We are working on a website and noticed that the GIF images(100kb - 200kb) are loading very slowly.
The site is a static site with CSS/HTML.
Does any one have any pointers to why the images might be loading slowly?
Would using JPGs improve the performance?
Here is the HTML code for that image:
<div><img src="images/mainImg_3.gif">
They're loading slow because they're huge. 200KB is a very big image file. I don't know exactly what the going recommendation is for web images, but it's a very good idea to keep them under 50K.
GIF images are not very efficient for photographic images. You should experiment with other formats like JPG and PNG to see if you can get the same quality with smaller file size. You should be able to shrink the file size quite a bit while retaining the quality.
Another trick: use thumbnails. Save two version of each image, one 25% the size (by resolution) of the other. Your site visitors can click the thumbnail if they want to see more. This will speed loading times and reduce your bandwidth bill.
Are your images properly sized? If you displaying them on your webpage as 300x300 pixels make sure the original image is the same size.
This helps two-fold, one its less data to download, and 2 it doesn't require extra processing power for the browser to resize. Additionally, the image will look crisper if its the exact size.
As far as the difference between GIF and JPG, (with the exception of transparency, which JPG doesn't support), it boils down to what your image contains. GIF uses a color table and a map to that color table to store the image, while JPG uses a compression algorith. So, if you image contains few color variation you will get a smaller filesize from a GIF. Conversly, if you have a photograph with lots of color variation you'll want to use a JPG.
Also take a look at YSlow
It will analyze your site for you and tell you where the bottlenecks might be.
Enable caching for image files (the example below also adds css and js caching) which will ensure users don't download files twice. If you are using apache 1.3 or 2:
ExpiresActive On
<FilesMatch "\.(ico|gif|jpe?g|png|js|css)$">
ExpiresDefault "access plus 1 year"
</FilesMatch>
It is probably a reasonable idea to enable gzip compression for html and css. In apache 2:
SetOutputFilter DEFLATE
and in apache 1.3:
mod_gzip_on Yes
It depends on how large the image is, if you're displaying wallpaper-sized images at 100kb, that's not too bad. If you're displaying thumbnails of this size, then you have a problem.
JPEG images are lossy but can be compressed with ease. Depending on how much compression you select, you can really decrease image sizes with JPEG.
You should specify the height and width attributes for the img tag, see below for the W3C Schools explanation of why you should do this. And for further info see http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000807.html for further more radical techniques.
Tip: It is a good practice to specify
both the height and width attributes
for an image. If these attributes are
set, the space required for the image
is reserved when the page is loaded.
However, without these attributes, the
browser does not know the size of the
image, and cannot reserve the
appropriate space to it. The effect
will be that the page layout will
change during loading (while the
images load).
Tip: Do not rescale images with the
height and width attributes!
Downsizing a large image with the
height and width attributes forces a
user to download the large image (even
if it looks small on the page). The
correct method is to rescale the image
with a program, before using it on a
page.
This is copied from http://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_img_height.asp
The fastest loaded resource is always the resource that doesn't need to be loaded at all. I.e. apart from shrinking your images to reasonable sizes you should read about HTTP caching.
You should instruct your web server to deliver the responses with proper caching informations so that user agents may reuse local cached versions.
Mark Nottingham wrote a tutorial about HTTP caching. It's a good starting point.
And this is a tutorial about apache configuration on HTTP chaching.
Look into the free tool: Smush It!
It's co-developed by Stoyan Stephanov, Nicole Sullivan (of Yahoo!) and incorporates every tidbit for images from YSlow (from Yahoo!) and the Yahoo Developer Network findings.
It will analyze your image(s) and determine from a set of server side tools what the optimal image type is (e.g. PNG8, PNG24, GIF, JPG, etc.) and also create the optimized image... e.g. even if you feed it a PNG image, it will find the best method to compress it, and "Smush It" to its smallest possible file size.
Then take the output image, and then serve it up from a (cookie-less domain) if you can, preferably on a CDN, with far-future expires headers, with gzip compression.
Related
I need to implement image previews via thumbnails. Now I'm not certain how to implement it.
One option would be to do it straight with CSS, so something like this:
.thumbnail {
background-image: url(path/to/image);
background-size: 300px, 400px;
}
Is that practical? Are there any performance issues?
If you scale image in CSS to be smaller than it it actually is, browser still have to download the same amount of data. You should create separate file with the thumbnail.
With images, you need to focus on three things: size, format and the src attribute.
Image size
Oversized images take longer to load, so it’s important that you keep your images as small as possible. Use image editing tools to:
Crop your images to the correct size. For instance, if your page is 570px wide, resize the image to that width. Don’t just upload a 2000px-wide image and set the width parameter (width=”570”). This slows your page load time and creates a bad user experience.
Reduce color depth to the lowest acceptable level.
Remove image comments.
Image format
JPEG is your best option.
PNG is also good, though older browsers may not fully support it.
GIFs should only be used for small or simple graphics (less than 10×10 pixels, or a color palette of 3 or fewer colors) and for animated images.
Do not use BMPs or TIFFs.
Src attribute
Once you’ve got the size and format right, make sure the code is right too. In particular, avoid empty image src codes.
In HTML, the code for an image includes this:
When there’s no source in the quotation marks, the browser makes a request to the directory of the page or to the actual page itself. This can add unnecessary traffic to your servers and even corrupt user data.
Pro Tip: Take time to re-size your images before uploading them. And always include the src attribute with a valid URL.
To ensure your images load quickly, consider adding the WP Smush.it plugin to your website.
from: http://blog.crazyegg.com/2013/12/11/speed-up-your-website/
A website that I'm currently working on has a number of slideshows. The issue is that the page loads and then the slideshow loads a second later. How do I improve loading speeds of the images? The site is hosted on Amazon. The url is http://gatehouse75.com to see what I mean.
There are a few ways you can do this:
Optimise image sizes. For example, images used on the front banner are 1920x1610. However, most screens are not that large. Use different sizes based on view port (screen size).
Reduce image sizes by changing compression and/or using a different format.
Preload images when the users visit certain parts of the site. That way when users get to a page with a gallery the images get served from the browser cache.
Finally, you can put a "loading" notice while images load if none of the above suggestions help. This is good for usability.
Convert your jpgs to lower quality and your logo (in png) to gif in grayscale. This should save a lot of space.
Right now the home page slideshow images are scaled to 1349 X 429 for me. I am using a laptop. The actual size of the images on the server is 1920 X 610 (at least the one that I inspected). This means two things: (1)The image served is a larger filesize than need be which takes bandwidth, and (2)that the served image needs to get scaled down which takes client time.
What is the max width for this slideshow? It is a fullscreen slideshow, so I understand why the chose to use the bigger image. Though maybe you can take the original compress and resize in a way that is acceptable?
You can also consider having a loading .gif in place while the content loads.
Also, go through and minify linked files... css, js.
1. Follow image file optimization best practices.
2. Use a fast CDN combined with a smart caching strategy.
3. Put your above-the-fold image refs (especially large "hero" images) in an inline stylesheet, immediately inside the <head> tag, in the html element selector, like this:
<head>
<style> html { background: url(/hero.jpg) no-repeat -9999px -9999px; }
</style>
This will get you the fastest time-to-visible for the images that impact perceived page speed the most.
I am putting some photos on my website and I do not know which syntax will load them quicker. My photos are usually 4300x3000 or 3000x4300 (which is from 7-10 MB per photo). I am using
#image {
max-height:500px;
max-width:750px;
}
When I viewed my website on a low-end PC, it took a lot of time to load. I do not want to use fixed height and width because I could have photos as big as 2500x2500 and that would cause a mess. What should I do to reduce the load time? Is there something like an “autoresize” that will keep the height to width ratio?
Compression
You should compress the images using some external software (if you are not using any other language apart from HTML and CSS). I would recommend Photoshop or GIMP.
That's the only way to improve the load: reducing the image weight. The forced resize is just loading the same amount of data from the server.
Improving quality of resized images:
If you are interested on improve the quality of the resized images, you can take a look at this article:
http://articles.tutorboy.com/2010/09/13/resize-images-in-same-quality/
Auto-resizable background
Loading image of 4.000 pixels is not a very common practice even in the websites with a full background. What it is usually done is loading a picture of about 1800-2000 pixels width and then adapt the image to bigger or smaller monitors using CSS preferable.
Here an article about that:
http://css-tricks.com/perfect-full-page-background-image/
Responsive images:
You can also load a different image depending on the predefined resolutions of your chose.
You will need to have multiple versions of each image though.
More information about it use.
My photos are usually 4300x3000 or 3000x4300 ( which is from 7-10
mb/photo ).
It has little or nothing to do with max-height versus height. The performance hit is coming from the original size of the image which causes the browser to:
download a large file
exercise a scaling algorithm against an enormous number of pixels
What should I do to reduce the load time? Is there something like an
autoresize that will keep the height to width ratio?
Create a smaller version(s) of the file when you upload it, and serve the small version. You can optionally open the original version when the user clicks on the small image.
You can create one or more copies of the file manually and upload them with different filenames.
A more elegant solution is to create one or more copies of the file programmatically (you didn't indicate server technology, but there are many options available). For example, Facebook creates six copies of each image you upload so that they can rapidly serve them in different places with the correct size.
Whether or not you do it automatically or manually, you may choose to adjust/crop the image to achieve the desired aspect ratio.
You should be resizing your images and loading those resized images instead if you want quicker loading. You could keep both large and small on disk and only load the large images when user clicks the link.
To resolve loading time
You have to compress your photos before uploading them to the server. Use export to web in photoshop, make sure the image size is reasonable (I would say never more than 1mb); You can also use image optimisation software (In Mac I would recommend JPEGmini).
You can, if you wish keep your large images in a folder in your site and link to them (so that one can download them if you allow this).
To resolve the ratio issue (square vs rectangle)
You can just use one of the properties and css will calculate the other. For example, if you put only
#image{
width:750px;
}
This will resolve the matter of things "getting messed up" if you mix rectangle images with square images.. Good luck!
I have a site which uses a large image as a background. It's a jpeg that's 134KB in size - I can't really get it below that so far. I have saved it for web in photoshop on low quality jpeg setting. It's dimensions are: 1920 x 1028.
How can I reduce the size further?
Could I resize it extremely small and resize it with width and height attributes in the image tag - as long as the aspect ratio is the same?
Its killing my page speed. Please help - any advice welcome.
Without knowing the picture I can provide different ways:
1)
If you dont want your picture to be too prominent in the background, try to blur it (could be a lot - depending on the picture!) -> then you can us a higher compression rate without seeing the artifacts too much.
2)
depending on your picture, try to reduce it to certain color-ranges (that you use a max. amount of colors) -> with this method you might end up using a .png or gif file, photoshop will show you what is best.
One last thought:
As this is you BACKGROUND image, try to keep it in 'the back' - this way you can try and alter (destroy) the image in a way to reduce colors! On the other hand, try using smaller pictures (800x600) and let css scale them, again - depending on your intention.
I use 1280x1024px bg-images at about 55Kb.
hope this helps.
Try smushing it http://www.smushit.com/ysmush.it/
Yes, you can use a smaller image. Your main options are
resize it on display (using something like <img
src="xxx" height="200%" width="200%">)
tile it
If it is a uniform background (pattern or similar), tiling probably looks nicer, as scaling up the image will degrade its visual quality. If it is a picture, you'll have to scale it.
I would definitely recommend resizing the image but keeping the aspect ratio. The smaller the better. Keep in mind however, that the smaller you go (less than 1:1), will reduce image quality. Having said that, generally image quality isn't mandatory to be super high for most backgrounds.
use Photoshop for resizing and make it according to your need such as 1024*800 or whatever u want,and then save it for web and device and there reduce the Optimized value of jpg hope it will work.
Unless you're willing to reduce the image's pixel resolution (like suggested by #sleske), there is probably no way to get image size much beyond what you have now. Photoshop's JPG export filter is top of the line in terms of quality vs. file size.
The only possible method could be splitting the image into sub-images, and compressing them with different settings ("slicing"). Large homogeneous areas can be saved at massively reduced quality without much visible loss, while detailed areas can retain higher quality. I think Photoshop has ImageReady for that.
If possible, save it as a GIF. GIFs are generally smaller than Jpegs.
you can use this online tool to reduce the size of image from MBs to KBs http://www.jpegmini.com/
I found a simple solution. It is to use office photo editor 2010 . just launch the application navigate to the directory with the images and simply click edit pictures on the right and then compress pictures . select what type you want i chose website. Successfully reduced size of jpg from 5mb to 50kb .
I tried many online image compressors but I liked this one most: http://compressimage.toolur.com/. You can play with various things like quality, compression methods etc.
You could have your server gzip images before sending in an htaccess file. (Assuming you run Apache)
If you have a lot of images, it could be intensive on your server's processor though.
I'm working on a website that's already been designed by someone else. The designer has used a big image (900x700 100KB) which contains a big logo right across the top, then the background for two columns.
This image loads every time a page is loaded as it forms the basis for the website. What should I do with it to improve loading time?
I'm considering splitting it up into two or more images, especially the logo on the top. Does splitting up images like that decrease loading time in any significant way?
Thanks
-edit: Also, all the images are .jpg, would changing this to .gif or .png help anything?
Things to try:
Repeating backgrounds: If part of it can be broken off into a repeating image, you can reduce file size a lot that way (divide the image into the parts that don't repeat, such as a logo, and the parts that do, and then use CSS to repeat it as a background).
Caching: You should look into whether the image is properly being cached or not. There's no reason it should reload on every page request. If the HTTP headers correctly allow caching, then the browser will not request it again until the image is cleared from its cache.
See http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/ for some info about cache control with HTTP headers.
Use the Web Developer toolbar for Firefox to check the headers for the image (hit the image URL, then click Information > View Response Headers)
File quality or type: Also, you may be able to use Photoshop to resave the image in either a different format or lower quality. GIF and JPG images can have greatly different file sizes for the same image depending on the content of the image (GIF is very good for graphics with limited and/or repeating colors, especially when large portions of the same color run in consecutive horizontal pixels). If the image is photo-like, JPG can be very good because high compression can be disguised in very detailed images.
Crunching (removing unnecessary metadata and finding a more efficient compression algorithm) the image with a decent image compressor is a good start. Reducing the number of colors, changing the format (GIF or PNG24 to PNG8) when possible.
This may be totally obvious, but... defer it until the page is fully loaded (if the contrast of colors in the background image are not needed to make the foreground text readable).
An easy way to do this is to make the css selector for the background image dependant upon a class in the body like:
...
<style type="text/css">
/*<![CDATA[*/
body.page-loaded{background:url(/path/to/image.jpg)}
/*]]>*/
</style>
</head>
<body class="page-loaded" onload="document.body.className+=' page-loaded';">
...
Of course, the "onload" attribute in the body tag should be migrated out (to a SCRIPT tag at the bottom of the page or in an external JavaScript file). Also this code doesn't require any JS library to run; it should probably make use of an event observer.
The two things you want to do are:
Convert it to PNG (10-30% smaller than GIF on average); and
Cache it effectively.
The way to cache it is to version it and use a far future Expires header. For versioning I generally just use the mtime (last modified time) of the file as a query string:
body { background-image: url(/images/background.png?1232343455); }
See Speed Tips: Add Future Expires Headers for adding the Expires header. You can do it with a script or with Web server configuration. The reason you need the version is that you can change it to force a reload of the file otherwise you need to rename it whenever you want to change it.
This way the background will only get downloaded once. Splitting the file into several will actually worsen the situation as browsers tend to limit the number of concurrent downloads and you'll be downloading more data overall (more HTTP headers plus image file overhead).
Putting the image on a CDN may also help (along with the other things mentioned), because people may load images from the CDN faster than your server.