You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For outputting an image of the same format and size, is it possible to have eleventy-img simply copy the file rather than reprocess it?
I read through all the issues I could find that mentioned "copy" and "passthrough" but I couldn't find an answer. The closest I found was this comment:
widths: [null] (default, keep original width)
That should skip processing the images.
However, when I include null or "auto" in the widths, and I inspect those output files, they are different than the originals.
I ask because (a) I have thousands of photos, so this would help quicken deploys, and (b) I've done quite a bit of hand-optimizing exactly how the images are compressed, so I'd like to have them not re-run through a compression algorithm again.
Thank you!!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I believe this is a duplicate of #133. But I’d also post another shout to passthrough copy, which does this!
We did some work to improve this with the imminently shipping v3.0.1 to improve passthrough copy for relative asset references: 11ty/eleventy#3573 The downside there is that we passthrough copy doesn’t add the width/height attributes.
For outputting an image of the same format and size, is it possible to have eleventy-img simply copy the file rather than reprocess it?
I read through all the issues I could find that mentioned "copy" and "passthrough" but I couldn't find an answer. The closest I found was this comment:
However, when I include
null
or"auto"
in the widths, and I inspect those output files, they are different than the originals.I ask because (a) I have thousands of photos, so this would help quicken deploys, and (b) I've done quite a bit of hand-optimizing exactly how the images are compressed, so I'd like to have them not re-run through a compression algorithm again.
Thank you!!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: