Monday, April 24, 2017

Blog Pictures Are Finally Fixed

It has been months of frustration for me when I looked at the quality of the pictures after posted on the blog. I have mentioned it three or four different times, wondering if I was going blind or possibly insane.

It all started by an email I received this morning from a fellow Blogger blog owner. They too, along with a small group of us, have been complaining for months now that our blog pictures were not as sharp as they use to be. For a long time we couldn't figure out why. Once we found out why, how do they get fixed.

He had the answer.

A few times when I talked about it on the blog some readers were wondering if we were just getting old, insane and losing our eyesight. Some of us considered moving to Wordpress and one almost stopped blogging because of poor picture quality.

So after I saw the difference in sharpness and how easy it was to fix, I edited my 8 most recent posts and saw a HUGE difference in picture quality. I decided I had time to go through my 'pages' that are tabbed across the top of the blog and see what kind of damage I could do there.

It is amazing in the difference in sharpness of the pictures. It will take a little longer to put a post together but well worth that extra time for better pictures.

About the time I finished with editing over 200 pictures, Sadie was standing right at my elbow giving me the silent treatment to let me know it was time to eat. As I glanced over at Stella, not saying a word, she started howling ... that led Heidi barking in the next room.

So lunch was served, with a little more added to Stella's stainless steel bowl. After they are finished Sadie will inspect each of their bowls to make sure that every last kibble of food is gone. She will lick all the dog food bowls clean after every meal.

So we took the normal trip outside just after the meal and found a warm day fighting against cooler winds from the north.

With the fix to the pictures, from now on you should see them with a much better sharpness, a better quality picture. The last 8 blog posts also include the corrected images, as well as the pictures in my pages across the top of the blog.

It is so nice outside that we are heading out for some book reading while the hounds either sleep in the sun or watch Sadie roam the yard and field. That 'to do' list is sitting on the desk gathering a little dust. Maybe all of the effort to clear the driveway bank a few weeks ago was too much too soon.

I might be a slacker now but it's a good Monday so far here in 'the tropics' of southern Indiana.


  1. Oh I love that first photo of Heidi. She is really looking good! :)

    I always thought your pictures were good, but I can definitely see a difference in the sharpness and colors of these you just posted. Now, I’m gonna go back a look at the previous posts.

    1. I found out those few red spots is from when she sleeps and are places she lays her nose/mouth. New hair is coming back for the first time since December 2015.

  2. Oh for Pete's sake!! You can't just throw that out there and leave me hanging.

    1. It's editing the HTML of each post, then changing the code of the image to 1600.

  3. Are you talking about that /s1600/ just before the jpg file name??

    1. yes. Most will have either 320 or 640 in that slot. So you can change that, click compose button, then update ...

    2. I guess I just have dumb luck. Right out of the camera my 12.2 MP files are around 3.2 MB and 4000W x 3000H (or 3000W x 4000H for portrait format) That was using up too much time and bandwidth when loading them into posts so I started loading them into Photoshop Elements first and batch-process them using the File>Process Multiple Files feature to resize them down to 1600W (landscape and portrait both). This gives me a file of about 1.25 MB thats 1600W x 1200H (landscape format) which for me loads into blogger at a much more acceptable rate.

      Point is, these load up at /s1600/ all on their own and I don't do anything else to them.

    3. That is a nice bulk edit feature. Now remember there are two places that /s1600/ show up on that line where the images are listed. The first location on mine had it already there but the 2nd location, right before the xxxx.jpg, I had to change.

      So you are saying all of your photos have been posted and not compressed by google?

    4. Ah! Didn't stick with it long enough to get to the second one. Mine was s640 so I would say I have been getting compressed by google. As for telling if it makes a difference, I'm not sure. I changed all the photos in my last post, Surviving South Llano, to 1600 and when I viewed the post they certainly loaded slower but I'm working off the battered screen of an 8 year old laptop and can't tell if any difference in look is real or my imagination.

    5. On my 7 year old iMac and fast HughesNet Gen5 internet connection, your blog loaded fast for me and I can tell a difference in the sharpness on your pictures. When I looked at them on my 2 year old MacAir, they looked even better.

  4. Steve,

    Are you saying that at some point in time Google Blooger changed the default from s1600 to s640 in that second listed location? You have always uploaded to Blogger at s1600 but their default change (compression) was making the difference?

    From what little I know and from what I can find by doing a Google Search this s1600 & s640 'situation' has been present for many years. But what do I know, I don't see the change that you and other people do.

    1. Since I never looked at the code for my blog pictures I don't really know if Blogger made the changed from s640 to s1600 ... but ... I and other do know they recently started compressing the photos more than they did in the past because our pictures were not looking as sharp INSIDE the blog post BUT WOULD if you clicked the picture to open the ALBUM.

      I can tell a distinct difference. They now look as sharp as they do on my Wordpress blog.

  5. I needed the education so did some more Google Searching.

    In addition to image size, the quality of the image can also be manipulated. Here we use the word "compression". An uncompressed image is saved in a file format that doesn't compress the pixels in the image at all. Formats such as BMP or TIF files do not compress the image. If you want to reduce the "file size" (number of megabytes required to save the image), you can choose to store your image as a JPG file and choose the amount of compression you want before saving the image.

    Question: What JPG compression have you chosen and have you changed it?

    You reduce the file size by compressing the image. At higher compression rations, the block pattern becomes more visible and there may be noticeable loss of detail. A computer monitor has a finite number of pixels per inch available (like 72) so if you are going to display your image on a monitor only, you would want to drop the quality down to 72.

  6. Ed

    I don't see your 2nd comment on this post here but did get it in my email notice ... so here is my answer to your questions in your 2nd post ....

    When I download my photos from the camera SD card into my computer, their size is around 4Mb and 3000 x 2000.

    When I want to import pictures into my blog, I have to export those photos from my computer's Apple Photo program to a different folder on my computer that I have set up on my desktop for Blogger to pull from. When I do that export process I have choices of quality: high, size: large. and that setting keeps the images around 500-500 Kilobytes (KB) in size.

    IF ... I change the quality setting from high to maximum .. the file size of each picture goes from 700Kb to 1.5-2Mb ... which is too large for Blogger to handle because it takes all day to load the images and later the blog post.