About the author.
Stuart Murdoch is an Artist and Part time Photo Educator, with over 30 years of teaching experience. He contemplates many things photographic. His ruminations include his own work as well other’s and the aspects of technology that impact on the sharing and consumption of Photographs.
☛ Website | Flickr | Instagram | Photography links | s2z digital garden | Tumblr
☚
Whats file format are you testing? I wonder…
The .webp format, using lossy compression file sizes are dramatically reduced over jpeg, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP]. I luckily have an app that converts, so I open my files in RAW, process, and make my files smaller, save as a jpeg then open in Graphic Converter and save as .wbp format, then upload to my WP server. It’s going to save A LOT of room as I move forward. In the past I have simply “shared from” flickr using their share code. This adds a minute or two to the process, but saves tons of disk space on my server. Another reason I’m still “pro” on flickr. So the wbp approach saves a little time and keeps my disk space low, the “share from flickr” method takes a bit longer, but given the time factor I don’t always want to use it.
Hi
thnaks for explaining. I had no idea that this format exists. I was curious so I downloaded this image of yours – it has about 500 kb.
I used to just resize my jpegs to about 600×400 to post on WP. But I was tired of resizing, so I don’t post there much any more.
I too only recently discovered it after picking up a book and reading about HTML5.
And yes the original ‘jpeg’ in my normal editing software comes in at about 3 to 4 mb with 2000 pixels on its longest edge, so this is a huge gain for me. I guess I could decrease the size of the image as well, but with today’s high resolution monitors why not show off as much detail as possible.