General / Image load time optimization

I use the built in Mac preview app to resize the image and then put the resized image through the free Image Shrinker app.

JpegMini will resize by width or height and optimise in 1 go, I.e. 1 save. Each time you save a jpg file it degrades so it’s best to use 1 tool to resize and optimise and save just once.

I am very surprised that nobody thus far has suggested using the @habitualshaker STH Srcerer stack and the 8 image size options that are available within it to provide the best image size for any given device.

Image sizes can be set up easily via a Retrobatch workflow and then duly warehoused after each image is optimised (I get very good results with the Image Shrinker app).

Time is needed to configure the Srcerer settings and images but if you are serious about image and page load speeds the above combination works like a charm. If you combine some of these processes with Hazel and / or Automator you create huge efficiencies in the workflows.

Srcerer is definitely my default image stack.

As I’ve already mentioned above the UIkit Image stack already supports srcset.

The first reply to the original post mentioned Srcerer.

My apologies - that post was overlooked.

The issue isn’t serving the correct image for the device, it’s first getting the images processed correctly.

As Lucas has said, twice now I think, the image stack in UIkit handles the scrset thing. No need to buy more stacks, just need to process the images carefully.

@Webdeersign JpegMini sounds interesting, but it’s $60, more than some fully featured photo processing software that will do everything it can, and lots more. Unless I’m missing something about it?

1 Like

You are right. Shows how out of touch I am or just refuse to blindly apply updates. It used to be free and would allow up to 20 optimisations each day which was perfect for most web users. You used to be able to buy it for $20 and that removed the 20 per day limit.

There is a trial and that should be fine for the OP’s needs. Unfortunately, it looks like jpegMINI (or JPEGmini) has been removed from the MAS, had a huge price hike and also an annual upgrade subcription. Progress!

It actualy does stuff very simply in a drag and drop batch mode that as far as I know, cannot easily be achieved in any other graphics app in 1 save. E.g. You can download a load of say Unsplash images into a folder and then drag the folder into jpegMINI and it will resize and optimise all images.

If you are making many web sites I would still say that $60 is worth the time it will save.

Affinity Photo has batch mode. Which will apply pretty much apply any adjustment and effect to any number of images, then export them at a desired quality to a folder of your choosing.

1 Like

you CAN run duplicate/older versions of RW on the same computer… if you have the installer to an older version… just load it- you might have to reinstall your serial number… possibly. but I know it works… from experience…

+1 for ImageOptim. I don’t know if I got it for free or for very cheap, but I use it to compress all my images. I’ve had to deal a lot with image optimization for my site and here are my takeaways:

  1. You get more file size bang for your buck by reducing the dimensions of your image than compressing the file. If you are displaying an image at 1200px width, shrink it down to exactly that width. Even leaving it at 1300px wide adds more file size than you can save with any compression. In fact, try your webpage showing 1100px images - the file size is far smaller and your design may not suffer at all.
  2. I have way too many image editing applications, but the best for exporting high-quality, low file size for me has been Fireworks. After exporting from there using the Smaller File Size JPG optimization option, ImageOptim can only squeeze about another 1% file size out of it. But I do it anyway. Everything through ImageOptim before adding to RW resources.
  3. I bought RealMacSoftware’s Squash on Black Friday sale, thinking that a paid application would be better than ImageOptim. It was not. Same image quality, but larger file size.
  4. I have a couple of images in the 100-200K range, but the vast majority are under 100K.
    Just my experience. YMMV.