Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
DiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWord
DirectoryUser Groups
Related Topics
Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ...

MS Office Forum / Publisher / Web Design / July 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

some images don't compress

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
rdcuthbert - 23 Jul 2007 13:32 GMT
I am using publisher 2003 to construct my website - lots of pretty pictures
so I am using the compress pcitures button to keep the file size smaller - it
seems to work for some pages & not for others even if they are very similar -
does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
DavidF - 23 Jul 2007 14:49 GMT
When you use the Compress feature, you can choose to compress the images on
one page or the whole document. Try the whole document....or now, the pages
where the images appear to not be compressed.

Some images may already be as compressed as they can be by this method.

In some cases your design may result in images being combined with other
design elements to produce other combined images. Also, if you use non-web
fonts, those text boxes can be converted to images, thus increasing your
overall file size. Some of these design mistakes can be found by running the
design checker tool.

Be sure to go to Tools > Options > Web tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and
"Allow PNG...".

For optimal results resize and optimize your images in a third party image
editing program before you insert them into the Pub document, and size them
at 100%. If you don't have an image editing program a popular freebie is
www.irfanview.com

DavidF

>I am using publisher 2003 to construct my website - lots of pretty pictures
> so I am using the compress pcitures button to keep the file size smaller -
> it
> seems to work for some pages & not for others even if they are very
> similar -
> does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
rdcuthbert - 23 Jul 2007 15:00 GMT
Thanks David - I have made sure the two buttons are unchecked ...  the
strange thing is that I have used "change picture " on a page which is
compressing & inserted the non-compressing image - no problem, it compresses
fine;  similarly, substituting the compressing image on the non-compressing
page  &it doesn't compress, so it would appear the problem is with the pages
rather than the images - each page is a seperate document for various
ease-of-handling reasons.  The original image size for both pages is approx
4MB - compresses to 200kb when it works ... I know I can use other software
to compress, but that would be very tiresome ... and the point is it should
work!  don't like to leave an unsolvable mystery!!!!

> When you use the Compress feature, you can choose to compress the images on
> one page or the whole document. Try the whole document....or now, the pages
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> > similar -
> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
Rob Giordano (Crash) - 23 Jul 2007 18:47 GMT
200k is still way too big...you're much better off optimizing images prior
to using them in your web pub. Irfanview (a freebie) is excellent for this
as you can batch process lots of images very quickly. Your entire *page*
should weigh-in around 40k (a loose guideline).

Signature

Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage

| Thanks David - I have made sure the two buttons are unchecked ...  the
| strange thing is that I have used "change picture " on a page which is
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
| > > similar -
| > > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
DavidF - 23 Jul 2007 23:47 GMT
Like Rob I also feel that 200kb is still too large for a web image, unless
perhaps if it is a full page image, but even then you should be able to
reduce it to a fraction of that. It may be too "tiresome" for you to do it
the right way in an image editing program, but then it will also be too
"tiresome" for people viewing your site to wait for such a huge picture to
load, and they will move on to another site. It would take around a full
minute for a 200 kb image to load for a dial-up connection.

Mike Koewler posted this link:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/index.html
Go there to get an idea of how long it takes for your site to load and
perhaps rethink how "tiresome" it will be to optimize your images so that
people will actually stay around long enough to view the site.

DavidF

> Thanks David - I have made sure the two buttons are unchecked ...  the
> strange thing is that I have used "change picture " on a page which is
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>> > similar -
>> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
rdcuthbert - 25 Jul 2007 09:12 GMT
Thanks for all this - & for the weblinks - I will try them out.

> Like Rob I also feel that 200kb is still too large for a web image, unless
> perhaps if it is a full page image, but even then you should be able to
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
> >> > similar -
> >> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
rdcuthbert - 25 Jul 2007 11:08 GMT
okay - I have done all that - even the "tiresome" image downsizing - but the
web pages still come out at 80kb.  It seems that publisher is saving both a
gif and a jpg version of my images in the "index file" which is doubling the
size.  why?  do I need both?  can I just delete one of them?  thanks.

> Like Rob I also feel that 200kb is still too large for a web image, unless
> perhaps if it is a full page image, but even then you should be able to
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
> >> > similar -
> >> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 13:41 GMT
The more pictures you have on a page the larger it will be. While Rob might
be correct about 40kb being a good goal for FP websites, that is probably
unrealistic for Publisher pages. FP produces more efficient code, than
Publisher. I think that if you can stay under 100kb for a Publisher page
with pictures, you are doing great. That page will load quickly enough to
keep the interest of the viewer. Publisher also tends to load text rather
quickly and before pictures, so I would feel good about 80kb, especially if
you originally had a 200kb image on that page. Just keep in mind the
principle that the smaller the file size, the faster the page will load. If
you have a lot of images, the page will take longer to load. Just avoid lots
of large pictures. This is what optimization is all about.

Part of the reason for larger file sizes is that as you discovered,
Publisher sometimes makes multiple copies of the inserted images with the
goal of providing the "best" image version for the browser used....with
mixed success. Unfortunately that can mean the low resolution gif copy is
loaded in FireFox. I have found that if you not only optimize the resolution
of the image but also resize the image before inserting it into the
Publisher page, such that the image is displayed at 100% scale, Publisher
usually will not make the lower resolution copy for FF...it will use the
better quality image for all browsers.

As an example, say you insert a full size, high resolution image taken
directly from your digital camera into a Publisher page. You then reduce the
image box to fit your page layout design. If you right click the image >
format picture > size tab, you will see the height and width of your image
box under "Size and rotate". If you look under "Scale" you will see what %
the image is at. Then go back to your original image and reduce the
resolution to 96dpi, and resize the dimensions of the image to agree with
the dimensions of your picture box. Then insert this new optimized and
resized image and set the scale at 100%. Publisher will then use the one
image for both FF and IE, you won't get the lower resolution copy and your
image will be at the best quality and smallest size...in other words, it
will be optimized for your Publisher built webpage.

If the extra step of resizing the dimensions of the image in the image
editor to fit the text box is more than you want to do, then at least reduce
the resolution of the image. That alone is most important for improving
loading speed. For the best quality, also resize the image such that you can
display it at 100% scale.

DavidF

> okay - I have done all that - even the "tiresome" image downsizing - but
> the
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
>> >> > similar -
>> >> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
rdcuthbert - 26 Jul 2007 10:28 GMT
Okay - with 500 plus images that resizing thing is probably a long term
project ... in the meantime, what happens if I just delete the gif files once
I have uploaded?  I have tried it with one & it still seems to wrk, but maybe
it wouldn't be visible through firefox.  On the other hand, if a browser is
choosing which of the two images to view, does it really matter that there
are two versions - it might add to my upload time, but not to my viewers
download time ...?

> The more pictures you have on a page the larger it will be. While Rob might
> be correct about 40kb being a good goal for FP websites, that is probably
[quoted text clipped - 127 lines]
> >> >> > similar -
> >> >> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
DavidF - 26 Jul 2007 12:37 GMT
Leave any extra copies of the images alone...don't delete.

DavidF

> Okay - with 500 plus images that resizing thing is probably a long term
> project ... in the meantime, what happens if I just delete the gif files
[quoted text clipped - 167 lines]
>> >> >> > similar -
>> >> >> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
Rob Giordano (Crash) - 26 Jul 2007 15:19 GMT
If you can standardize your image dimensions..you can resize and optimize
them in a few minutes with IrFanview (freebie).

IOW...if you say ok...all my small images will be 400x300, all my medium
images will be...whatever, and all my big images will be...blah x blah, with
three passes of batch processing in IrFanview you'd be done in under 10
minutes.

Signature

Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage

| Okay - with 500 plus images that resizing thing is probably a long term
| project ... in the meantime, what happens if I just delete the gif files once
[quoted text clipped - 135 lines]
| > >> >> > similar -
| > >> >> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
rdcuthbert - 23 Jul 2007 15:18 GMT
Aha! I might have solved the mystery - I have used the crop tool on some
pages to slightly alter the dimensions of the frame around the images - those
are the pages that don't compress.  Could this be the cause???? If I reinsert
them from scratch (not using change picture) they seem to work.  hmmm.  
thanks Microsoft!

> When you use the Compress feature, you can choose to compress the images on
> one page or the whole document. Try the whole document....or now, the pages
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> > similar -
> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
DavidF - 23 Jul 2007 23:47 GMT
Sounds like you found the answer. As I understand it, when you use the crop
tool in Publisher it does not actually crop the image as it would in a photo
editor, it only hides or masks the cropped part of the image. Apparently
this is incompatible with the compression function.

DavidF

> Aha! I might have solved the mystery - I have used the crop tool on some
> pages to slightly alter the dimensions of the frame around the images -
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>> > similar -
>> > does anyone else have this problem ????  & a solution????
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.