WordPress.com

1. knashermac2009
   Member
   Feb 13, 2011, 11:45 AM

   Short of deleting photos, is there any way to r-coup some of the space taken up by photos.

   I know that photos are stored at their original size (e.g.4000 by 3000) and thus can eat into your space allowance, but I thought that the "scale image" option when editing the media (say to 800 by 600) would re-coup much of the space.

   However it would appear not - the image is still stored at its original size. This rather begs the question - what is the point of the scale option if it cant be used to claw back space?

   The blog I need help with is brickiesgazette.wordpress.com.

2. 1tess
   Moderator
   Feb 13, 2011, 1:44 PM

   You must compress images before uploading them to your library.

   Scaling an image within a post simply uses the image you have stored in your library.

   One might scale images within posts for a number of reasons: you want a gallery of small images, you want your super-large image to fit into your post column, you might want landscape and portrait images to appear all at the same height…

   You'll have to re-upload your images in compressed size. Re-insert them into the posts, then delete the original large files.

   There are lots of free compression programs available:
   http://onecoolsitebloggingtips.com/2009/11/28/ten-free-online-image-compression-and-optimzation-programs/

3. knashermac2009
   Member
   Feb 13, 2011, 1:57 PM

   Hello
   I'm not talking about scaling an image within a post, but the ability to scale the image in the media library. This scaling has absolutely no effect on the images within the post. In fact I can't honestly see the point of it.

   http://en.support.wordpress.com/images/image-editing/

4. panaghiotisadam
   Member
   Feb 13, 2011, 2:27 PM

   "This scaling has absolutely no effect on the images within the post."

   If you mean images already inserted, of course it has no effect: what a post displays depends on its sourcecode (which normally includes the dimensions of the displayed version), and its sourcecode doesn't change unless you edit the post. Such a scaled down image will change in the post only if you have previously deleted the width and height declarations in the HTML editor.

   But if you insert an image after you've scaled it down, and select the Full Size option, you'll get the scaled-down version in the post.

   When you scale down an image in the Media Library, you'll notice that you get a (permanent) Restore option - which is why the image remains stored at its original size. That's wise, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons: for instance, inexperienced users might find that they've downsized the image too much; or you may later need to change to a larger version if you switch to a wider theme.

   But anyway scaling down an image in the Media Library is a poor substitute for what you can and should do in an image editing application: images resized by WP lose quality.

5. 1tess
   Moderator
   Feb 13, 2011, 3:06 PM

   Not only do they lose quality, but keeping such large images in the media library eats up storage space. I keep my full-sized, un-edited images on back-up drives with copies of compressed files which I uploaded to WordPress libraries.

   The only way to make room for more files in the media library is it delete the large files and replace them.

6. raincoaster
   Member
   Feb 13, 2011, 3:25 PM

   Ahem. If space is a concern, open a new blog and hotlink the newly uploaded media from there.

7. 1tess
   Moderator
   Feb 13, 2011, 3:50 PM

   duh!
   need coffee…
   ≥^!^≤

8. knashermac2009
   Member
   Feb 13, 2011, 3:55 PM

   Thanks 1tess - yes I have reached the same conclusion. There just doesn't seem any point in the scale image option though. Indeed it wastes space since the scaled-down images also consume space (I presume).

   and yes raincoaster - I do that sometimes. :-)

   I guess my blog is a bit different to many in that I have many friends who contribute posts. We also have posts on which all our readrers can upload their photos (yes - that is possible). Its a price I pay for keeping it simple, that some of these photos will be straight from digital cameras and therefore gas-guzzlers.

9. 1tess
   Moderator
   Feb 13, 2011, 5:53 PM

   The other draw-back of such large files is the time it takes to load pages. My connection (when it's working) is relatively fast and some of your pages take a long time to view.

   Yes, it is possible for readers to add pictures to comments, but then you will run into that very problem: overly large image files. Best for you to edit and insert their images yourself, though that does take some time for you…

   IMO, just because something is possible does not mean it's good to do.

   (but it looks like your readers do enjoy your blog)

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.