Ebay's new webp compressed image format gives the poorest results

[papertique]

Let me explain and see the attached images, I sell antique graphics, books and magazines. Showing readable legible text and fine details in graphics is a must in my images. I am a photographer and have a few thousand dollars invested in equipment in order to provide high definition images of my inventory on ebay. Additionally I have an Adobe subscription in order to properly process these images into the standard jpg format with enough resolution that when enlarged the details, quality and any damage can be scrutinized properly.

Ebay without notice or without my permission has changed my images from jpg to the inferior webp format. My images average 3.5 mb & average 4800x2500 pixels and in the new webp format are only 260 kb & 1600x1000 pixels offering the poorest resolution and visual representation. If you compare the images my jpg is clear, sharp and every detail is visible when magnified before the implementation of the webp format. In the webp format the details are blurry, and fine text cannot be read. It is an 80% reduction in image quality. This is not acceptable.

In the new webp format the images in my listings are no longer my images. I claim that ebay is severely misrepresenting the items in my listings. The new ebay webp images no longer accurately represent my inventory.  I not just want, but need to display my inventory in jpg format to accurately show my products.

On a desktop the jpg image can be enlarged to see every detail, the webp cannot. Check the attached images.Oh! Maybe they will compress them too. Let me know what you think. Can you see the difference?

[chapeau-noir]

.webp formats are smaller, load faster and are more efficient for storage than jpg. The compression gains can be up to 30% so it becomes pretty evident why sites which store a lot of image files are shifting to this, even though its been around for years. eBay doesn't need anyone's 'permission' to change their protocols, though.

It may just be me, but I see very little loss in your examples.

[american-photography]

I agree with chapeau-noir as they are saving storage space and money.

I would suggest breaking up your one large image into smaller pieces which can then be magnified for the viewer and read easier at the smaller format.

[kensgiftshop]

I don't see any difference between the two.

[papertique]

The reason you cannot see a difference is because the compressed the jpg I uploaded for everyone to view. On my computer side by side the difference is 80% better resolution with the jpg. Enlarge it to pixel peep and even the smallest text is legible. Enlarge the webp and the small text becomes unreadable. Thanks and sorry a jpg is not available to view.

[chevymontecarlo88]

Yes there is a difference when you view it up close to read the article but do you really want that? Meaning having a lower dpi prevents those who will just rip the photo/content without the need of purchasing and scanning themselves? Also this may prevent others from using your better quality photos for there listing. Maybe offer high quality scans per request if possible. (not sure if there is a size limit with sending scans via Ebay messaging so double check that)

Ebay has posted about photos in the past and as others have noted, they do not need your permission.

This is why you may see a photo you took used by someone else.

“When you create listings you give eBay and its members permission, through our user agreement, to use your images and product details. Your content may be added to the eBay product catalog and may be used by other sellers in their EBAY LISTINGS”.

[isaiah53-57]

---

@american-photography wrote:

I agree with chapeau-noir as they are saving storage space and money.

I would suggest breaking up your one large image into smaller pieces which can then be magnified for the viewer and read easier at the smaller format.

---

There's an idea - Waste more time taking and uploading more pictures to a site thats on the skids(in our most humble opinion of course)

[robbie31415]

Ebay doesn't need your permission.

The switch to webp was only a matter of time.

People aren't buying your listing photo. You have no right over what format is used on your listing.

[toysaver]

It might be good thing, makes the buyer want to buy the item to actually see it. 

[cbx6]

Of course not - you have no rights on Ebay, as they set all the terms.  That doesn't mean their changes are beneficial to anyone other than themselves, or should not be criticized.

[itsjustasprain]

---

@papertique wrote:

Let me explain and see the attached images, I sell antique graphics, books and magazines. Showing readable legible text and fine details in graphics is a must in my images.

---

@papertique : Ebay has always downsized the uploaded images. Download any listing image from anywhere and you will see that they are all roughly the same size. Otherwise the amount of storage space required to hold listing images would be absolutely insane - especially in recent years as the average camera image file size ballooned from maybe 1 Mb to (as you said) 3.5 Mb or more.

Keep in mind also that nobody needs to actually read every line of text in order to buy your item. They just need to see that it is clean and intact.

All that aside - I really do not see a problem in your current listings. They are all perfectly legible. As an example I picked the display ad you show in your listing for '1946 APRIL 20 Church Belfry Repair SATURDAY EVENING POST COVER ONLY #1':

I right-click on the listing image and choose Copy Image from the popup menu. Then open it in Paint and save it as a JPG of a little over 600 Kb and this is what I get above.

If I zoom in on the fine print in this image it is perfectly sharp - just like if I zoom in on the Ebay listing itself: 

I would say your listings are fine as-is. Keep on doing what you are doing.

[tobaccocardyahoo]

I looked at some of my own images now in webp format and find no problem reading them.

You had me beginning to panic because there is information in my images which might make a difference in whether a buyer would buy, and it might be necessary to add it to the description.

I am no longer worried.

[papertique]

Thanks for sharing your constructive thoughts. The more I investigated myself, the better I feel that the webp format images are sufficient. Obviously if I pixel peep compare the original to the webp on my end, I can see a marked difference in quality. But the compressed format works for the shopper and that is what matters. 

[art2own · Accepted solution]

I sell paintings and prints, so clarity in my images is a must. I have noticed a decrease in the clarity of my listing images recently and after experimenting found it is because of the new webp images. I have been messing around and discovered my images are clearer in the new webp format if they are uploaded as exactly 1600px jpg. There seems to be a lot of loss applied to anything larger than 1600px. I have always uploaded large images files of at least 4000px thinking the images would be clearer after eBay reduced them to the 1600px jpg's. I have old 1600px jpg eBay images embedded in some listings that were taken from jpg uploaded at 4000px, and comparing them to the 1600 webp taken from 1600px jpg, the new webp images are clearer. 

[nyr134]

I looked at a couple of your listings on my iPad (a Saturday Evening Post and Little Journeys).  They are exceptionally clear and they stay clear as I enlarge them.  I don’t think you need to be concerned about what potential buyers are seeing.  Your images have to be in the top 1% sharpness in all of eBay.