# How (the HECK) do I stop Outlook2013 resizing images that I have inserted ?



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Hi 

Can anyone tell me how (the HECK) to stop Outlook 2013 resizing all images that I *insert *into the body of emails?

I have had this problem for MANY YEARS. :banghead:

My JPEG image has an internal DPI setting of 96. My GIF images do not have any internal DPI setting. 

Reluctantly I have even set my Windows (8.1) Text DPI setting to "100%" (event though I much prefer "125%").
[R-click on Desktop ==> Personalise ==> Display]

But BOTH types of image are being re-sized by Outlook as soon as they are sent. Nighmare! In fact if I just click Send and then open the image again before it has left, the bl**dy image looks larger and more blurred with every time I click "Send" on it.

Yes I have set the zoom of the email to "100%" (by holding down Control and scrolling the mouse wheel). 

:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:

Any thoughts?

John 


P.S. If I can't solve this problem, I shall finally abandon Outlook. However I now have about 10 years of email history in PST & OST format and I would need to find a way to be able to access all of them from any new email client. Any recommendations??


I am using: 
Windows 8.1, Office/Outlook 2013 (365)
plus: FSCapture, Photoshop, Xara Designer Pro etc

P.S. It turns out that Windows8.1 was lying to me. It had failed to change the Text DPI setting as requested. [groan] For this reason the JPGs were being resized due to the fact their DPI settings did no match the Windows DPI. I have no idea why the GIFs were being resized however.

G*d I hate this Outlook software. Can anyone recommend a really good email client that doesn't resize images without permission and that works with MSExchange (2007??) AND can read/import about 12GB of PST files... ?


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

Thunderbird has an add-on to resize pictures. TBird works with MS Exchange.


----------



## Masterchiefxx17 (Feb 27, 2010)

Outlook is adjusting your file as it makes it so it can send it through an Email. Emails can only be a certain size and lowering the quality of the image will allow it to send.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Masterchiefxx17 said:


> Outlook is adjusting your file as it makes it so it can send it through an Email. Emails can only be a certain size and lowering the quality of the image will allow it to send.


No I am pretty sure that my images are not taking the size of my outbound emails anywhere near the size limit for emails.

How (the HECK) can I stop Outlook from resizing my images. 

Moving my entire system to Thunderbird seems like an extreme solution!

John


P.S. Wait - could I run Thunderbird _*in parallel*_ with Outlook2013? i.e. I could I use Thunderbird for all my outbound emails that contain images??

[ASIDE: Honestly I am so fed up with Microsoft, I have had this niggling problem for literally years. At this point I am starting to want to kill someone.]


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

You can (I do). Unfortunately it won't change anything. MC gave you the correct answer.


----------



## joeten (Dec 4, 2008)

The size limit for messages is 20Mb. this would include any message and attachment.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

joeten said:


> The size limit for messages is 20Mb. this would include any message and attachment.


I'm not sure of the relevance of this. My emails were less than 500KB. For what reason then is Outlook trashing the images?



Corday said:


> You can (I do). Unfortunately it won't change anything. MC gave you the correct answer.


Can run Thunderbird in parallel with Outlook, yes?
What do you mean it won't change anything?
Are you saying that it won't allow you to send email with images at their correct sizes?
If so why then do you use both?


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

I use both so I can send mail from an account I prefer for certain recipients (TBird), while receiving mail from a different EMail provider. In Outlook I send and receive from provider #2. I also work from the Webmail of both providers. It depends on the circumstances. I know of no provider that sends at the exact size of the original.


----------



## Masterchiefxx17 (Feb 27, 2010)

ship69 said:


> I'm not sure of the relevance of this. My emails were less than 500KB. For what reason then is Outlook trashing the images?


What are the size of your photos?



ship69 said:


> Can run Thunderbird in parallel with Outlook, yes?


Yes, you can run them in parallel. There is no harm in that.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Masterchiefxx17 said:


> What are the size of your photos?


My photos are small. They are used simply to make visual points in emails. The include a lot of screenshots. 

They would be typically be less than 100KB. There might be up to say 3 to 5 images per email.

ASIDE
I just cannot _believe _that this is so hard! I mean every email you receive from a company has nice clean images in it. So why (THE HECK!!) (if we are running Windows Text DPI at anything other than 96 DPI...) can't we do the same thing and send out HTML emails containing images inserted into the text that aren't BLURRED by Outlook? 

I have had to put up with this problem for over 10 years. Everyone who has a high resolution screen will end up with default text all over Windows that it is too small to read easily. And the only solution to this increase your Windows DPI. ...And that screws up your images in Outlook!!

Utter nightmare.

Has anyone written a plug-in to allow emails to be sent from Outlook 2013 (at least using the Outlook .OST data file) WITHOUT resizing/blurring inserted images?


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

If you're not using 96dpi, try these suggestions to re-render or resize the images: Images resize and become unsharp upon sending - HowTo-Outlook



> Background of the issue
> 
> This issue usually happens when you are using a picture other than 96dpi.
> 
> ...


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

The DPI setting within a JPG file that is visible within it's "Properties" is the key to this. Unfortunately I can not work out how to get Photoshop to do "Save for Web" at any DPI setting other than 96DPI. 

This means that when my Windows DPI setting is at 120 then when I hit Send on an email within Outlook, any image that does not have a DPI setting of 120 gets phyically resized (i.e. blurred) by outlook.

A partial answer is to use Photoshop's "Save As" rather than "Save for Web" however this does create JPG files that (unhelpfully) are rather larger in bytes.

P.S. I am also nervous about how an image that arrives with a DPI setting of 120 will be rendered by Outlook on a screen of a recipient who still has their DPI set to 96DPI !

So for now every time I want to send an email with an image inserted into it, I change the Windows DPI back to 100% (i.e. 96DPI) log out, login and send the email. 

And then pretty soon I can't stand the irritatingly small text almost everywhere so have to change it back to 120DPI and logout and in again!


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

If Outlook isn't suitable for your needs, use another email client. Gmail and Thunderbird don't resize images.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

koala said:


> If Outlook isn't suitable for your needs, use another email client. Gmail and Thunderbird don't resize images.


Gmail is out of the question for numerious reasons.
Thanks for the Thunderbird suggestion. I eventually got it working - but only if I use the ExQuilla plug in. There are now two problems:

A) ExQuilla isn't free - I just discovered it's $10/year. That is too much just to send emails with images that aren't screwed up.

B) In Thunderbird, although it does manage to send emails without re-sizing them, it DISPLAYS them resized (larger by 25% in my case - due to my using Window's 125% DPI setting).

Any suggestions?


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

Could you reset your desktop dpi to the standard 96, then resize the desktop elements using Control Panel > Display > Personalization > Windows Color > Advanced Appearance Settings to get the same effect as you're getting with 125%? If that gives satisfactory results, you can go back to using the standard 96dpi in your Outlook emails and your recipients will see the images as intended.










I haven't used Thunderbird for a few years, so can't advise on that. However, I found a couple of articles yesterday that give instructions on how to create a header template to bypass Outlook's weird image resizing problem. Looks complicated, but once you've got it setup you shouldn't have to do anything else and you can stick with Outlook:

https://litmus.com/community/discussions/151-solved-dpi-scaling-in-outlook
https://www.campaignmonitor.com/for...13-with-windows-81-200-scaling-some-findings/


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Fiddling within Windows fonts I have tried in the past and it is too fiddly and always ends in tears.

Thunderbird demands a plugin (from memory ExQuilla) in order to work with Exchange. Unfortunately it's $10/year which seems a lot of money and hassle to solve what is a Microsoft Office problem. 

Moreover Thunderbird also seems to renders images too large when composing them dues to my having Windows DPI necessarily set above 100% (96DPI).




koala said:


> However, I found a couple of articles yesterday that give instructions on how to create a header template to bypass Outlook's weird image resizing problem. Looks complicated, but once you've got it setup you shouldn't have to do anything else and you can stick with Outlook:
> 
> https://litmus.com/community/discussions/151-solved-dpi-scaling-in-outlook
> https://www.campaignmonitor.com/for...13-with-windows-81-200-scaling-some-findings/


OK now this feels like the answer! [Finally!] 
However it is horrendously complicated. For a start I cannot work out how to edit the default HTML (nor in fact any HTML) on Outook emails! Any suggestions?


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

Sorry, I don't have any experience working with Outlook. Those were just 2 articles I found that looked like they might be relevant. I'll ask around and see if any of our MS techs can help.


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

Koala's link is the best way. You can try this, but it doesn't do exactly what you want: Outlook 2013: Resize Large Image Attachments


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Corday said:


> Koala's link is the best way. You can try this, but it doesn't do exactly what you want: Outlook 2013: Resize Large Image Attachments


Nice try, however that is only talking about ATTACHED images, and is not about images inserted into the (HTML) body of the email.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

If you have changed your Windows Text size (like many of us with high res screens do need to) so far the ONLY way I have found to send HTML emails with images embedded into the HTML at their 'real'/'actual' sizes is to abandon Outlook (yes even v2013 does not work!) and to use Mozilla Thunderbird. >:^[


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

As a personal client, I prefer TBird. Outlook has more business use. MS should never have abandoned OE for the typical home user.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

What is OE?

I really, REALLY don't understand how come Microsoft have failed to correct this "image-screwing up" problem for anyone who has increased the Window DPI size (i.e. those increasing numbers of us who have high resolution screens). 

They must have some sort of (albeit misguided) theory about this.


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

OE = Outlook Express.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Corday said:


> OE = Outlook Express.


Wait, Corday I do you actually work for Microsoft?
Can you shed any light on why this VERY long-standing issue with Outlook has never been fixed by Microsoft. I am puzzled - genuinely.

J


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

We are volunteers at TSF. As far as I know, no TSF staffers are Microsoft employees. We're free to give our advice/opinions without any corporate interference, hence, unbiased assistance.


----------



## Masterchiefxx17 (Feb 27, 2010)

I don't see this as an issue at all since its by design.

Outlook is going to resize photos and documents so it can be sent through email. Email can only be a certain size.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Masterchiefxx17 said:


> I don't see this as an issue at all since its by design.
> 
> Outlook is going to resize photos and documents so it can be sent through email. Email can only be a certain size.


No, no, NO. Sorry but you just don't understand the problem do you?

The problem is that if you increase your Windows "DPI" (as more an more of us are now behing forced to so by high res screens), then every image 'inserted' into any email you send gets physically *BLURRED*.

And the more you have changed your DPI, the worse this effect is. 
So any image that you send from outlook becomes physically blurred upon the arrival of the email.

Worse, this is not a matter of defaults, I have done my research and there is absolutely *no way around this problem*. 

And every single time you press Send they get even more blurred. If fact if you press Send and then go and edit the email in our Outbox before hitting Send again, it then the images become a total mess because they get double-blurred before the email arrives. This is because because you have pressed Send twice. And if you edit it three times it now becomes tripple-blurred... etc etc. 

Please, please tell me that Microsoft does not think that images being _(unavoidably!) _physically blurred when they are sent is "not a problem". 

:banghead: :facepalm: :banghead:


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

Images resize and become unsharp upon sending - HowTo-Outlook


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Corday said:


> Images resize and become unsharp upon sending - HowTo-Outlook


Nope. Nice try, but unfortunately what is suggested on that link doesn't work. 

A) I tried changing the file DPI on JPEG file and it does not resolve the problem.

B) On GIF images there is no DPI and still they get resized.

Either way you still aren't really listening are you, Microsoft. The fact is this is a huge usability problem in Outlook. How many users are going to go to all that length just to stop Outlook from frankly 'murdering' their images?
10% of users? 5%? In truth probably less than 1%.

Nope most users just live with the awful mess you guys make of their images. What to your user trials say? Have you even done any around this issue?

If not you really need to wake up, smell the coffee and listen to your users. Because your competitors are stealing your lunch by doing exactly that. Listening to users intelligently but obsessively.


:banghead::banghead::banghead:


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

OK. The way way to get around that is to open in Paint and re-size to 96dpi there.
I use Corel for this purpose. Printers don't use Outlook and prefer Apple products for graphics and Windows for other business purposes like Accounting. If you have a beef with MS, call them directly in Redmond.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Corday said:


> OK. The way way to get around that is to open in Paint and re-size to 96dpi there.
> I use Corel for this purpose. Printers don't use Outlook and prefer Apple products for graphics and Windows for other business purposes like Accounting. If you have a beef with MS, call them directly in Redmond.


I have tried 
A) changing JPG internal DPI to 96 using photoshop, and re-saving with other external utilities. 

B) I have tried the same thing with saving using PNG files intead of JPG.

C) I have tried using GIF files instead too. However you can't change a GIF file's DPI because it doesn't store such a thing.

However none of the above work.


Yes, I have a beef with MS. No, I'm not going to waste my time helping them improve their products. The reason for my writing this post is because I thought you work for them, no?

Either way if they are interested in generating products that have any hope of surviving in the long term they should be reading forums like this.


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

Nobody here works for MS. We are all volunteers doing this for free in our spare time with no affiliation with any companies. The people with Microsoft team banners specialize in solving problems related to the MS operating systems, but they are not paid by or have any contact with Microsoft. See post#25 from Corday.

The problem with Outlook resizing images has been known about for years. MS are not going to do anything about it, so your best bet would be to use a different program or configure your display using the instructions in post#15.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

koala said:


> Nobody here works for MS. We are all volunteers doing this for free in our spare time with no affiliation with any companies. The people with Microsoft team banners specialize in solving problems related to the MS operating systems, but they are not paid by or have any contact with Microsoft. See post#25 from Corday.
> 
> The problem with Outlook resizing images has been known about for years. MS are not going to do anything about it, so your best bet would be to use a different program or configure your display using the instructions in post#15.


 
> The people with Microsoft team banners <snip> are not paid by or 
> have any contact with Microsoft. 

If that is the case there is no point in this conversation. I am aware that the Outlook problem has been known about for years and that there is no work around (short of logging out and changing Windows system DPI every time you want to send an email.)

Yes, I know that Microsoft are not going to fix the problem but I was intellectually curious about exactly why not.

i.e. I thought I was talking to a member of Microsoft and I was curious about why they have persisted in failing to solve this ever growing problem and I hoped Corday might be able to tell me the reasons behind this folly.

In my defence why ON EARTH are these volunteers described so inaccurately? Frankly this is but jaw-droppingly weird. Common sense would say that a title like this:

> Corday
> Team Manager
> Microsoft Support

...means that Corday is employed as a Team Manager and works for Microsoft Support, albeit possibly under contract via some 3rd party. Either way is would clearly seem that this person is a representatives of Microsoft's Support division. If you are telling me that Corday does not work for Microsoft Support, then all I can tell you is that he(she?) is passing himself off as someone who does!


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

We are Technical Support Forum (TSF). There is no misrepresentation. Our team members who work on Microsoft problems all have the banner displayed just as Koala shows he's a member of the Hardware Team in his posts.


----------



## joeten (Dec 4, 2008)

You made the assumption, it was previously pointed out that all here are volunteers and no one works for Microsoft, nor that I 'am aware of any other company of similar ilk. The naming convention is used to give posters an indication that the person helping them has skills in a particular area, we cannot be held responsible for anyone making assumptions, however if they ask the question we are very clear in the response that we do not work for Microsoft or anyone else for that matter, the help provided is free and given by people who willingly give up their free time to assist others. If you wish Microsoft to help you they will but be prepared to pay a fee for their assistance.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

The hardcore geeks who live here might well agree with you. 

And yes, a lawyer might conceivably agree with you too. 

However if you were to ask anyone else they would say "Microsoft - Team Manager" sounds like someone who works for Microsoft managing some sort of team.

And the "Microsoft Tech Team" on what is Microsoft's company logo sounds and looks like a department of Microsoft called "Tech Team".

If you can't see that, then I challenge you to take a print-out of your signatures out into the street and ask 20 random strangers who they think the person in question works for.

There isn't even 1% of doubt how the vast majority of "reasonable men (and women) will respond.

If you still disagree, go ahead - prove it. And come back here with your results.


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

No-one has tried to deceive you, it's just a misunderstanding on your part. We've tried to help, offering several suggestions, alternative email clients and links to relevant articles.

If you'd like to talk to a Microsoft representative about their software, contact their official support forum at http://answers.microsoft.com or give them a call.

As this thread has now gone off-topic, and you say in post#33 "_there is no point in this conversation_," do you still want to continue or would you like the thread to be closed?


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

koala said:


> No-one has tried to deceive you, it's just a misunderstanding on your part. We've tried to help, offering several suggestions, alternative email clients and links to relevant articles.
> 
> If you'd like to talk to a Microsoft representative about their software, contact their official support forum at http://answers.microsoft.com or give them a call.
> 
> As this thread has now gone off-topic, and you say in post#33 "_there is no point in this conversation_," do you still want to continue or would you like the thread to be closed?


Whether or not any deception is conscious/deliberate is a side issue. Your use of titles and descriptions certainly does *appear* to be deceptive and nobody has produced any argument to counter this opinion. I rest my case.

Back to what this thread is about, please do not close this thread, because nobody has provided an a solution to my problem. Nor has anyone provided any insight into why Microsoft has failed to solve this long-standing problem. Yes, for some time now I have been using Thunderbird to send emails with images. It is painful but it although it works very much better than Outlook it is not a decent solution to this issue.

Please do not close this thread because there is a chance that someone out there will figure out a way to send inserted into Outlook emails without DPI at 96, but without blurring them.


----------



## joeten (Dec 4, 2008)

Again if you want an answer to the reasons why, ask Microsoft, a have no more idea than you.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

joeten said:


> Again if you want an answer to the reasons why, ask Microsoft, a have no more idea than you.


In all honestly, what do you think the chances of my getting an answer would be for such a question?


----------



## koala (Mar 27, 2005)

joeten said:


> Again if you want an answer to the reasons why, ask Microsoft, a have no more idea than you.





ship69 said:


> In all honestly, what do you think the chances of my getting an answer would be for such a question?


They're the most likely to know the answer. Everyone else is just guessing or offering workarounds.

Try their support forum. The replies from MS reps at the MS site often appear to be scripted, but you might get lucky.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Fwiw, this problem ain't going away any time soon.

Have you seen the new Microsoft laptop?

https://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-gb/devices/surface-pro-4#techspec-block

Resolution: 2736 x 1824 (267 PPI) ... on a 12.3” display

There is no way text will be anything close to readable (without powerful glasses) at a system setting of "96DPI".


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

OK - question asked. See:

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...-6753-4252-93f7-1da02b31f0a2?tm=1444999947383


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

No reply yet...


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Oh well... [deep sigh]


----------



## Corday (Mar 3, 2010)

Obviously no one at the MS Forum has any concerns about this.


----------



## ship69 (Aug 9, 2013)

Corday said:


> Obviously no one at the MS Forum has any concerns about this.


It sounds like the other users have probably either given up trying to get Microsoft to fix such a long-standing problem or if they have the option have simply abandoned Outlook. [further deep sigh]

But make no mistake this is exactly the sort of reason why Apple are way more successful that Microsoft. They really listen to users. They simplify interfaces as much as they possibly can. They don't try and please everyone, but they get the basics working really well.

This is basic, basic, basic. And it doesn't work well.


----------

