Feature Request: Add Custom Directories

The four posts and attached images are brand new as of this morning after installing the latest version of the EWWW Image Optimizer plugin last night.

Hi Both,

Just to keep both of you updated, I’ve advised jcarrier to remove any of the previously resized images (only the ones created by Meta Slider) in order to force it to regenerate the images – and therefore push them through the EWWW optimisation also.

Regards,
Tom.

@nosilver4u – This is what I am seeing currently in my Optimized Images Table:

…wp-content/uploads/image-1381757410-335297968-300×138.jpg Reduced by 0.6% (87.0 B)
…wp-content/uploads/image-1381761017-1360418446-300×138.jpg Reduced by 2.9% (602.0 B)
…wp-content/uploads/image-1381764609-1861765140-300×138.jpg Reduced by 2.4% (515.0 B)
…wp-content/uploads/image-1381765640-1162725296-300×138.jpg Reduced by 0.2% (24.0 B)

Can you confirm that the “reduced by” indicates compression not progressive jpeg optimization? If that is the case, shouldn’t the compression match with test results?

For example, the original image-1381757410-335297968-300×138.jpg is 14.24 KB and the Optimized Images Table shows image to be reduced by 0.6% (87B). Therefore, reduced image is 14.15 KB according to the Optimized Images Table.

Alternatively, webpage test shows that image-1381757410-335297968-300×138.jpg should compress from 14.24 KB to 10.1 KB (reduction of 4.1 KB).

Please let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks again.

@nosilver4u – I should also mention that based on the results of webpagetest.org that all other images compress without issue as indicated by a green checkmark. It seems to only be the resized meta slider images that result in either FAILED or WARNING.

This issue could obviously compound as more images are rendered on my website.

“reduced by” indicates lossless jpeg optimization (progressive or otherwise, it checks for both). The plugin NEVER compresses anything, since that is not a lossless procedure. Can you post a link to the webpage test where it shows the messages you are seeing about compression? I’m curious to see what they are actually suggesting that you do.

EDIT: I went back and looked at one of the previous results pages you posted, and it says ‘lossless compression’ which should give the same results as this plugin. I’m unable to do any testing, because your site doesn’t allow ‘hotlinking’ any of your images, so I can’t really verify the results you are seeing on my test site.

If you could post a link to a couple of the images in question or turn off the hotlinking protection temporarily and post a link to the page where these images are displayed, that would be most helpful.

Ok, I did some research on their site and found what they are suggesting.

In one spot, it said ‘lossless compression’, but then when I uploaded a couple images to my test site and ran it through their tests I found this:

Within 10% of a photoshop quality 50 will pass, up to 50% larger will warn and anything larger than that will fail.
The overall score is the percentage of image bytes that can be saved by re-compressing the images.

Disclaimer: I don’t use photoshop very often. That said, I’ve not seen a version of Photoshop that actually uses the 1-100 quality scale which is a standard jpeg feature. Photoshop generally has a 1-10 or 1-12 scale for quality.

Anyway, what they are talking about is not ‘lossless compression’, they are talking about degrading your images to quality 50, which this plugin does not do (and probably never will).

Compression and Progressive detailed stats are show in the following link:

https://www.webpagetest.org/performance_optimization.php?test=131014_FE_PRN&run=1&cached=0

As you can seee, Compress Img (third column) shows FAILED or WARNING for all meta slider images; and Progressive (fourth column) shows green checkmarks except for one WARNING for one meta slider image.

I can temporarily disable hotlinkiing if that will help your efforts. I have that enabled via my rerouted DNS that also serves as a CDN simultaneously. Please advise.

Would WPSmush.it be a way to achieve the desired compression or is that just redundant with the functionality of this plugin?

WP Smush.it does the same thing as this plugin (EWWW IO is based on a fork of WP Smush.it). I don’t know of a plugin that does lossy compression on all your images.

Do you think that the webpage test analysis make sense or is overkill? In other words, is there a way to achieve a green checkmark for all the meta slider compressed images. Or is just more trouble than its worth in the long run…

I think their recommendation is overkill, most definitely. If the images are retrieved automatically, then it is definitely not worth the bother to try and get them further compressed. You’ll waste more time trying to compress them than you will save on load times by far. If you have control over the images uploaded, and can bump that quality setting to 50 before you upload your images to wordpress, that would work, although I normally never go below 80 or 85 myself. I don’t like the ‘artifacts’ that start to become very noticeable when you drop the quality too much.

How can I easily check and/or revise the quality setting on individual images? I don’t really get into the photoshop side for web development.

so far as I know, there is no way to know what the current quality setting is on a jpeg (it isn’t stored in the image anywhere).

The only thing I can think of is that the folks at webpagetest.org are using something like jpegoptim to create an derivative of your image at quality 50, then comparing the file size afterwards. This isn’t strictly accurate, because they don’t know the original quality setting to start with, but I suppose they probably come pretty close.

You’ve really helped a lot and I can’t thank you enough. Please let me know if you need me to beta test the meta slider retro optimizing functionality prior to finalizing.

All the best.

Support for optimizing previous meta-slider images is now in ‘dev’
It is available via the ‘Optimize More’ function in the Tools menu.