Need help? Check out our Support site, then

What on earth happened to the IMAGE QUALITY?!

  1. I'm SO tired and SO done with WordPress constantly compressing images where it shouldnt! You'd think the previous solution of [stripping away the dimensions etc in HTML] would do the job, fast forward to today, and even THAT is not cutting it anymore! Revenge of the wordpress-compression-machine (hosting spcae issues???) So now the only way is putting the images on a serperate server?


    The blog I need help with is

  2. OMG!!! Is nothing HOLY anymore? The wordpress-compression-virus infected all the pictures on my 2 used-to-be-healthy-blogs. I need to lie down.

  3. @starsquid
    You know that only Staff can answer you so I don't understand why didn't you contact Staff directly

  4. @Timethief

    Cus I first wanted to know if anybody had the same problems too. Remember, I had this problem before, images were unsharp, colors were off, and it seemed that it was a wordpress compression issue. Then other suggested that stripping away the dimension code in html would fix that and that fixed the problem. But just out of the blue, the compression appeared again.

  5. If you are solution orientated then you already know only Staff can provide a solution for your blog or for any other member's blog.

  6. Yea I contacted WordPress Staff about the issue. It's really strange (not to mention all of a sudden). Also, somehow this doesnt affect (fingers crossed) images in the sidebar.

    Anyways, I posted a post with image about the issue.
    (*image was hosted on different server)

  7. @starsquid: What's happened is that WP has started adding a width indication in fixed-width themes even when you delete it from the code. I’ve contacted staff on this, received a preliminary unsatisfactory reply, sent them all the details along with a link to a test post demonstrating the issue, waiting for further reply.

  8. Well that explains, I just really don't get why they would do this, the compression really looks horrid. And why would they mess with the quality of images. Especially to anybody who owns a photoblog, its a downright disaster. And I don't think they're running out of server space since everybody gets like a fixed 3 gb webspace. Well, I'm also waiting for their reply.

  9. They've done a bad job. The "?w=[whatever]" they add to the image code is the supposedly maximum for the theme you're using. Two problems: a) they add that even when the image is narrower, which is pointless; b) their numbers are often wrong, as I've shown in this post: .

    What's worse: my second, detailed, ticket on that was sent eight days ago, and I'm still waiting for an answer...

  10. Oh crap, I fear the only solution is to host images on another server. Gawd! That is so annoying, not to mention a whole lotta extra actions just to display an image properly (which was fine to begin with in the first place, after stripping dimensions that is).


    A real letdown WordPress...

  11. @Timethief

    Staff doesnt answer, they're just ignoring it. Thats why we use the forum.

  12. @starsquid: No they're not ignoring it after all. I received a reply today, telling me they made some changes and asking me to test again and let them know.

    I did test again, and there's absolutely no improvement. I'll let them know...

  13. I guess we need to press them all together haha (sorry WP heh).
    I know, I don't understand it, I've been exchanging emails back and forth a couple of times, and then it was asked what image editing program I used, what color profile. I mean, I did my homework and my part, believe me, the images are perfectly optimized, color profiled the whole nine yards for the web. It's just when it's included in a post (actually when you view just the image from the media library it shows normal again), it gets compressed.

    Then it was suggested to remove the resize code (you know the width/height stuff which USED to work) but I already said that thats what I used to do to work around the problem. We're back at square one it seems.

  14. They did say that the DO use compression for the images to make the pages load faster. But for all photobloggers (and all who cherish quality images), its disastrous!

  15. @starsquid you can select 'Full size' when you insert an image into your post to get the un-resized original.

    The code is being adjusted and improved as we speak. Images are cached, so changes resulting from the code improvements won't be immediate - it may take up to 24 hours for some images.

    Your feedback will help, so if you have specific examples of problems please send them to staff (URLs of posts, images, and screenshots are all very helpful). If you don't get an answer it's because they are busy fixing things, not because they're ignoring you.

  16. Hi Tellyworth,

    Appreciate it! Actually I don't even use the editor, I link them directly in the HTML editor for the un-resized original. Anyways, since its being adjusted and improved, I'm going to wait and try tomorrow again. Hopefully itll be fixed and you would make a lot of bloggers very happy :) Thnks!

  17. @starsquid: However, I do get better quality when I remove w & h (even though ?w= shows up in the source code in fixed-width themes).

    @tellyworth: "you can select 'Full size' when you insert an image into your post to get the un-resized original." Not exactly: a) 'Full size' is limited to the (supposedly) maximum for the theme; it coincides with the real width of the uploaded original when the latter is narrower than the allowed maximum; if the original is wider, then 'Full size' is still downsized. b) Even when the uploaded original is narrow enough, the inserted one isn't the un-resized original but a compressed version of it.

  18. @panaghiotisadam this is true (and reasonable behaviour imho) - I was simplifying for brevity. You'll get the original size when using a theme that's wide enough to display it, or a fluid width theme.

  19. @tellyworth: Yes, thanks; I thought I'd better clarify that, because I've seen several members misunderstand what the 'Full size' option really is.

  20. @tellyworth

    I checked it today again, it's still bad. I used the shortest code (as far as I know) like this, and theres abosolutely no other code but the image:

    <img src="" />

    I created a post with a comparison of 2 exactly the same images one hosted by WP and the same image hosted elsewhere. Theres an obvious difference wouldn't you agree? Any other options? (apart from hosting all my images elsewhere)

  21. Wow! :(

    Checking the image properties in FF, both say the image is 340px × 236px. However, is 72.8K (!) is 52.09 KB

  22. Yea, no we all know by now that WP does compress images (to show pages faster they explained). But nobody really wants degraded quality like that (especially photo bloggers), hopefully itll be fixed soon.

  23. Just to give you a little moral support: I checked out the images on your test page, too, and I agree, the quality was poor in the WP-hosted image. And it's not like the original was some mega-huge file, either. There doesn't seem to be much sense in compressing files that are already optimized for the web. I hope there's a solution for this for you soon!

  24. @starsquid: Do me a favor please and run the same test in a flexible-width theme, if possible, and let me know if there's any difference.

  25. Alright, I will try that (though, why would only fixed width themes be subjected to compression). know any flexible-width themes? Im not really sure which are...

  26. @mmadfan
    Thanks! Best image quality for everybody I'd say :D

  27. @starsquid: The reason I'm asking is that in flexible-width themes you don't get the ?w= in the source code if you delete the dimensions in the html editor. I want us to see if this makes any difference or not. Try Garland, Rubric or Andreas.

  28. @starsquid thanks for your test, it's very helpful. We know what the problem is and are working out a solution.

  29. @tellyworth
    I saw you guys changed the compression thing, it improved greatly actually. Just a question though, I havent checked yet, but is it totally compression free now or just a very little bit?

  30. @starsquid-There's still a small difference between the externally hosted version and the one hosted here (69.9K).

    Alex, I hate to be whiny, but when will the rest of us enjoy the solution (and does this mean we have to wait until WP's caches are flushed)?

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic