Image quality

  • If I understand how the plugin works, it should be compatible with other image optimizers. Or do you recommend reverting the resmush.it images to originals, deleting that plugin?

    First, am I correct that I should not deinstall it for sites that don’t use WepP, the resmush.it images that I have will still work?

    And second, the images that resmush.it created were done at a quality of 92. Does this mean that the lower-quality images are the base starting point for my new WebP image? And if so, should I select high quality for the WebP conversion? like 100%?

Viewing 9 replies - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Thread Starter Dr. John Elcik

    (@jelcik)

    The goal of all this is better site performance and I’m concerned that two plugins might be an issue. ??

    Plugin Author Mateusz Gbiorczyk

    (@mateuszgbiorczyk)

    Hello @jelcik,

    Thanks for your message.

    If your original images, e.g. in .jpg format, were already optimized, converting them to WebP will not give such great effects. In my opinion, using several plugins for the same does not make sense.

    However, with respect to competitive plugin you do not want to say which solution is better. This decision is up to you.

    Best,
    Mateusz

    Thread Starter Dr. John Elcik

    (@jelcik)

    I think this is not a case of two plugins doing the same thing. Rather one plugin optimizes JPEG images, and the other creates and optimizes WebP files. WordPress then serves up the WebP files where the browser supports them (90%? of the time) and the optimized JPEG files where the browser doesn’t (Safari, for example.)

    As for asking me or anyone to pick the best plugin, I don’t think we need to. If the WebP file isn’t better, then the WP Converter for WebP Images plugin will not create it, and I tested this step.

    This still leaves my question about how to get the best quality WebP image. I think that the JPEG image has already been compromised by the resmush.it plugin when I choose to optimize at 92, and I don’t see a way to control which JPEG file gets optimized. It is unlikely that the plugin selects the original JPEG image, more than likely, it selects one of the files processed by resmush.it. Thus, I should have the WP Converter for the WebP Images plugin optimize at 100% to avoid a further reduction in image quality.

    Does anyone definitively know the effect of using the WebP plugin on files processed by resmush? Does it pose a danger to the JPEG files? I suspect it doesn’t.

    Does anyone have other thoughts?

    Please and thank you.

    Thread Starter Dr. John Elcik

    (@jelcik)

    I should have added that a number of the images processed by the WebP converter could not better the compression already in use during my testing. If, however, the situation is as I described, there should be no harm (and a potential benefit) in using both plugins.

    Thread Starter Dr. John Elcik

    (@jelcik)

    If I understand how the Convert WebP & Optimize Images plugin works, it should be compatible with other image optimizers.

    This is important as we need two plugins. One to handle JPEG files for the Safari users and one to handle WebP for everyone else.

    Ignoring, for a minute, the possibility of picking the best plugin for each image type, can you address the issue of adding support for WebP images to a website that has currently supports JPEG images.

    Would it be correct to conclude that the JPEG images have already been optimized for JPEG images at, let’s say, a 92 quality. Thus, your plug should be set to 100% so as not to lower image quality?

    Or is it your opinion that using your plugin requires one to commit to only WebP images and abandon Safari users?

    In testing the Convert WebP & Optimize Images plugin, I found that a number of the images processed could not better the compression already in use. I’m ok with that. If, however, the situation is as I described, there should be no harm (and a potential benefit) in using both plugins.

    Do you agree? Or am I missing something?

    Plugin Author Mateusz Gbiorczyk

    (@mateuszgbiorczyk)

    @jelcik Safari users can use WebP. You can check the current support for this format here. In my opinion, using WebP is enough.

    Thread Starter Dr. John Elcik

    (@jelcik)

    Excellent! You are fantastic and have been very patient with me. Thank you!

    I want to use the resmush.it plugin’s feature to revert to the original images and then run the WebP converter. Am I correctly interpreting the instructions for the WebP plugin that the URLs (location on web pages) of images will not be changed?

    Also, what has your experience been with the quality settings? Where do you suggest I start?

    Naturally, I will back up the site as a safety measure. ??

    Please and thank you!

    John

    P.S. I hope to provide a raving fan review when completed.

    Plugin Author Mateusz Gbiorczyk

    (@mateuszgbiorczyk)

    @jelcik When using via .htaccess mode (the default mode) the plugin does not change URLs.

    I suggest you use the 85% quality level, which is also set by default in the plugin. Then there is no difference in quality and the weight of the images is visibly lower.

    The plugin is prepared so that the default settings are best. So after installing the plugin you do not need to change anything. It is supposed to be easy for everyone to use.

    Thread Starter Dr. John Elcik

    (@jelcik)

    Thank you!!! Super easy-to-use plugin and excellent support.

Viewing 9 replies - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • The topic ‘Image quality’ is closed to new replies.