You’ve probably seen them. Those long, terrifying strings of gibberish that look like a cat walked across a keyboard while holding down the Shift key. They usually start with something like data:image/png;base64 and then spiral into thousands of characters of pure chaos. Most people call these image lines of code, though if you want to be fancy at a dinner party, the technical term is Base64 encoding.
It’s a weird way to handle visuals.
Normally, an image is a file. You host it on a server, you link to it in your HTML, and the browser goes and fetches it. Easy. But image lines of code turn that file into a text string that lives directly inside your HTML or CSS. It’s like deciding that instead of keeping your milk in the fridge, you’re going to dehydrate it into powder and mix it directly into the drywall of your kitchen.
Does it work? Yes. Is it always a good idea? Honestly, usually not.
The Messy Reality of Base64 Encoding
The logic behind using image lines of code is simple: fewer requests. Every time a browser loads a page, it has to ask the server for every single little icon, logo, and photo. Each "ask" takes a tiny bit of time—the "round trip" latency. By embedding the image directly into the code, you cut out the middleman. The browser doesn't have to ask for the image because it’s already holding it.
But there’s a massive catch.
Binary data (the stuff images are made of) is dense. Text isn't. When you convert an image into Base64 code, the file size swells by roughly 33%. You’re trading a small delay in "asking" for a massive increase in the amount of "stuff" the browser has to download upfront. If you overdo it, your HTML file becomes a bloated monster.
I’ve seen developers try to embed a 2MB hero image using these code lines. The result? A website that feels like it’s stuck in 1998 dial-up mode. The browser sits there, paralyzed, trying to parse a 3-million-character string of text before it can even show the user a single word of content. It’s a performance killer that hides in plain sight.
When Image Lines of Code Actually Make Sense
Don't get me wrong. I’m not saying you should never use them. There are specific, niche scenarios where embedding image lines of code is basically a superpower.
Think about tiny UI elements. A 100-byte chevron icon or a small "check" mark.
If you have fifty of these little guys on a page, making fifty separate server requests is objectively stupid. In that case, bundling them directly into your CSS via Base64 can actually make your site feel snappier. This is particularly true for "above the fold" content where you want the most critical branding elements to appear instantly without waiting for a second wave of downloads.
Email marketing is another weird one.
Coding for email is like coding for a museum piece from the early 2000s. Outlook and Gmail have their own quirky rules about how they display images. Sometimes, embedding an image as a line of code is the only way to ensure that a specific logo shows up without the user having to click "Display Images" at the top of the message. It's a hack, but in the world of email dev, hacks are the currency of the realm.
The Technical "How-To" for the Curious
If you’re looking at your source code and seeing these long strings, here is what is actually happening. The computer is taking the binary bits—the ones and zeros—and remapping them to a set of 64 characters (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, +, and /).
A typical snippet looks like this:
📖 Related: Prime Video Membership Management: Why Your Billing Page Is So Messy (And How To Fix It)
<img src="" />
That tiny string is actually a 1x1 pixel image. If that were a high-resolution photo of your dog, that string would be longer than a Tolstoy novel.
Why Google Discover and SEO Care About This
You might think Google doesn’t care about how your images are stored as long as they show up. You’d be wrong.
Google’s Core Web Vitals—specifically Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)—are obsessed with how fast your main content loads. If you bury your primary image inside a mountain of code, you’re delaying the moment the browser can "read" and render that image. Even worse, search engines can't always index images properly when they are trapped in Base64 format.
If you want your photos to show up in Google Image Search, keep them as files.
When an image is a standalone file (like photo.jpg), Google’s crawlers can find it, read its metadata, and understand its context. When it's just a blob of text inside a div, it's basically invisible to the "image" part of the internet. It’s a ghost.
✨ Don't miss: Who was the CEO of Google? The evolution of a tech giant
The Scalability Nightmare
Maintenance is where the "image as code" dream goes to die.
Imagine you’ve embedded twenty icons as Base64 strings across five different CSS files. Then, your brand manager decides the shade of blue in those icons is "too aggressive" and wants a slightly softer teal.
If those were files, you’d just overwrite icon.png on the server. Done.
With image lines of code, you have to go into every single file, find those massive blocks of text, delete them, re-encode the new images, and paste the new strings back in. It’s tedious. It’s prone to error. It makes your version control (like Git) look like a disaster zone because every time you change an icon, the "diff" shows thousands of lines of changed text.
Your fellow developers will hate you. Honestly, they will.
Better Alternatives for Modern Web Dev
We live in the era of HTTP/2 and HTTP/3.
The old rule of "minimize requests at all costs" isn't as true as it used to be. Modern servers can handle multiple requests simultaneously over a single connection. The penalty for having 20 small images is way lower than it was ten years ago.
If you really want to optimize, look into SVG.
SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) is also technically "image lines of code," but it’s readable. It’s XML. It looks like <svg><circle ... /></svg>. It’s lightweight, it’s infinitely scalable, and it’s much better for SEO because the text inside the SVG can actually be read by search engines. If your icon can be an SVG, it should be an SVG. No exceptions.
Actionable Steps for Your Website
If you're currently dealing with a slow site or messy code, here is how you audit and fix the "image code" problem.
- Audit your HTML size. Open your website, right-click, and select "View Page Source." If you find yourself scrolling for five minutes past a wall of random characters, you have a Base64 problem.
- Set a size limit. A good rule of thumb? Never embed anything over 2KB. If the image is larger than that, save it as a physical file.
- Use WebP or AVIF. Instead of trying to "hide" your images in code to save time, just use better image formats. WebP files are significantly smaller than PNGs and JPGs without losing quality.
- Prioritize SVG for icons. Replace all your Base64 encoded icons with inline SVGs. They are cleaner, faster, and you can change their color using CSS without re-encoding anything.
- Check your "Alt" tags. Whether an image is a file or a line of code, it needs alt text. Google uses this to understand what the image is. Don't skip it just because the source looks technical.
The goal of a great website is to be fast and maintainable. Image lines of code offer a shortcut that usually ends up being a long road to a slow site. Use them sparingly, like salt in a recipe. A little bit makes things better; too much makes the whole thing unpalatable.
Stick to modern image formats and keep your code clean. Your users—and your SEO rankings—will thank you.