the extra file size : Photo Blog?

Discussion in 'Blogging' started by Capo Dei Capi, Dec 12, 2014.

  1. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi Power Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    Is it worth enhancing photos using Photoshop for use on a photo Blog? I just did a test run on some images and the enhanced images are 30MB compared to 8MB for the enhanced photos. The images look much better for many of them, but will better looking images make people stay on my site longer to make up for the extra cost of hosting.
     
  2. axcer

    axcer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    108
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Kathmandu
    Obviously enhanced photos look nice but 30 MB.. NO! NO!
    User will stay just enough to see the loading symbol in browser.

    Preview file and main file should be different.
     
  3. AquaticGamer

    AquaticGamer Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    4,059
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    http://www.AQSocials.com
    Home Page:
    If you have unlimited space for your blog i don't see why you shouldn't spend a little extra space to make your blog have higher quality pictures.
     
  4. RWCenter

    RWCenter Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    18
    It probably isn't, unless that's part of your strategy. I mean, if you want to rank for "high quality pics", but don't have those on your site - then it's a bummer.

    I'm sure there's a way to optimize your pics to a better size.
     
  5. lancis

    lancis Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    2,384
    Occupation:
    Entrepreneur
    Location:
    Milky Way
    Home Page:
    Its a bad idea. Consider this:

    1. Most of your visitors wouldn't wait longer than a second for the image to load
    2. Internet is full of mobile traffic, extra quality is meaningless when you view the image on a mobile device
    3. You'll pay too much for traffic

    Your images shouldn't be larger than 200k. E.q. use progressive JPEG with 30% quality and maximum width of 1280.
    Give an option to download higher quality image if this is your core business.
     
  6. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi Power Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    I'm going to try using 10 instead of 12 on Photoshop to see if it brings the average close to 200k. Its just on the unphotoshoped photos the contrast and colors don't look so well. Since they are photos from FB untouched up.
     
  7. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi Power Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    1,532
  8. FBGuru

    FBGuru Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2013
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Location:
    Personality Type : ESTP
    8MB is already too big to load on a typical DSL line and it'll definitely effect your SERPs.

    What format are you saving in currently and what is the resolution for that 8MB image?

    You can compress the image and reduce its filesize without losing details with Yahoo!'s Smush.it.

    Code:
    http://www.smushit.com/ysmush.it/
    
    If your blog is running on wordpress, you can install this plugin.

    Code:
    https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-smushit/
    
    All the images that are uploaded via Media uploader will be smushed and inserted onto the post/page.

    If your blog is running on a vps/dedicated box, you shall install Google's pagespeed module and it'll convert the images into webp format which has better compression rate than the jpg's.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi Power Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    1,532
    I should have been more clear lol, It was 100 pictures that came to 8MB unenhanced and then 30MB when enhanced, but even then Ill probably be checking out webp to get a smaller file size.

    Update I checked out the .webp format and found a converter and was able to compress a photo that I enhanced from 662KB to 180KB. Infact it was 10KB smaller than the unenhanced one.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2014