I was out walking early this morning and wanted to take photos of the amazing blooms close to the house. One is right in front of the house, a beautiful bougainvillea that has creeped up the front of the house to the second level. The other is unknown to me, but it’s red blooms are just down the road and contrast with the ugly road beside it.
I have just recently began using a service that converts full size jpgs to webp format – and am curious as to how well it will compress and serve up a smaller version of the original files, which both come in at over 25 MB. It’s not normally something I would do even if it does a great job of compressing into a much smaller version on the fly, just for the sake of file disk space.
For those interested, both were taken with the Nikon D7000 and with a 50mm lens (more on that later and why I am enjoying it so much). The RAW files were touched up for exposure and white balance (I always forget to correctly set that on the camera), and that was about all.
First, the red blooms from a shrub that I’m not sure what it’s called:
Next, the bougainvillea and part of the olive tree in front of the house. The bougainvillea is absolutely beautiful when it’s in full bloom, and it’s creeped up to the second level of the house. I’m not very happy with the composition of the photo – but for now, it will do as part of this experiment.
Okay, it seems the files were resized and compressed, but not into webp images. Perhaps there is too much processing power required to convert a huge jpg into a webp – but certainly they have been more optimized than the original files uploaded.
Let’s try the same photos, both resized to 2000 pixels wide, exported to jpg at 75%, and both under 1MB: