When storing images to S3 with Assets 2, is it possible to store the images created by ExpressionEngine's native image manipulation functionality to S3 as well, or must they be saved to a local directory?

1 Answer 1


The Image Manipulations with EE are directly tied to a File Upload preference - which is a local source item, not an S3 bucket. I don't think that what you want is currently possible.

But, what I hear you saying is that you wish to use image manipulations and have those modified images uploaded/stored/referenced via S3. Is that right?

  • Correct. We're currently using CE Image, and it's working really well, but, it creates redundant copies of the source and output images on the local server, per this thread: expressionengine.stackexchange.com/questions/5648/… Feb 4, 2013 at 18:30
  • I'll send your idea for this to our team, Nick. Thank you!
    – Lisa
    Feb 4, 2013 at 18:45
  • We really could use this, too. The problem I'm seeing is that if Assets is set to upload directly to S3, the native image manipulations don't create anything, so there aren't any modified images to upload. Nov 14, 2014 at 16:08
  • Agreed, this feature would be a huge value to us since we run 3 app servers with images stored on S3.
    – Jon Horton
    Dec 18, 2014 at 21:53
  • Plus one on this... just discovered that using CE Image's AWS caching thing on an image slideshow of 30 files adds like 2 seconds to the page processing time over just serving the natively-resized-on-upload files from an EE upload directory. Would prefer to serve from S3, so combining on-upload resizing with S3 storage would be fantabulous!
    – Sandwich
    Jun 24, 2015 at 10:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.