Help SmugMug make a key decision

[Baldy]

The whispers for a larger image size have turned to a low rumble and we know what that means: the march of monitor pixels will increase the rumble volume, so we're thinking about an XL image size.

(Yes, we know the rumble volume for this is not as loud as for some other things in the queue, but it turns out to be an opportune time given engineering work we're doing on storage right now.)

The rumbles: "I don't get enough L when I click L."

We think XL should be 1024x768. Below the image where you currently see an L link, XL would appear beside it. Just like L, pros will be able to disable XL.

The good:

Two new gallery styles would be born, smugmug L and smugmug XL, which you can preview:

http://onethumb.smugmug.com/gallery/1377106

The dilemma:

smugmug L style (http://onethumb.smugmug.com/gallery/1377106/1/64999017/Original) would use the Large image size, which can be up to 800 pixels wide or high. For landscape photos, 800 px wide looks great and fits a 1280 monitor beautifully. But at 800 px high, you wouldn't be able to read the caption without scrolling, or any of the other stuff below the photo. That's because monitors are wider than tall.

The solution with the medium size was to make them up to 600 px wide or 450 px tall.

We can think of 2 practical solutions to this dilemma. I'll also mention a third not-so-practical solution so someone else doesn't have to propose it:

1. Resize all Large images to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.

The downside is all portrait-mode images that are now posted on forums and blogs at 800 px high would become 600 px high. 99% of forum posts would just adjust, but a few would look distorted -- like the ones on ADVrider where I posted a L image and specified in HTML in the post that it was 800px high.

2. Only resize the Larges going forward to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.

The downside is legacy Large images would make you scroll when viewed in the new smugmug L style. The upside: they would look as they did when they were originally posted in forums and blogs.

3. This one's messy... When the image is requested externally, give it up in it's original 800 px-high glory; when it's requested inside for a smugmug L gallery, resize on the fly to 600 px.

Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?

Thanks!
Baldy


EDIT: Nov 30th, 2007: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=77553 :evil

[KMCC]

Maybe I've had a long day, but I'm having trouble understanding the need for this change and I don't find much merit in any of the proposed solutions.

[cmason]

#1 seems the best to me. Oh and I welcome this change...Large is too small!

I go on the assumption that most blog posts don't force the image size, as most probably refer directly to the smugmug file. I also suspect that a great many do not post too many Large photos, but that is just my experience. Finally, those who have forced the sizes likely are doing some customization, so would be skilled at correcting if needed.

[cletus]

#1

[jfriend]

Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?
Yeah for larger images!

#1 seems out. Like it or not, smugmug is an image hosting site and more than a few people use links to smugmug hosted images in web pages (forums and other types of web pages). You just can't unilaterally assume that your users haven't assumed the image was a certain size. Even if it isn't coded to a certain size in the image tag, the whole layout of their HTML page may have assumptions about it's size.

You could leave the -L image as it is and create a new -L2 that followed the different rules, but if someone links to the existing -L image, I think you can't change what they get.

#2 is probably the best compromise. Existing -L images stay the size they are, but Smugmug isn't burdened with forever supporting the existing size on new galleries. You could even give the user a control on a gallery basis or a site-wide basis to "upgrade" their Large images to the new size. If you think you have a reliable way to communicate with your customers, you could even announce that everyone will get converted in 12 months, so if you have any external links that rely on the current -L size, they should get fixed.

#3 seems overly complicated, fraught with some difficulties (it won't always work perfectly) and forever burdens Smugmug with maintaining this legacy support which I think would be bad for all of us to drag on this complexity forever.

So, I'd vote for 2a which is to automatically make newly created galleries to the new size of Large, give the user the opportunity to "upgrade" their existing galleries to the new size Larges and optionally announce that everyone will be upgraded in 12 or 18 months. This seems like it achieves simplicity in the long run, provides a graceful transition period, gives new galleries the immediate benefit of the new size and gives customers plenty of time to adapt.

In another twist, it seems like user created themes or CSS customizations that assume a particular size of Large image might also have problems with the new size.

[Mike Lane]

My $0.02:

I think Smugmug is in danger of gallery style fatigue. Filmstrip? Sure! Critique, uh... well okay. Super large? Uh guys... I know that it's probably mostly the lazy themer / smugmug site designer in me, but when I already have to worry about styling:
The homepage (that is a gallery after all)
Smugmug
Smugmug Small
Traditional
All Thumbs
Slideshow Small
Slideshow Medium
Slideshow Large
Journal
Filmstrip Small
Filmstrip Medium
Filmstrip Large
Single Image Small
Single Image Medium
Single Image Large
Single Image Original
Category pages
Sub-category pages
Password required pages
empty gallery pages
Make sure all the above styles work in the keyword galleries (which just go easier to do. Thanks!)
Same for the Date pages (again, just got easier ... thanks!)
Same for popular pages
And of course the lightbox :rolleyesI'd really rather not have to worry about Smugmug XL or Smugmug Gigantor or whatever it'd be called. Actually let's not forget all the other styles that will be affected. This is what I see being added to this list:

Smugmug Gigantor
Filmstrip Gigantor
Slideshow Gigantor
Single Image Gigantor
All of the above for Keywords
Same for Dates
Same for Popular
And my money is going on their eventually being a Critique gigantor too.Obviously I know that the list that poor wittle me would have to update is smaller than your guys' by leaps and bounds. But the way I see it adding the gigantor image size would add 25% more galleries to worry about.

Okay, almost done...

Also I'm thinking that as a user who isn't all that familiar with Smugmug, being inundated with gallery styles wouldn't be a good thing. My limited experience watching people navigate my site who aren't familiar with Smugmug (and may have been a smidge tipsy :uhoh - not me, them) was that they got frustrated by all the gallery style choices. Plus there seems to be some overlap with the gallery styles. Do we need an all thumbs and a traditional? Why not All Traditional (or captiony thumb goodness)? Single image and critique? Why not critique small, med, large? Filmstrip and non FS slideshow? Why not filmstrip with a FS slideshow button?

Combine, consolidate, and then expand :thumb If you did consolidate the gallery styles, I'd be all over the gigantor styles like DavidTO on a Mac :deal But now I'm thinking, ugh, I'm not sure if $500 is enough of an incentive for me to do a theme and maybe it's time to think about increasing my rates.

Of course, I'm just one lazy guy with an agenda. :dunno

[pat.kane]

I like the idea of a larger size, but like Mike wonder what the overall impact is. Themes have been slow to roll out in any large quantity. This will make their completion even more difficult.

I've been looking over the images provided and am really at a loss right now for providing any constructive criticism on a better way to do it though. I'm sure if it's implemented, everyone will find a way to adapt.

[dmc]

Journal Large.... All my galleries use it...(I upgraded to Power user just for this customized view) If I could select how many pictures per page, I would like that....I would just up it to 50 pics per page, Large!

I just like to view my pics by dragging the scroll bar down, no clicking, black background, simple.

I am surprised you still haven't offered Journal Medium and Journal Large... It was an easy mod. (I mean, put options on the Journal view, don't make a bunch of new styles).

I know, I didn't respond to the original question, it was too complicated... my eyes glazed over... I just wanna see my pics.

It works so good now, I use smugmug to browse my pics, I don't even bother with my desktop software... :lust

Enjoy the Butterflies Here (http://dmcpics.smugmug.com/gallery/1374152)
http://dmcpics.smugmug.com/photos/64844217-M-1.jpg (http://dmcpics.smugmug.com/gallery/1374152)

[asd]

I can't wait for larger images! I think that was one of the first things I wrote to support about after signing up last year.

I like jfriend's reasoning and vote for his solution. I guess that's #2.

At the same time I also get Mike Lane's complaints. I don't have the time to tinker and get in-depth with customizing my own site (and want to save visitors confusion), so I've instead forced all of my galleries to a specific style. A solution to Mike's problem might be to let us decide which styles are available to visitors of a gallery, just as we can do for product availability.

At any rate, I can't wait for the larger images!!

[joffun]

I don't know how many people post large images externally on forums etc, but as a proportion I would imagine that it is small.

Having different size images in the same gallery (#2) would look very odd & not at all streamlined IMO

As others have said, #3 sounds just sounds a bit messy

So out of the three I would go for #1

[bwg]

I agree w/mike (thats twice in 2 days...something must be wrong w/me)

while i agree w/most of his points from a styler POV, i believe the bigger issue to be the user POV. There are just too many gallery templates. I'm sure you guys have staticstics that support your decisions, but from where I sit, I just dont see the need for filmstrip, critique and both allthumbs and traditional.

As a pretty knowledgeable user, I spend most of my time in sm-small style even though i have pretty hi rez displays (1280x1024) i vary rarely have a browser maximized to my full window and sm-small lets me see everything on one screen w/out having to scroll. If i need to find an image fast or use the bulk zoom hack, i'll switch to allthumbs. Anyone else i've ever watched use SM has only used SM style and maybe slideshow.

my suggestion, would be before or in concert with adding new huge image styles, to consolidate your existing styles:

- One smugmug style in the style picker then the user could select sm/med/lg/gigantor once in the gallery (like slideshow)

- combine allthumbs/traditional and allow users to select options for captions and number of thumbs per page

- let the user select sm/med/lg in journal style

- throw a big party, thank them for their service and then retire filmstrip and critique. yes i know critique has been incorporated in the new browse page...but it could be replaced with 'Most popular Sites/Photographers' :wink

so that's my .02, but since you asked I vote for option 1.

[JamesJWeg]

Maybe I've had a long day, but I'm having trouble understanding the need for this change and I don't find much merit in any of the proposed solutions.

That is two of us. I have never really liked the idea of differant size depending on portrait vs landscape. How about having xl OFF by default so we don't have to go through all our exsisting gallies to change it if we don't want it? 1024x768 is getting too easy for people to steal the shot and get a good print, at that size it would be easy to get a good print of a protected photo. Maybe you could script it to have xl off by default on all exsisting galleries that are protected.

James.

[gblotter]

I'm not sure I see the need for XL either (change is bad, we fear change) ...

But if you are determined to move forward with XL, then I think option #1 is the only solution. Having all these provisions to display a differently sized "Large" photo will only be a support nightmare in the future - users will not be able to figure out what smugmug is doing and they will be bugging you constantly with questions. So just pick a size and go with it everywhere.

[ivar]

#1, i think the amount of problems occuring in forums, blogs etc will be minimal. Number 2 will give more people problems, and number 3 just sounds terrible.

I am also in favor of removing the critique/filmstrip and the possible traditional style. I am wondering if you guys at smugmug have any form of statistics about the number and type of forced styles. I wonder if alot of people force the critique and filmstrip styles. personally i have forced all my galleries in something other than those...

[{JT}]

I am also in favor of removing the critique/filmstrip and the possible traditional style.

I think comments like this are the most surprising to me. No one forces you to use any of those styles - and no one says that you have to choose them in your gallery, so why the animosity?

I for one LOVE traditional. I usually want to see more thumbs than smugmug and larger than all thumbs view without the risk of stumbling on a gallery with 2000 photos (you know who you are! split those galleries up!)

As for critique and filmstrip - you'd be surprised at the good things we hear about them :)

[Andy]

I am also in favor of removing the critique/filmstrip and the possible traditional style.

Lots of pros using Filmstrip.

Critique - it's a special purpose style - loupe, exif laid out nicely, it's all good :thumb

[bwg]

Lots of pros using Filmstrip.

Critique - it's a special purpose style - loupe, exif laid out nicely, it's all good :thumb

*Andy Williams is a compensated endorser for filmstrip and critique gallery styles

[rainforest1155]

#2 is probably the best compromise. Existing -L images stay the size they are, but Smugmug isn't burdened with forever supporting the existing size on new galleries. You could even give the user a control on a gallery basis or a site-wide basis to "upgrade" their Large images to the new size. If you think you have a reliable way to communicate with your customers, you could even announce that everyone will get converted in 12 months, so if you have any external links that rely on the current -L size, they should get fixed.
I agree with John that you should announce the images are started to get converted after let's say 6 or even 12 months like John proposed and at the same time give everyone the possibility in the control panel schedule the conversion now.

But I've also to agree with Mike and BWG with their concerns about the gallery style confusion. The whole style collection has get more streamlined as most visitors probably won't change the style at all - they just want to view some photos and not fiddle around with different possibilities to browse a gallery. So at least giving us an option to select the range of styles visitors can choose of would be very nice. I just can't think of a common visitor coming through google changing his style to filmstrip or critique.

Additionally I agree with others that say that the possible new XL-size should be disabled by default for pros. I also would go so far to propose that power-users can turn it off too as 1024px is a huge picture size and as a former power user I wouldn't be very happy that people out of a sudden can download any picture at that size without any trouble and I couldn't do anything about it. (I've larges enabled, but XL is too much from my point of view)

Thanks,
Sebastian

PS: I use Traditional view almost exclusively as it gives me a quicker overview.

[ivar]

I think comments like this are the most surprising to me. No one forces you to use any of those styles - and no one says that you have to choose them in your gallery, so why the animosity?

I for one LOVE traditional. I usually want to see more thumbs than smugmug and larger than all thumbs view without the risk of stumbling on a gallery with 2000 photos (you know who you are! split those galleries up!)

As for critique and filmstrip - you'd be surprised at the good things we hear about them :)I've said that pretty much because of the same reason Mike/BWG gave. In all the smugmug sites i have seen from people, very few i have seen forcing the critique / filmstrip. That's also why i asked about the stats, of course if it is a well running style it should never get retired.

Personally these are a few things of those two.
-filmstrip: no clear beginning/end, no idea of how many photos there actually are and what you have seen already. It says how many photos there are , but in my head i don't get the same feeling. What doesn't help is the continuously moving strip, which makes me get loose track
-critique: i just don't see that many people would use it, only one image at a time, big with a lot of information that most people don't care about. Especially not the average Joe who is looking at family or vacation pictures. It would be great for people who are trying to learn from other people's photos though.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mean they are bad styles, i just don't see that alot of people would use it. And also, i could be totally wrong about the amount of people using those styles. I am seriously interested in stats about the use of them, if you have them and willing to share.

[flyingdutchie]

I totally agree with you, Mike!

I would not mind new gallery styles if (and only if) we, as smugmug gallery owners, could select which gallery styles are available to viewers.

Now, we only can force a gallery to be one style or allow all gallery styles. It is not possible to select more than one allowable gallery style (but not all).

I just don't want to be forced to go in and spend hours and hours styling the new gallery styles (Smugmug L and XL). If the feature i mentioned above was implemented, we could disable Smugmug L and XL until our styling of these gallery-types was done.

But thanks for the heads up, though! :D

[jfriend]

I would not mind new gallery styles if (and only if) we, as smugmug gallery owners, could select which gallery styles are available to viewers.

Now, we only can force a gallery to be one style or allow all gallery styles. It is not possible to select more than one allowable gallery style (but not all).I think flyingdutchie is on to something here.

This is a little off topic, but something that has long been missing from smugmug (yes, I've put it in a feature request thread before), is the ability for a gallery owner to set the initial gallery style, but still allow the user to change the style. I have a newly created gallery that I wrote a travelogue description by each image so I want people to initially see it in the Journal style, but if they want to switch to another style, I'd like to let them. As it is, I either have to force and lock the Journal style or assume that they will never see it in the Journal style.

It seems that the solution to the style proliferation for the stylers is to let them pick which styles are enabled for a given gallery or site. Then, if they were doing a bunch of custom CSS, they could decide which styles to support and not have to support them all with their custom CSS.

P.S. To the other stylers it's probably possible to limit the style choices today using JavaScript by simply removing choices from the drop-down and making sure the initial style isn't an unsupported one.

[Andy]

I dig both dutchie's and john's ideas

Not sure if they are do-able by the engineers, but I like 'em :D

[dogwood]

As a pro user who rarely allows for large view (I'm not fond of people ripping off my photos-- this still happens in medium view, of course), I'm fine with the settings right now. If I want XL, I simply enable original with a watermark-- on an 8 MP camera that is plenty big enough to fill several screens!

Anyway, just make it so we can turn the XL feature off and that would be great. I'm starting to think there should be different defaults for the pro accounts versus folks looking more to share photos-- seems like there are a lot of features lately that I've had to turn off (photo ranking, lightbox, camera info, etc.) And I know I'm not alone.

Thanks for asking for feedback though-- that feature I do like!

[ivar]

that sounds good, if i can eliminate certain style from the menu, i would be very happy :lust

[dmc]

I don't see enough reason to mess with Portrait Larges, even though I see the point of it. ... (Maybe the style could drop down 1 size when it comes across a portrait pic to make it fit better i.e. if viewing Large pics, use the Medium pic if it is portrait.) ... nahh.

I agree that having XL would be great... we definately need something between large and Original (which can be way too big now). Of course, allow users to disable their use (just add a "customize gallery" option after Allow Originals)

If you want to add a feature, give the lightbox a feature to view oversized images by allowing the user to "drag" the picture around... just like Google maps. The old mapquest was blown away when google maps came out and you could click and drag the map around in the window...(i.e. no scrollbar's) The first picture sharing website to do it wins!

Btw, my picture is popular today (http://www.smugmug.com/popular/today/1/64844217)...( I don't know how long this link will work :D )

[bwg]

- combine allthumbs/traditional and allow users to select options for captions and number of thumbs per page

i would like to revise my statement.

i'm sure you guys have already seen this...being so web 2.0 and all (i had forgotten about it since it sucked so hard when it was introduced), but something like this for allthumbs/traditional would be pretty sexy.

http://www.live.com/#q=andy%20williams%20&scope=images&page=results

If only the dynamic fetching of more images was implemented, it would be pretty useful for those 2000 photo galleries.

[Andy]

that I've had to turn off (lightbox, camera info, etc.)

Pete, do you really like that popup instead of a nice overlay? The popup seems so yesterday....

[Andy]

http://www.live.com/#q=andy%20williams%20&scope=images&page=results


Dang. Who is that guy using my name? Looks like they painted his teeth white :rofl

[dogwood]

Pete, do you really like that popup instead of a nice overlay? The popup seems so yesterday....

Andy:

I do like the popup and I've tested it compared to lightbox on friends and family. The basic pop-up just makes more sense to them. I can see where some folks would like the lightbox feature-- I'm just trying to keep my site really basic and really easy to navigate. I haven't even put the slideshow in there (luckily for people like you on the customization forum who would be helping me!)

Here's a quote from photographer Anoush Abrar in American Photo May/June 2006: "For me a website must be quick. You must find the information very fast. If the pictures are nice you don't need to put fancy stuff around them to make them nicer."

I couldn't agree more.

[greenlee]

The whispers for a larger image size have turned to a low rumble and we know what that means: the march of monitor pixels will increase the rumble volume, so we're thinking about an XL image size.
I 100% agree that the current "Large" version is too small for most monitors. The current sizing appears to be Small=400pxls-wide, Medium=600pxls-wide, Large=800pxls-wide & Original=3000+pxls-wide. There's a HUGE gap between Large & Original, and with my 1600x1200 monitor, the Large version of images is too small, and I often end up clicking on the Original view then having to scroll through the picture to see the areas of greatest detail/interest. Hence the rumble for a larger view size.

Now, I've been reading as many of the replies for this thread as I can with my relatively-short attention span, and it seems as though the agreed-upon way to tackle this problem is to create an additional gallery setting. I don't necessarily agree with this approach.

OPTION 4?: Why not just leave the site-owner settings the way they are and allow the viewers to either A) click on a ZOOM button to go beyond the current Large size in 200-pixel (wide) increments or B) click on a FULL SCREEN button to view the current photo in full-screen mode the way they're presented in the Slideshow mode? I don't think that an XL setting necessarily needs to be made into a gallery-wide setting. We all know that it's a rare treat to find a smugmug gallery in which more than half of the images deserve an XL view. Why not let smugmug save bandwidth and allow a zoom option only for those individual images that really beg for a closer look?

That said, SOME option must be selected. Kudos to smugmug for constantly monitoring customer rumbling!! :clap

Last comment: Stay away from a 1024x768 size or else you'll end up with scroll bars on the edges of the pics for those size monitors. 1000x750 would be better.

Thanks for reading!!!
Ken Greenlee
greenlee.smugmug.com

[Baldy]

Wow, tough topic but we're very grateful for how much thought and insight you've put into this.

Armed with this thread, we had quite a spirited meeting and here's the general plan:

1. We're going to start generating an XL size. As you can tell, some people are thrilled and some don't like it. We think most who fall into the don't-like-it camp have very valid concerns about image protection.

We'll automatically block access to XL if you've blocked Large, turned on image protection, or blocked originals.

If you haven't done those things, an XL link will appear beside the L link for single image view.

2. John's arguments for the large size dilemma and #2 being the best option resonated with us. There's no painless solution to this but we think the best compromise is to make larges at 600 pixels maximum for portrait-oriented shots and 800 for landscape (just for images going forward, not replacing the current larges in the database).

------- Those two things are the only ones we'll do in the near-term. The rest can wait while we think through the gotchas and work on other priorities. But here's what we're thinking, pending more feedback:

3. We're also concerned about the style-dropdown getting too long and complex, if it isn't already. We think the right thing to do is take the suggestions we've heard to enable an option in the control panel that lets you choose which gallery options will appear to your users. You will be able to enable/disable critique, etc.

Note that this will be for a user's entire SmugMug site — not on a gallery-by-gallery basis. Gallery customization is complex enough as it is. We'll hear some feature requests about that.

4. You'll also be able to set the default style that your users can override — a long-time feature request.

5. We think the right way to handle both Journal and SmugMug styles is to auto-select. Unless of course you override that preference in your control panel and force Journal small, for example.

In other words, by default the style drop-down would look the same as it does today, but additional Journal and SmugMug sizes would silently be added. Users would see them if their browser windows are big enough.

If you were with us our first year, you'll remember the problems the SmugMug style initially caused. People with big monitors loved it but hell had no fury like the person with 800x600. Once SmugMug small came along and we went into monitor detect mode, it was like pouring oil on troubled waters. We think that was one of our best decisions.

So you'd be able to force Journal small, Journal medium, or Journal auto, for example.

6. We're looking into what to do about single-image XL display when you click the link to get it. It's the problem we have with original display now. You don't get a good experience because we limit the horizontal display of the image to 800 pixels to keep them from breaking themes. Theme designers tended to favor that solution but people who want to see the image without scrolling say, "themes schmemes! Give me as much image as you can with no new scrollbars, man!" Open to ideas (Google maps idea noted).

Jimmy or Onethumb: if I've been unclear or gotten something wrong, set the record straight.

Everyone else: you're having a big impact on our direction, so keep fighting for your point of view if you think we're off base. :toni

Thanks!
Baldy

[DavidTO]

Not sure if this is part of your plan, but I would vote to not force the style based on monitor size (disabling XL, for instance) if you're logged in. What if I want to style that size, but I'm on my lappy, for instance?

[Baldy]

Not sure if this is part of your plan, but I would vote to not force the style based on monitor size (disabling XL, for instance) if you're logged in. What if I want to style that size, but I'm on my lappy, for instance?Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. We want to show all options while logged in — but somehow we need to do it better than we're doing it now, if possible. Can't tell you how many panic emails we get about things looking differently logged in and out.

[Mike Lane]

I would very much like the ability to select which styles the user is able to see. :thumb

I don't really see much of a problem with designing the singleImage gigantor (except if I'm doing the designing on my 1024x768 laptop:uhoh). It's not like Original where you could have an image that ranged in size from 801px to 22,000 px wide. If we know it is going to be either 1024px wide or 768px wide we can create a theme for that. Just a note, you may want to class the body tag, if possible, with the orientation of the image on display lest the white space get a bit too much.

I've got no problems with how the singleImage, Slideshow, or Filmstrip handles the switch from one image size to the next. I like the size picker, I think it works well. Perhaps you can implement that for the smugmug style?

I also very much like the auto select. Perhaps the autoselect should work site-wide. Detect the monitor and then set the default galleries to small, medium, large, or extra large for all galleries. You could include a size body class for all gallery styles. That way I can for example customize allthumbs based on a person's screen size (or not) if I'd like.

All that being said, I have to add that I just gave ideas that would increase the number of galleries there are to style :rolleyes I'm still against a large increase in types of galleries to style and I still think that consolidation could be and should be done.

[Baldy]

why the animosity?Don't think it's animosity — just passionate users expressing their passion for simplicity.

[wellman]

I've been reading through this thread, and I have three things to say:

1. Bravo to Smugmug for the upcoming XL size and the accompanying gallery goodness, whatever it might be. In my book, choice is good insofar as it doesn't harm or annoy the consumer. (In other words, choice is good when design is good.)

2. Kudos to all those who chimed in with their exceptionally well-reasoned responses. I found myself nodding my head in agreement, even with conflicting viewpoints. This thread is a great example of civilzed debate. I suppose we all have the same goal - a fantastic Smugmug experience.

3. Bravo to Smugmug for actually listening to its customers, and for taking feedback seriously when you get it.

Anyway, not to get all gushy, but I have to call a good one when I see it.

[Andy]

Andy:

I do like the popup and I've tested it compared to lightbox on friends and family. The basic pop-up just makes more sense to them. I can see where some folks would like the lightbox feature-- I'm just trying to keep my site really basic and really easy to navigate. I haven't even put the slideshow in there (luckily for people like you on the customization forum who would be helping me!)

Here's a quote from photographer Anoush Abrar in American Photo May/June 2006: "For me a website must be quick. You must find the information very fast. If the pictures are nice you don't need to put fancy stuff around them to make them nicer."

I couldn't agree more.

Hey so it's cool there's a way to turn it off :thumb BTW, your work and your site are both aces

[rutt]

There are at least some people who use journal styles and the custom journal JS code to have medium landscapes and large portraits. For people with large monitors, it's odd to have a the portraits be so much smaller than the landscapes.

i don't really care what the defaults are, but I'd love to be able to specify sizes explicitly in order to get a 800px high image link. Note that this has no effect at all on existing styles, it just means I can still get a 800px high image.

[JamesJWeg]

There are at least some people who use journal styles and the custom journal JS code to have medium landscapes and large portraits. For people with large monitors, it's odd to have a the portraits be so much smaller than the landscapes.

i don't really care what the defaults are, but I'd love to be able to specify sizes explicitly in order to get a 800px high image link. Note that this has no effect at all on existing styles, it just means I can still get a 800px high image.

Hmmm, maybe another autosense of screen size? I find the differance in size frustrating even on small screens though, however at the same time I can kinda understand why it is that way.

James.

[Baldy]

I find the differance in size frustrating even on small screensIt is frustrating and bugs me constantly. But monitors are going even further in the direction of wider than high, so the problem is getting worse. I wish it weren't so, but it's like walking into the frame store and finding out they don't carry portrait-oriented frames anymore. Combine that with consumer dislike for scrolling and you have a tough problem.

[dogwood]

monitors are going even further in the direction of wider than high, so the problem is getting worse. Combine that with consumer dislike for scrolling and you have a tough problem.
I bought a monitor that pivots to portrait mode and I rarely pivot it back to landscape mode. Makes my surfing a whole lot easier in portrait mode since I don't have to scroll as much and can see way more of a website at once than in landscape mode.

But I use a new iMac with a wide screen at work. 'Course for audio editing (I'm a radio producer) the wide screen is great since audio editing is linear. But most web pages sure aren't set up for left to right wide viewing. And I don't guess the public is going to embrace pivoting monitors in the near future so they can have the best of both worlds. Especially on laptops.

[rutt]

Let's forget about styles for the moment and just consider the actual images that SM hosts. If storage/compute resources weren't an issue here is what I'd like most of all.


A low level way to specify exactly the size image to display/download. For example: "http://rutt.smugmug.com/XXXXX-600x800.jpg" to download a 600x800 version.
A higher level way to specify the size of the image contingent on monitor (or better, browser window size). For example: "http://rutt.smugmug.com/XXXXX-AsBigAsWillFit.jpg" or "http://rutt.smugmug.com/XXXX-AboutHalf.jpg"

OK, it's not a perfect world for a couple of reasons. The totally arbitrary sizes from 1. won't work because the images should have fixed aspect ratios. It could be specified as a percentage of the original size or a maximum for either dimension. But, of course, SM probably doesn't want either to generate these on demand or keep an arbitrary different number of sizes of each image around. Similarly, the it's probably not practical (yet!) to offer any arbitrary size for 2.

But I do like having a low level way to say exactly what I want AND a higher level way that allows SM to choose what to serve based on the info the browser sends (when it does) about screen/window size.

Once these things exist, they can be used appropriately in SM styles and also as inline images in other web pages, emails, and posts.

Does this make any sense?

[dmc]

Focusing back to the original question. The issue being Large Images that have Portrait orientation and are "too tall" for comfort. Currently the Larges are 800pixels tall. Leave this alone, don't chance breaking what people may be used to... you know what that is like. :wink

To address the issue of Portrait Larges being too tall, store a new size
i.e. ...smugmug.com/photos/648##277-LP.jpg as in LargePortrait, and create this to whatever size you think is best (like 600 tall).

Then, when you make the styles smarter (ie with options), it can retrieve the "LP" file when desired. All it costs is some disk space, and makes for more flexibility for the customizers. (what % of pics are Portrait anyway I wonder, 40% maybe?)

I don't believe this was one of your options, I don't like changing the existing Large size nor the "resize on the fly" option.

FWIW - no biggie - whatever you wanna do - fine - no problemo - either way - doesn't matter - I'm cool...:cool

[Matthew Saville]

http://onethumb.smugmug.com/photos/64999105-S.jpg

Holy cow, is that for peple with 30" monitors?

I may not still have a 56k modem, but I DO still have a 13" monitor. 1024 pixels is my native width. And even at that, it's a stretch for "native"...

I think there's a point at which (no matter how big monitors get) you have to put a cap on how big your display images are, lest people start printing out their own 4x6's or 5x7's and have them look decent.

For me, that cap is 800 pixels. So even if I get myself a 20" monitor I wouldn't use a "Smugmug XL".

But hey, go ahead and offer it, as long as I can disable the 1024 "XL" images.

Preferably, I'd like to have new features debut as OFF in the "customize gallery" setting, an option I already voiced my opinion about: in short, having to go in and turn off a disliked feature in every single gallery is quite a nuisance. But, I'm not asking "the others" to have to go in and turn ON a new feature in each gallery. I'm just asking for a control panel option that allows me to dictate whether features debut on or off. Optimally, I could get 1-2 days advance notice of feature debut, and flip the switch accordingly if I want it on or off. A simple opt in / opt out feature, in effect...

-Matt-

[I Simonius]

I'm confused by the options, probably because it's the end of a long day
Anyway:
'L'needs to fit on a common sized monitor - which therefore means that 600 high is probabl;y going to be the limit for many still for a while

Those that want bigger just choose 'original' surely?:thumb

Sounds like the proposed cahnges could cause more problems than they solve

[cabbey]

4. You'll also be able to set the default style that your users can override — a long-time feature request.

Even for standard account holders? Or will that be for power and pro only?

Back to the original question, the added granularity that an XL image would provide is a very welcome addition in my book, the current spectrum of sizes has a huge gaping hole between L and O for anyone with even a moderately high resolution camera. I'm glad to see smugmug trying to ballance the needs of the professionals to protect their images, with the needs of the general public to share baby pictures with Aunt Maude.

[rwalls3]

For me, I resize all my pics I upload to fit 800x800 for two reasons:
1) First and foremost I don't like the resizing algorithm smugmug uses to produce the large images. The results sometimes look oversharpened and oversaturated. (I don't know if there is now an option to control the algorithm used or if this situation has been fixed.)

2) Upload speeds are much faster. I do my own backups so I don't need to upload original size.

Why am I sharing all this??? Well, if you arbitrarily resize (using your algorithm that I don't like) all my images to 600 high, if I want to keep my images looking the way I want them to look, I'm going to have to go back through almost two years of pictures and resize to 600px and reupload them. Or, I could just live with it and be unhappy.

So, to me, option #2 is the ONLY option that is acceptable.


On a more positive note: I love that you all continue to innovate, and I welcome XL pictures. :thumb

[Mike Lane]

The new $1000 theme bounty will certainly quell my problems with the extra gallery styles :deal

[rwalls3]

For me, I resize all my pics I upload to fit 800x800 for two reasons:
1) First and foremost I don't like the resizing algorithm smugmug uses to produce the large images. The results sometimes look oversharpened and oversaturated. (I don't know if there is now an option to control the algorithm used or if this situation has been fixed.)

2) Upload speeds are much faster. I do my own backups so I don't need to upload original size.

Why am I sharing all this??? Well, if you arbitrarily resize (using your algorithm that I don't like) all my images to 600 high, if I want to keep my images looking the way I want them to look, I'm going to have to go back through almost two years of pictures and resize to 600px and reupload them. Or, I could just live with it and be unhappy.

So, to me, option #2 is the ONLY option that is acceptable.


On a more positive note: I love that you all continue to innovate, and I welcome XL pictures. :thumb

Maybe the problem with oversharpening, oversaturating has been fixed. Just found this in the march 17th update:
"Better JPEG Quality. With our customer survey we heard you loud and clear - most of you use broadband. So why not make better looking Small, Medium, and Large images. All photos uploaded from now on will have less compression and better chroma sub-sampling."

That being said... I still prefer option 2

[BrianLowe]

Option 2 if I had to chose, I would like to see the XL option implemented as well.

What ever you do the page loads have load faster than they do now.


Just my 2 cents

Brian

[rainforest1155]

I don't get it - why are portrait large photos still only 450x600? Wasn't the purpose of this to make the large size in portrait orientation bigger?
For example - this one (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/67647235-L.jpg) was uploaded yesterday and isn't 600x800 at all. :dunno

Thanks,
Sebastian

[Andy]

I don't get it - why are portrait large photos still only 450x600? Wasn't the purpose of this to make the large size in portrait orientation bigger?
For example - this one (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/67647235-L.jpg) was uploaded yesterday and isn't 600x800 at all. :dunno

Thanks,
Sebastian

600max on teh tall side
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/04/27/new-features-april-27-2006/

[dmc]

After this whole thread asking for our input, you guys made changes without telling us???

I reloaded a Portrait image, and now the size is different...

Large portrait before (http://dmcpics.smugmug.com/gallery/1255126/2/58857038/Large) was 536x800
Large portrait now (http://dmcpics.smugmug.com/gallery/1255126/2/67795212/Large) is 402x600

thanks for the heads up...

[Andy]

After this whole thread asking for our input, you guys made changes without telling us???

thanks for the heads up...
Hey c'mon, dmc - you know us better than that! :rolleyes

posted on April 18th
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=292043&postcount=31

change implemented 9 days later on April 27th
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/04/27/new-features-april-27-2006/

Should we have maybe sent certified letters to you? :lol3

[rainforest1155]

600max on teh tall side
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/04/27/new-features-april-27-2006/
Oh, now I see. I understood the whole thing wrong and got confused with 600 tall and 800 wide.
I'm not happy with your decision to make the large size smaller, but I understand your reasons. Though if someone was bothered with scrolling in large portraits he could always switch to mediums. Now there's no way to get decent sized portrait pictures. :rolleyes

How are you going to handle this issue on the new XL size?

Thanks,
Sebastian

[Nikolai]

Sorry, didn't see this thread when it started.. :lust

While I would most likely welcome the advent of the upcoming XL size,
I stll don't see any valid reason why can't we just scale an image to fit the certain square box, whatever it's orientation is. 600x800 or 800x600 - just make it fit to 800x800 and let the software choose which side is which :dunno

I was also longing for proper resize of the panoramic shots. Having spent several hours on a multiimage panorama only to see it's being dispalyed as 50x800 is no joy at all... :cry

[Andy]

I was also longing for proper resize of the panoramic shots. Having spent several hours on a multiimage panorama only to see it's being dispalyed as 50x800 is no joy at all... :cry

Hi Nik,

You can pimp your site for your panos:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28192&highlight=originals+page
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=243580&postcount=6

[Nikolai]

Hi Nik,

You can pimp your site for your panos:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28192&highlight=originals+page
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=243580&postcount=6

I'll take a look at that..

I wonder if there is a single place (hopefully organized, categorized and having a nice Index) with al those nifty CSS tircks? Searching the whole dgrin without even knowing exactly what to search for is kinda inefficient..:dunno

[DavidTO]

I'll take a look at that..

I wonder if there is a single place (hopefully organized, categorized and having a nice Index) with al those nifty CSS tircks? Searching the whole dgrin without even knowing exactly what to search for is kinda inefficient..:dunno


Like this (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=26043)?

[Andy]

I'll take a look at that..

I wonder if there is a single place (hopefully organized, categorized and having a nice Index) with al those nifty CSS tircks? Searching the whole dgrin without even knowing exactly what to search for is kinda inefficient..:dunno

Nik, what you can do with CSS and SmugMug is infinite. I do my best, and Mike, Lee, Dev too. We have soldiered up a lot of stuff as stickys in the customization forum, why not try those?

[peestandingup]

But monitors are going even further in the direction of wider than high, so the problem is getting worse. I wish it weren't so, but it's like walking into the frame store and finding out they don't carry portrait-oriented frames anymore. Combine that with consumer dislike for scrolling and you have a tough problem. I know what you mean. I use a Mac mini hooked up to my HDTV, which has a native resolution of 1280 x 720. Now, thats a true widescreen ratio, but guess what happens when I look at my Smugmug galleries? Yup, it forces them to SM small, even though my monitor is huge. I know its because it lacks the x 768, but still. Allot of widescreen monitors are going with this res these days.

[onethumb]

There are at least some people who use journal styles and the custom journal JS code to have medium landscapes and large portraits. For people with large monitors, it's odd to have a the portraits be so much smaller than the landscapes.

i don't really care what the defaults are, but I'd love to be able to specify sizes explicitly in order to get a 800px high image link. Note that this has no effect at all on existing styles, it just means I can still get a 800px high image.

Your wish, or something like it, is my command (http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/05/16/new-features-may-16th-2006/).

[rutt]

Your wish, or something like it, is my command (http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/05/16/new-features-may-16th-2006/).

Thanks! Really, that's great, exactly the functionality I hoped for. Now, here is a suggestion. Why not cache these once you render them? I think that one request is very likely to mean you'll get more.

[dmc]

Your wish, or something like it, is my command (http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/05/16/new-features-may-16th-2006/).

wow..... I think that is really cool :thumb

not a feature I would of thought possible... performance is way better than expected. I fixed my Journal Large hack (because we have old and new Large Portrait sizes now) by setting the size I want, instead of what you have stored. It works fast, even at 10 pics per page. I don't know where the overhead is going, but it works.:clap

[onethumb]

wow..... I think that is really cool :thumb

not a feature I would of thought possible... performance is way better than expected. I fixed my Journal Large hack (because we have old and new Large Portrait sizes now) by setting the size I want, instead of what you have stored. It works fast, even at 10 pics per page. I don't know where the overhead is going, but it works.:clap

Yeah, if you early adopters could post links to places where you're using this functionality, that'll help me understand how it's used and how we can tune it to work both better and faster.

Thanks,

Don

[asd]

Wonderful feature! Thank you!

[dmc]

Yeah, if you early adopters could post links to places where you're using this functionality, that'll help me understand how it's used and how we can tune it to work both better and faster.

Thanks,

Don

Well my custom Journal Large is now resizing my old Large Portraits to the new Large portrait size (600 tall). This page (http://dmcpics.smugmug.com/gallery/1374152/2) has several portrait pics, all resized to "600 tall" on the fly.
function upsize_image(img, prefix, suffix, img_num, target) {
var caption = document.getElementById('caption'+img_num);
if (caption && upsize_re.test(caption.innerHTML)) {
target = RegExp.$1;
}
target = target.substr(0,1).toUpperCase();
img.src = prefix + "800x600" + suffix;
// if Image has at least one dimension large enough
if(img.width == small_max_width) { // landscape image
img.height = Math.round(2 * img.height);
img.width = Math.round(2 * img.width);
}
if(img.height == small_max_height) { // New portrait image
img.height = Math.round(2 * img.height);
img.width = Math.round(2 * img.width);
}

[rainforest1155]

Thanks! Really, that's great, exactly the functionality I hoped for. Now, here is a suggestion. Why not cache these once you render them? I think that one request is very likely to mean you'll get more.
That's a really great feature delivered in no time! :clap

One thing from a non-programmers standpoint: wouldn't it be better to serve the size I want without regard to the image orientation. Let's say I enter 800x600, but my image is in portrait orientation which currently would deliver a 450x600 image.
I would like SM to ignore the order in which I entered the pixel dimensions, because it should be obvious what I wanted, and deliver a 600x800 sized portrait. This would eraze the need for fancy javascript code checking the image orientation.

Or is there any reason from a programmers standpoint why that would be bad?

Concerning the caching: My IE already caches the custom requested sizes - they're showing up in my cache as '123456789-600x800.jpg'. Haven't checked it on FF though.

Sebastian

[rutt]

Don will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it scales the image so that the maximum of the two dimensions fits. So if you just want to get 800 on the longest side, use 800x800. As he said in his blog, you will never change the aspect ratio of the image delivered. What you do have to do is set the dimensions in the image property for an inline link.

The caching I was thinking about is on the server side. Suppose I make a very popular web page with a custom sized image. Suppose thousands of different people visit it. (I should be so lucky.) From what I understand, the image will have to be rendered thousands of times. But the server could hold onto the rendered custom sized image for a while after each request, avoiding having to rerrender each time.

I'm going to see if I can incorporate this particular feature into the JournalMedium script to allow a lot more flexibility as to image sizes.

Hey, Don, do you have a good sense as to when it's the right thing to ask for a custom size vs just using the image properties in the browser to resize one of the standard sizes?

That's a really great feature delivered in no time! :clap

One thing from a non-programmers standpoint: wouldn't it be better to serve the size I want without regard to the image orientation. Let's say I enter 800x600, but my image is in portrait orientation which currently would deliver a 450x600 image.
I would like SM to ignore the order in which I entered the pixel dimensions, because it should be obvious what I wanted, and deliver a 600x800 sized portrait. This would eraze the need for fancy javascript code checking the image orientation.

Or is there any reason from a programmers standpoint why that would be bad?

Concerning the caching: My IE already caches the custom requested sizes - they're showing up in my cache as '123456789-600x800.jpg'. Haven't checked it on FF though.

Sebastian

[rainforest1155]

Don will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it scales the image so that the maximum of the two dimensions fits. So if you just want to get 800 on the longest side, use 800x800. As he said in his blog, you will never change the aspect ratio of the image delivered. What you do have to do is set the dimensions in the image property for an inline link.
That was my point - it's not working that way:
The same portrait image with 600x800 (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/69950682-600x800.jpg) and 800x600 (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/69950682-800x600.jpg) requested. See?

Yeah, server side caching could save some processing power when the word about this feature spreads.

Sebastian

[rutt]

OK, I had the rule wrong. Now I think it's:
The largest similar rectangle which will fit the given dimensions.
Won't this work for you? Why? ImageMagick has a complex scheme for describing how to scale images, but I'm not sure what it would buy here.

That was my point - it's not working that way:
The same portrait image with 600x800 (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/69950682-600x800.jpg) and 800x600 (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/69950682-800x600.jpg) requested. See?

[onethumb]

Don will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it scales the image so that the maximum of the two dimensions fits. So if you just want to get 800 on the longest side, use 800x800. As he said in his blog, you will never change the aspect ratio of the image delivered. What you do have to do is set the dimensions in the image property for an inline link.

The caching I was thinking about is on the server side. Suppose I make a very popular web page with a custom sized image. Suppose thousands of different people visit it. (I should be so lucky.) From what I understand, the image will have to be rendered thousands of times. But the server could hold onto the rendered custom sized image for a while after each request, avoiding having to rerrender each time.

I'm going to see if I can incorporate this particular feature into the JournalMedium script to allow a lot more flexibility as to image sizes.

Hey, Don, do you have a good sense as to when it's the right thing to ask for a custom size vs just using the image properties in the browser to resize one of the standard sizes?

You're exactly right. If you want both landscape and portrait photos to have 800px on the longest, tell me 800x800 and I'll take care of it. :)

As for using the browser to resize, I wouldn't ever do it. Their resize algorithms are so pitiful, it's sad.

I've been waiting years for them to put a decent algorithm in (they all use simple bilinear, I believe), but since it hasn't happened, I have to throw backend hardware at the problem. :)

Don

[rainforest1155]

You're exactly right. If you want both landscape and portrait photos to have 800px on the longest, tell me 800x800 and I'll take care of it. :)
Okay, hadn't thought about that possibility. Thanks!

Sebastian

[Mike-Photos]

Making the large view smaller was a mistake IMO, and it's time to rectify it.

[rutt]

I have implemented a new version of the resizing code for journal galleries. See: http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=318417&postcount=139

It uses the standard smugmug sizes where possible and allows users access to custom sizes. I expect that at least some people will use it, so it's one of the examples Don asked for.

Here are a few galleries of mine which use it:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/gallery/1444752
http://rutt.smugmug.com/gallery/1421224

[staypuffinpc]

As a pro user who rarely allows for large view (I'm not fond of people ripping off my photos-- this still happens in medium view, of course), I'm fine with the settings right now. If I want XL, I simply enable original with a watermark-- on an 8 MP camera that is plenty big enough to fill several screens!


I agree. Why can't those who want XL just use "originals"?

[ivar]

I agree. Why can't those who want XL just use "originals"?Because Original can be 3000px by 2000px and greater. So viewing that on my screen (1600x1200) that would be too big, and missing a part. And an 800px wide photo looks pretty small on my screen :D

[staypuffinpc]

Because Original can be 3000px by 2000px and greater. So viewing that on my screen (1600x1200) that would be too big, and missing a part. And an 800px wide photo looks pretty small on my screen :D

Hmm..., good point. It seems what might be more useful is if there were a screen-detection JS and that small, medium and large were somehow calculated on that scale (of course, this could get wieldy). I do a lot of my styling on my personal computer, which is a 14" ibook at a 1024x768 resolution (b/c the darned thing doesn't go any higher). Obviously, large is just fine for that, often pushing most of the page out of view. But when I check those same pages on my computer at work, which has a lot more screen space (19") and higher resolution (12..something or other), large is a better fit. It would be nice if pics were always a certain percentage of the visible screen. that would keep the rest of the design more constant.

Of course, musing about all of these things is relatively easy, but implementing them in a way that won't slow down load times is not (and I'm not a programmer, so it's easy to be naïve).

[tsk1979]

Maybe I've had a long day, but I'm having trouble understanding the need for this change and I don't find much merit in any of the proposed solutions.
XL is definately needed on 17" monitors running 1600x1200 etc., which is pretty much common. The L images look tiny on them. Its high time we got XL, or even XXL which is 1280x1024 in 3:2 format.

[colourbox]

I agree. Why can't those who want XL just use "originals"?

That would be quite a big jump from L to Original if you're uploading from the new Nikon D2Xs, which pumps out 4288 x 2848 pixels (12 effective megapixels).

[yvonne]

Ok, folks, I haven't read the whole thread, because frankly, it all goes over my IT challenged head..

BUT I would strongly support an option like the one shown here:
http://onethumb.smugmug.com/gallery/1377106/1/64999146/Medium

Mainly because of the fact that you have 6 columns and 7 rows of thumbnails plus the large image.

The all thumbs version is a pain as you have to go to the big image and the return to the all thumbs view for an overview.

The standard smugmug view only has 3 x whatever thumbnails, which means customers keep having to turn the page over and over again,

So in my world, the above would be great... I know that's not the technical issue you're all discussing, but it's the thing that's most important to THIS user from a viewing point of view.

[rainforest1155]

Oh my! Looks like you're preparing for the XL-size launch!! My html-only page (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/gallery/1203855) already has gone WIDE. :wink

Anybody else seeing this on your sites?

Sebastian

[Andy]

Oh my! Looks like you're preparing for the XL-size launch!! My html-only page (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/gallery/1203855) already has gone WIDE. :wink

Anybody else seeing this on your sites?

Sebastian

I'm not seeing any wiiiide? Can you explain further please :ear

[rainforest1155]

I'm not seeing any wiiiide? Can you explain further please
For me it looks in both IE6 and FF like this (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/76011062-O.jpg). I even can't make the window any smaller (than 1024px wide) without having horizontal scrollbars appear. This wasn't the case a couple of days ago - back then every smugmug box was defaulted to 750px wide or something like that unless you messed with your customizations. I didn't change a thing in my customizations.

Am I going nuts? :dunno

Sebastian

[wellman]

For me it looks in both IE6 and FF like this (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/76011062-O.jpg). I even can't make the window any smaller (than 1024px wide) without having horizontal scrollbars appear. This wasn't the case a couple of days ago - back then every smugmug box was defaulted to 750px wide or something like that unless you messed with your customizations. I didn't change a thing in my customizations.

Am I going nuts? :dunno

Sebastian

Looks OK to me - FF on WinXP.

[rainforest1155]

For me it looks in both IE6 and FF like this (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/76011062-O.jpg). I even can't make the window any smaller (than 1024px wide) without having horizontal scrollbars appear. This wasn't the case a couple of days ago - back then every smugmug box was defaulted to 750px wide or something like that unless you messed with your customizations. I didn't change a thing in my customizations.
On my laptop with 800x600 as resolution it looks like it used to look on my 1280er monitor in terms of wide of the gallery description. See here (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/76012821-O.jpg) - just focus on the gallery description - ignore the header.

Aparently the thing senses my resolution and adjustes accordingly, but it doesn't seem to care about the browser window size.

Puzzled greetings,
Sebastian

[Andy]

On my laptop with 800x600 as resolution it looks like it used to look on my 1280er monitor in terms of wide of the gallery description. See here (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/photos/76012821-O.jpg) - just focus on the gallery description - ignore the header.

Aparently the thing senses my resolution and adjustes accordingly, but it doesn't seem to care about the browser window size.

Puzzled greetings,
Sebastian

Flush your cache and temp files?

[rainforest1155]

Flush your cache and temp files?
Nope, no change. I tried narrowing down the problem with the FF webdev bar. Removing all the CSS from smugmugblack.css let's me resize my browser window again with wrapping the text correctly.
This is my (http://rainforest1155.smugmug.com/include/css/smugmugBlack-20060615115938.css) smugmug black - maybe anyone can try including the content of it into a html-only page of your own.
Also it's not the only page where it happens to me - it's the same in my guestbook (http://www.sebastianhosche.com/gallery/1210358).

Sebastian

EDIT: Feel kind of stupid now - it's just that through flashing my cookies my standard traditional view selection got replaced with smugmug style (which is 960px wide in spite of the 750px wide traditional). That's why my html only pages looked wider to me than before. Haven't looked at a single gallery since the flushing and therefore haven't noticed the template change. :lol

[Andy]

EDIT: Feel kind of stupid now - it's just that through flashing my cookies my standard traditional view selection got replaced with smugmug style (which is 960px wide in spite of the 750px wide traditional). That's why my html only pages looked wider to me than before. Haven't looked at a single gallery since the flushing and therefore haven't noticed the template change. :lol

Problem solved, yes?

[rainforest1155]

Problem solved, yes?
Yep, it's all clear now.

Sebastian

[SteveM]

I requested the XL feature some months ago through Smugmug feedback, thinking I was original, before I discovered Dgrin. :):

To all of those that might be puzzled (who incidentally likely have 13 inch monitors and my larges look BRILLIANT to. Ha.) I'd like to explain a little of what I'm personally looking for and why. My primary interests are sports and portrait photography and I do my best to combine the two. I take great pains to convert from RAW, color correct, sharpen or not and do touchups on nearly every image I produce. But when I spend an hour on a 3/4 portrait, sometimes even a headshot, add some eye catchlight, burn/dodge some under/overexposed areas and view it as a Large on Smugmug, you can hardly tell the subject even HAS eyes, let alone how spectacular the image will look as a 20x30 poster. As it stands, my options are to a) allow originals, in which detail could be seen (across about 4 screens), in which NOBODY with any computer savvy will actually PAY for a print or b) make a separate gallery after resizing every image to say 1600x1200 and allowing originals or c) similarly crop a section of the original (enlarged to show detail, as they say). Still, none of these solutions protect my work, as the watermark feature cannot be added to the original, nobody is real concerned with protecting a thumb, small or possibly medium, and anything above large (subjectively including large) could yield a good stolen print.

All the hubbub; styles-schmyles. I danno if I'm just an utter noob (yes I do), but even at 1600x1200 with a 23" monitor, when I click on one of my larges, with any style set, I get the single-image-view. Yes, I know, I am a noob and this could probably be fixed, however, that's fine. If the image is too large for the current style, I get a single image view. If the single image is too large (original or extra-crispy), I get scrollbars, and on clicking that, I get more of a full screen scroller. This is JUST FINE by me (although I wouldn't mind seeing the scrollbars dispatched with and replaced by a hand-grabber-draggy-thingie (technical term)).

I respect the fact that Smugmug wants to stay modular and anticipate forward compatibility, but I think you should walk before running. I don't think anyone expects Smugmug to anticipate someone having a 4000x1000 50" LCD and having a style and theme all set to appease them. If it's too big to fit the current style, go to single image view. All I'd personally like is a 871987239-XL.JPG of at least 1280 and the ability to watermark it or not. Nobody HAS to click XL if they don't like it; nobody HAS to allow XL on their page if they're not comfortable. Intentionally nerfing games because some people still use IBM XTs or making web pages predominantly text based because some are still 56K are not the way to make money or progress and many suffer for the sake of the few.

With all that said (longwinded), I'd just like to point out this is just IMHO. I love all you guys at Smugmug and Dgrin and everyone has valid concerns (no flames :D). It's all about personal choice.

SteveM - Pro subscriber
www.downriverphotography.com (http://www.downriverphotography.com)

[bberg]

I really wish there were a way that the user could choose the size of the 'large' images that are displayed on your page.

Right now the problem I am facing is that the 'portrait' orientation images are just too small, even in 'large' view. They are only something like 400x600 whereas the landscape images are 800x533, a significant difference.

Many of my site viewers complain about this and it almost makes me not want to show portrait orientation size images on my site.

Other sites like Pbase don't have this problem and I have honestly thought about hosting some images there, specifically to avoid this problem.

It would be great if someone from Smugmug would read this and come to the rescue with a fix.

-Brandon

[Andy]

I
It would be great if someone from Smugmug would read this and come to the rescue with a fix.

-Brandon
We all read it, and we thank you for your post! Stay tuned.

[W.W. Webster]

Elsewhere I have noted that it appears any image displayed as medium size in the SmugMug style in the gallery view will not exceed either 603 pixels wide or 452 pixels high. This means that the longest side of an image in portrait mode can never be as long as the longest side of an image in landscape mode. It also means a landscape image will not utilise the full limit of 603 pixels wide if the aspect ratio would cause the image height to exceed 452 pixels.

I can understand this may be to prevent the overall page length getting too long, allowing for the information that normally is displayed under the image. However I have suppressed from display on my site all of the detail under each image except the caption (i.e. the size selection, EXIF information, etc does not display) and I would like to take advantage of the available space at the foot of the right hand column to increase the maximum height of an image.

Can you please consider making the height of the image user-changeable via CSS?

Thanks

[dmc]

We all read it, and we thank you for your post! Stay tuned.

if i've learned anything here on this forum, when Andy says "Stay tuned" it is usually a good thing...:wink

[EZRyder]

New here - I'll get to the intro at some point soon - but I just put in a FR that goes like this:

I'd like there to be a way to show something akin to a 100% crop of a small portion of the picture to show the sharpness and/or detail of the picture. Resizing and jpeg compression can take the zing out of a lot of pictures by blurring fine detail, and that might just be the selling point!!

If there's a way to do this that makes sense, please let me know how. Ideally, I'd love to have a mouse_over kind of thing that gives you a non-static pop-up of a postage-stamp sized crop while you're hovering over a picture, and have it go away when you move the mouse off the picture.

Thanks for any help/feedback!

Eric

------------

So... I then saw this thread and wondered if my FR is really more do-able and reasonable than offering a huge image for people to download and scroll around on. The down-side - if you want to call it that - would be having to seperately upload the "detail view". I'm willing to live with that!:barb

[jfriend]

New here - I'll get to the intro at some point soon - but I just put in a FR that goes like this:

I'd like there to be a way to show something akin to a 100% crop of a small portion of the picture to show the sharpness and/or detail of the picture. Resizing and jpeg compression can take the zing out of a lot of pictures by blurring fine detail, and that might just be the selling point!!

If there's a way to do this that makes sense, please let me know how. Ideally, I'd love to have a mouse_over kind of thing that gives you a non-static pop-up of a postage-stamp sized crop while you're hovering over a picture, and have it go away when you move the mouse off the picture.

Thanks for any help/feedback!

Eric

------------

So... I then saw this thread and wondered if my FR is really more do-able and reasonable than offering a huge image for people to download and scroll around on. The down-side - if you want to call it that - would be having to seperately upload the "detail view". I'm willing to live with that!:barb

Try this. Go to a gallery where originals are enabled. Switch to critique view. Check the checkbox called "Smugloupe". Then drag the loupe around on your photo to check sharpness at 100%. Is this what you wanted?

[Andy]

New here - I'll get to the intro at some point soon - but I just put in a FR that goes like this:

I'd like there to be a way to show something akin to a 100% crop of a small portion of the picture to show the sharpness and/or detail of the picture. Resizing and jpeg compression can take the zing out of a lot of pictures by blurring fine detail, and that might just be the selling point!!

If there's a way to do this that makes sense, please let me know how. Ideally, I'd love to have a mouse_over kind of thing that gives you a non-static pop-up of a postage-stamp sized crop while you're hovering over a picture, and have it go away when you move the mouse off the picture.

Thanks for any help/feedback!

Eric

------------

So... I then saw this thread and wondered if my FR is really more do-able and reasonable than offering a huge image for people to download and scroll around on. The down-side - if you want to call it that - would be having to seperately upload the "detail view". I'm willing to live with that!:barb

Hi Eric, what about "critique" style? Here's an example. Use the "smugloupe" which on my customized site is called "Get a Closer Look"

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/1782861


http://www.smugmug.com/help/smugloupe

[W.W. Webster]

Can you please consider making the height of the image user-changeable via CSS?Should I be standing by, was my suggestion without merit, or have I just not explained myself? :dunno

[EZRyder]

Hi Eric, what about "critique" style? Here's an example. Use the "smugloupe" which on my customized site is called "Get a Closer Look"

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/1782861



Boy, Andy, that's REAL close to what I'm looking for, but the problem is it just magnifies the pixels already there, as I understand it, and is not a crop of the original, which is what I think is important to the customer so they can see what kind of detail they're buying. I understand it would be too slow to do that - for sure - but a loupe might be more than I really need. I just want to give them an idea of what the detail and sharpness is like on the whole picture. The (new) first picture in my (only "pro") gallery is a prime example of that. the resized version - even the Large - does not show the excellent level of detail, which really makes this shot.

If what I suggested in my FR is not do-able, perhaps offer a D(etail) option which we would have to manage/upload-to seperately...?

http://ezryder.smugmug.com

Thanks for the quick reply - as always!!

Eric

[Andy]

Boy, Andy, that's REAL close to what I'm looking for, but the problem is it just magnifies the pixels already there, as I understand it, and is not a crop of the original, which is what I think is important to the customer so they can see what kind of detail they're buying. I understand it would be too slow to do that - for sure - but a loupe might be more than I really need. I just want to give them an idea of what the detail and sharpness is like on the whole picture. The (new) first picture in my (only "pro") gallery is a prime example of that. the resized version - even the Large - does not show the excellent level of detail, which really makes this shot.

If what I suggested in my FR is not do-able, perhaps offer a D(etail) option which we would have to manage/upload-to seperately...?

http://ezryder.smugmug.com

Thanks for the quick reply - as always!!

EricYou can also do it yourself :D
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/52248/1/32115994

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27392&highlight=pimp+ride

[jww]

Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?



#2 seems the least of the evils..

However, I have actually been thinking of turning off larges as well as originals. I feel it is still big and tempts folks to do a screen print and be happy with a low res image.

I actually wish that the O selection would not even show up when folks click the size selections. Since I have originals disabled, it only shows the L, but why oh why does it even come up since the proceeding page doesn't show it? (oops sorry.. off topic)

However for private galleries that I might want to give away, XL might be nice and so I would select #2. :wink

..and I appreciate the chance to vote! :thumb

jww

[EZRyder]

You can also do it yourself :D
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/52248/1/32115994

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27392&highlight=pimp+ride

Well... it's promising, but all it does is show a big empty text box. Is there supposed to be a picture in the box? Can I put a URL in there, somehow? where da code, where da code? :dunno :D

Thanks!

[tsk1979]

The whispers for a larger image size have turned to a low rumble and we know what that means: the march of monitor pixels will increase the rumble volume, so we're thinking about an XL image size.

hi, any updates regarding this. Will standard account people get XL size viewing?

[dmc]

hi, any updates regarding this. Will standard account people get XL size viewing?

come to think of it... it has been a while (http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/) since we've gotten any new stuff...

wassup???

:bow

[DJKennedy]

All I know is, that I TRY to set things up to look good on the screens of MOST of my visitors.

At this time, it's the people with 800x600 screens. So I use smugmug small. I find the image too small but if I go to the normal smugmug, I find now that it appears (i cud b wrong) that everything won't fit.

Yeah, I love the thought of larger images. But you know guys, a really really big photo on a small 800x600 screen looks like doo doo.

BUT: I like having the extra choice.

yes. I am wishy washy

[Mike Lane]

All I know is, that I TRY to set things up to look good on the screens of MOST of my visitors.

At this time, it's the people with 800x600 screens. So I use smugmug small. I find the image too small but if I go to the normal smugmug, I find now that it appears (i cud b wrong) that everything won't fit.

Yeah, I love the thought of larger images. But you know guys, a really really big photo on a small 800x600 screen looks like doo doo.

BUT: I like having the extra choice.

yes. I am wishy washyAre the stats for 800x600 from your own tracking or are you using old data? According to the w3c (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp), 77% of people are using 1024x768 or greater resolution and only 17% are using 800x600 (the balance are unknown). So unless your google analytics or stat counter (or whatever) is telling you that most of your visitors are using 800x600, you are probably pretty safe to use a style larger than smugmug small.

Just saying.

[Sheaf]

Are the stats for 800x600 from your own tracking or are you using old data? According to the w3c (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp), 77% of people are using 1024x768 or greater resolution and only 17% are using 800x600 (the balance are unknown). So unless your google analytics or stat counter (or whatever) is telling you that most of your visitors are using 800x600, you are probably pretty safe to use a style larger than smugmug small.

Just saying.

Over the last month, the numbers for unique visitors to the main Smugmug pages are:

1024 x 768: 49.72%
1280 x 1024: 15.51%
800 x 600: 10.44%
1280 x 800: 6.85%

This isn't data from your specific Smugmug site, but it lends credibility to Mike's data. I would expect, unless you have a vastly different audience, for the above numbers to be somewhat accurate.

Another thing to consider, though, is that not all people browse in full-size windows and they may have additional toolbars and things taking up even more space.

[Mike Lane]

nice :thumb

You'd think a stats geek would have the browser viewport size handy though :wink

[DJKennedy]

Are the stats for 800x600 from your own tracking or are you using old data? According to the w3c (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp), 77% of people are using 1024x768 or greater resolution and only 17% are using 800x600 (the balance are unknown). So unless your google analytics or stat counter (or whatever) is telling you that most of your visitors are using 800x600, you are probably pretty safe to use a style larger than smugmug small.

Just saying.

Hi Mike.

Not sure how accurate the info is - but I've been using Extreme tracking since October 28th of 2002. And it reports 40.53% using 800x600, and 31.56% using 1024x768.

I like having the larger images like I mentioned, but I always figured I should design the site to fit the screens of the majority.

[dmc]

this should already be in the feature request... but applies here: the lightbox viewer should be upgraded so that if a picture being viewed is larger than the window it is contained in, then allow the pic to be clicked on and dragged around in the window.. just like google maps!

This is the type of technology users are expecting nowaday's...(especially from a rising star like Smugmug) don't be like mapquest! say NO to scroll bars (a cheesy way to look at oversized pics)

time for more viewing enhancments....

sorry to sound cranky, but some requests seem so obvious and simple to do, yet don't get done... how long does it take to add to the if statement like
if (easy_share OR logged_in)
display_share_photo_link()


here's another one...

if (allow_originals OR logged_in)
display_original_link()


and lastly
if (disable_right_click AND not logged_in))
disable_right_click()

(flaming anyone who complains that their "right click protection" isn't working (because they are logged in) would be allowed)

I just fixed 3 commonly asked for features...

:bow

[DJKennedy]

Another thing to consider, though, is that not all people browse in full-size windows and they may have additional toolbars and things taking up even more space.
Thats true enough - and is the main reason I don't load extra toolbars!

My main computer is a laptop, and I don't open the browser to fill the screen - not all sites adjust properly, so I have it opened to have about an inch on iether side of the browser from the edge of the screen. (that make sense?), so your first point is quite valid. The screen is 1280x800, so on my screen I have room to play with.

Maybe my info is accurate - but 'dated' ?

I've only had my site on smugmug for 6 months, but I've had my site since '02

[DJKennedy]

What the heck. I changed most of the galleries to just ol smugmug, instead of smugmug small.

See if anyone complains :soapbox


EDIT: Can I make it so only say 6 thumbnails appear on the 'smugmug' style?

[EZRyder]

Hi Mike.

Not sure how accurate the info is - but I've been using Extreme tracking since October 28th of 2002. And it reports 40.53% using 800x600, and 31.56% using 1024x768.

I like having the larger images like I mentioned, but I always figured I should design the site to fit the screens of the majority.


The majority of people in 2002 HAD 800x600 screens. I think the stats are skewed towards the bilk of "history", as it were. I'd use just the last years-worth and see what that says. 49% for 1024 x 768 sounds much more likely.

[EZRyder]

hi, any updates regarding this. Will standard account people get XL size viewing?

Per an FR I put in, wouldn't just having a "detail view" of the image be good enough? This way you don't have to worry about scrolling around, or Google Map-type panning around. The viewer just gets to see what a (carefully selected by you, the photographer), 100% crop of the best resolution looks like. I think most people have a big enough imagination to figure out what the rest looks like.

That feature, plus offering custom matting, would make selling a smooth-er process and likely result in more sales.

[DJKennedy]

The majority of people in 2002 HAD 800x600 screens. I think the stats are skewed towards the bilk of "history", as it were. I'd use just the last years-worth and see what that says. 49% for 1024 x 768 sounds much more likely.
Yeah, I would tend to agree.

I've actaully just changed the layout to use the regular smugmug style instead of the smugmug small.

I checked another tracker report for another site that was tracked since end of 2004, and it was like 61% 1024x768 and abot 8-9 % 800x600.

This was with over 300,000 visitors too.

[dmc]

... The viewer just gets to see what a (carefully selected by you, the photographer), 100% crop of the best resolution looks like. I think most people have a big enough imagination to figure out what the rest looks like....

That feature, plus offering custom matting, would make selling a smooth-er process and likely result in more sales.
seems like mostly photographers here on dgrin.. which I am not. I find that my desires are almost the opposite of the photographer's. I am trying to improve the viewing experience while the photographers are trying to limit it (so they can sell the images without them being "lifted")

also, Photographers want public smugmug search, google, etc to bring strangers to their sites, photo sharers don't, etc. hmmm

Are most of smugmug's customers photographers? I doubt it.

[EZRyder]

seems like mostly photographers here on dgrin.. which I am not. I find that my desires are almost the opposite of the photographer's. I am trying to improve the viewing experience while the photographers are trying to limit it (so they can sell the images without them being "lifted")

also, Photographers want public smugmug search, google, etc to bring strangers to their sites, photo sharers don't, etc. hmmm

Are most of smugmug's customers photographers? I doubt it.

Well, I think there is currently options only available to "pro" accounts. Some features, like a "detail view", or panning within an image frame of a larger image than can fit in the frame, might be other options just for pro accounts.

I think, as a budding "pro", what I'm looking for is almost what SmugMug offers right now - a fantastic interface to showcase my work and help "manage" my sales - if I ever actually get any, and I just started, so I'm not complainin'. I'd imagine most pro's are either using SmugMug as a portfolio manager to sell to magazines and what-not, or are, more likely, selling art prints to the general public, and SmugMug is just one sales channel, as it were.

What would make it much more conveinent and valuable for the art-print type guys, like me, is to offer matting and, to a lesser degree, framing. I can see where framing online can be limiting, but matting should be quite straightforward - especially with art prints, where you typically just use white.

I would think that a small "detail view" option would satisfy the need for a true, full res representation of what the customer is buying, as well as squelch any concern over someone doing a screen grab of your print.

Also, I never want my work cropped, and all mattes and frames would be custom sizes, most likely.

[DJKennedy]

seems like mostly photographers here on dgrin.. which I am not. I find that my desires are almost the opposite of the photographer's. I am trying to improve the viewing experience while the photographers are trying to limit it (so they can sell the images without them being "lifted")

also, Photographers want public smugmug search, google, etc to bring strangers to their sites, photo sharers don't, etc. hmmm

Are most of smugmug's customers photographers? I doubt it.

I'm no pro. But I am a photographer.

I personally tried to set things up to look the best to the majority of my visitors (people using 800x600 screens). So, *I* am not trying to limit the viewing experience. I'm not trying to sell anything (nor am I trying to keep people from "lifting' my images).

I actually don't want public search. But I like seeing traffic comming to my site. The reason my site was created was for family only (out of town family). But the site has grown along with my now 4 year old son.

I occasionally get emails from people wanting to purchase prints, sure. But I'm no pro.

Are most of smugmugs customers photographers? I don't know. I would assume so, since this is a photo gallery site. Key word being photo.

If you use a camera, you're a photographer. Iether a amature, or a pro.

[dmc]

I'm no pro. But I am a photographer.
....
If you use a camera, you're a photographer. Iether a amature, or a pro.

if it helps to get back to my point, please imagine the word "pro" everywhere I wrote "photographer". sorry about the confusion.

Maybe I used the word incorrectly, but to me, a photographer is someone who takes pictures for money.... has a pro account... watermarks their pictures... does not allow originals, or even Large pics to be viewed (without watermark)... has pricing set on their photos to make profit... advertises and or displays their website url... wants google/smugmug search to show their site, etc.

otherwise, it sounds like you and I are here for the same reason. we like sharing pics with friends and family and whoever we invite to the site. I do have some galleries as part of communities for sharing with the dslr club I shoot with and it is fun to get feedback on pics.

...I was just trying to point out how different the needs were between pro's and non-pro's??? ...and that "non-pro's" are not well represented here and .... well... who cares... i'll just go back under my rock...

[DJKennedy]

i'll just go back under my rock...

That will be hell on your camera - lots of sand, mud, dust....bugs... :D

I enjoy photography - have since I was very young (I'm betting since I was around 7ish). Until the net came around, the vast majority of my images where only seen by the film processor - and my immediate family.

So, imagine my glee when I get an e-mail from someone who may live on the other side of the planet commenting on my photos! Or wanting to purchase one.

I hope this doesn't turn into a digital vs film debate, but for ME personally, digital is the way to go. I'm taking more photos now then I ever did because of the lack of cost (no film to buy/process). Plus starting as a digital photo, it sure makes it easy to get it into the computer, 'process' it, and get it on the web!

I visit about 7 different forums - only about 2 are non photo related. A great way to learn. You can meet interesting people from all over the world. You can also pass on your own experiences so that others may learn from you. Dgrin is a great example for that.

My sites have always being a learning experience for me. Learning to code. Learning how to set up a site that is visually pleasing to a visitor. Learning how to do a better job with my photos from when I get e-mails about certain photos (wether they think photos A or B is in need of work). Plus wanting to post the good stuff, not just a quick snapshot - altho most of my photos of my kid are snapshots but those photos are meant for my family to view so they can watch him grow up.

Pro. Amature. Snapshooter. I don't care what a person is - I enjoy seeing photos from people from around the world - seeing photos taken around the world. Sometimes I see photos I want to attempt to duplicate (example, macro shots of water/milk drops to try and capture a crown shot). Another great way to learn. Another way to increase my skills and knowledge that I may be able to pass on to others. (havent attempted the water/milk drops yet)

The net was a boon for a lot of things good and bad. But for me it's being a great way to keep in touch with friends and family. To allow others (family) to watch my son grow up (he's 4 now). But due to me having interests in other subjects (trains, planes, scenic images), I have other images that others might also find of interest.

I recently got into IR images. I've learned a lot from trial and error, and from the forums. And I've passed on what I learned to others who want to attempt IR.

The net is a excellent tool.

I just realised, that I never addressed your comment at all in any way did I!:huh

I'm rambling. Ignore me.

[Malte]

I take it the XL size didn't pan out? I don't have the option in customize gallery.

Malte

[Andy]

I take it the XL size didn't pan out? I don't have the option in customize gallery.

Malte
Hi Malte,

You'll know about it when we announce something like this :)

We haven't given up, nor should you... :wave

[truth]

The only issues I have is that as a pro user that shoots 70% or more in portrait my images are being unfairly compressed and compromised. The size you adjsut them to right now is equivalent to 16.7% of a 8.2 mp image. Not only is this small, but it's not a good size for the image. 25-50-75% versions are far greater quality than 16.7 or 67% for obvioius reasons.

SM Large
http://truth.smugmug.com/photos/111475566-L.jpg

600 x900 image hosted on my server
http://www.showyourmedia.com/membersonly/getimg.php?image=lanemeyer/20061119_MG_1783_pidgeon%A969.jpg&

I don't give a rats ass if the viewer has to scroll to read a caption. The thing that should have priority here is image quality and protraits should have parity with landscapes. It's all well and good that I cna adjust the mages size for a post or blog, but my SM gallery is where I sell from and that's the only place quality counts.

[onethumb]

The only issues I have is that as a pro user that shoots 70% or more in portrait my images are being unfairly compressed and compromised. The size you adjsut them to right now is equivalent to 16.7% of a 8.2 mp image. Not only is this small, but it's not a good size for the image. 25-50-75% versions are far greater quality than 16.7 or 67% for obvioius reasons.

*snip*

I don't give a rats ass if the viewer has to scroll to read a caption. The thing that should have priority here is image quality and protraits should have parity with landscapes. It's all well and good that I cna adjust the mages size for a post or blog, but my SM gallery is where I sell from and that's the only place quality counts.

Hey truth,

I'm afraid the truth is, though, that most of your customers are allergic to scrolling. We've shipped millions of prints and done massive amounts of indirect and direct customer research and the data is crystal clear: if your customers have to scroll the page to view the photos because their monitor is too low-rez or whatever, they won't buy nearly as many prints. It's that simple.

So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.

Don

[truth]

Hey truth,

I'm afraid the truth is, though, that most of your customers are allergic to scrolling. We've shipped millions of prints and done massive amounts of indirect and direct customer research and the data is crystal clear: if your customers have to scroll the page to view the photos because their monitor is too low-rez or whatever, they won't buy nearly as many prints. It's that simple.

So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.

Don

So digital artifacts and fringe caused by compression have less downside than scrolling? No wonder Americans are getting such fat fingers. I can see that being true for customers looking for a snapshot of junior hitting the winning home run at T-ball, or of the oh so amazing pic of them making the perfect apex in turn 4 at mid-ohio, but I doubt the same holds true for the marketing of fine art type prints.

Allright, so if you insist that the native size for a portrait must be scroll free, then why not at least offer an XL size for preview? I mean viewing an original is not really realistic when the original is 2336 x 3504.

[Andy]

So digital artifacts and fringe caused by compression have less downside than scrolling? No wonder Americans are getting such fat fingers. I can see that being true for customers looking for a snapshot of Junior hitting the winning home run at T-ball, or of the all so amazing pic of them making the perfect apex in turn 4 at mid-ohio, but I doubt the same holds true for the marketing of fine art type prints.

Allright, so if you insist that the native size for a portrait must be scroll free, then why not at least offer an XL size for preview? I mean viewing an original is not really realistic when the original is 2336 x 3504.
Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, if you wish, you can have a caption with a link to a larger L size that you make with a custom image url... No, it's not ideal but I just wanted to point out that you could do this now if you wished. Holler for help if you'd like me to explain further.

[truth]

Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, if you wish, you can have a caption with a link to a larger L size that you make with a custom image url... No, it's not ideal but I just wanted to point out that you could do this now if you wished. Holler for help if you'd like me to explain further.

It was my understanding (which could be totally false) that in order to create an image larger than the SM "L" originals would have to activated. To me that's like inviting theft of an image. If there is a way around this I'd love to hear it. I'm also a CSS n00b, but maybe it's time to change that.

[Elysium]

So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.

Don
Why should this not be up to us? If we are willing to accept less sales for larger views (I highly doubt this is true, for my site at least), that should be my decision.

[SteveM]

Hey truth,

I'm afraid the truth is, though, that most of your customers are allergic to scrolling. We've shipped millions of prints and done massive amounts of indirect and direct customer research and the data is crystal clear: if your customers have to scroll the page to view the photos because their monitor is too low-rez or whatever, they won't buy nearly as many prints. It's that simple.

So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.

Don

I also have to agree with the recent posters that, for one, if we personally (optional of course) suffer sales from this, it really should be our choice. I realize Smugmug wants to set a high standard of excellence across the board for all users, but as Pro account holders this really should be our option. As to the fact whether this may or may not hurt sales, or even viewing of our photos... For one, this would be little different than the way the current "large" or "original" links function. If the user clicks that link, they expect a larger size and likewise, scrolling. I don't think any of us are petitioning for an "XL Size default Smugview". The thumbnail/medium size is fine for an overall gallery presentation. If an "XL" simply appears next to "Other sizes: S M L XL", people will know what to expect and take advantage, or not, by their choosing.

I think this begs the question: Which detours more sales? People potentially having to scroll an image, or people not being able to see the level of detail or quality of an image? Again I'd like to reinforce that even with our new and fabulous "proof delay", I still choose to meticulously retouch and correct my images, especially portraits, since if the general public views a "proof" they will simply not be "wow"'d and likely steer clear of ordering, unless a preorder/contractural arrangement is in place beforehand. However, if people are unable to discern the "catchlight" in the eyes, or the lovely complexion and glow made possible by soft focus filters, they are unlikely to be swayed to make a purchase and my hard work goes unappreciated and unrecognized. I'd again like to plead for a very simple functioning XL viewing option and ask that you reconsider the pros and cons that many of us feel are heavily leaning on the pro side.

[Jackal]

Do not see the need for it. I donot feel limited at all with the curren size offerings. Use the time and money on something else more substantial.
Regards
:dunno
Carlos C.

[gavin]

To me Photography Sites are ALL about the Pictures. I would really like to be able for people to click on my thumbs in the defult smugmug "gallery" and have the image appear on the right to be 800px wide. Not everyone has to do this, however if the option was availible that would be awsome. It saves people to have to click on the image to see it larger. :barb

[chet79]

To me Photography Sites are ALL about the Pictures. I would really like to be able for people to click on my thumbs in the defult smugmug "gallery" and have the image appear on the right to be 800px wide. Not everyone has to do this, however if the option was availible that would be awsome. It saves people to have to click on the image to see it larger. :barb
same - 800px would be nice :)

[W.W. Webster]

800px would be nice :)I'd be very happy if images in portrait aspect could display to the full width available in the 'Smugmug' style (603 px?) rather than being constrained by the vertical maximum (452 px?) as I discussed back in October here (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=351006&postcount=94), and followed up later here (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=402301&postcount=99). This vertical limitation really has serious disadvantage for the display of images in portrait view, and for square images for that matter.

I thought I'd made a compelling case but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church! :D Was this such a dumb idea? :scratch

[chet79]

I'd be very happy if images in portrait aspect could display to the full width available in the 'Smugmug' style (603 px?) rather than being constrained by the vertical maximum (452 px?) as I discussed back in October here (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=351006&postcount=94), and followed up later here (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=402301&postcount=99). This vertical limitation really has serious disadvantage for the display of images in portrait view, and for square images for that matter.

I thought I'd made a compelling case but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church! :D Was this such a dumb idea? :scratch
such a good point. I too would like to see this :clap

[FAU4U]

My suggestion is:

I have to agree with the present postings, the pixel dimensions of T, S, M, L need updating, as monitor resolutions have increased dramatically since these sizes were decided years ago. And since there is an overhaul in process, may as well get on with this too.

:deal

For example:

Change Sm Thumbs from 100pix to 150pix
Change Thumbs from 150pix to 250pix
Change Small from 300pix to 500pix
Change Medium from 450pix to 650pix
Change Large from 600pix to 800pix
Create a new XLarge at 1200pix

If you don't want to change the pixel dimensions,
then add 3 new sizes:

Sm Thumbs : 100pix
Thumbs : 150pix (would prefer this be the Smugmug thumb)
Lg Thumb : 225pix (would like this added as Smugmug-plus)
Small : 300pix
Medium : 450pix
Large : 600pix (would like this added as Journal-Plus)
Xlarge : 800pix
XXLarge : 1200pix (would like this available in Slide-Show)


We love Smugmug, and look forward to it becomming even better.

Would really like to also see quality "Album Creation" as a choice added to photo products.
:ivar

JimW, Boca Raton, FL, USA
www.416-1100.com (http://www.416-1100.com)

such a good point. I too would like to see this :clap

[devbobo]

but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church! :D

:lol4:lol4:lol4

[cabbey]

I'd be very happy if images in portrait aspect could display to the full width available in the 'Smugmug' style (603 px?) rather than being constrained by the vertical maximum (452 px?) as I discussed back in October here (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=351006&postcount=94), and followed up later here (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=402301&postcount=99). This vertical limitation really has serious disadvantage for the display of images in portrait view, and for square images for that matter.

I thought I'd made a compelling case but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church! :D Was this such a dumb idea? :scratch

:lol :lol :lol :lol

No, not a dumb idea at all, I'd love to see it as well. :agree

[FAU4U]

Agreed. Its all about the pictures.

It is also about allowing the user pick the mode and sizes either "they prefer" based on the display monitor the client is viewing with, or the sizes that I require.

The solution for me is as I describe in this threadseveral replys ago,,, add a few "styles" such as an addition to Smugmug,,, Smugmug small, add Smugmug Large, which would give the user a more dramatic choice of seeing the thumbs to the left in lets say 150x150 pix thumbs, three across, or 200x200 images displayed 2 across, with the larger image to right being user selectable from 400, 600, 800 pixel dimensions.

Also have a "Journal-XL" Style version, using 600 pixel squares, and more than 10 at a time...

Plus the "All Thumbs" style needs a face life using lets say 150x150 or 200x200 pixel thumbs. The 100px thumbs are like looking at pinky-finger-nails because of the high resolution monitors these days. Presently the entire SmugMug site fits in the middle 50% of our screens, with lots of real estate left and right blank...

Would like to see the zoom thumb menu, able to apply 1:1 square zoom on ALL the thumbs in a Gallery; getting tired of having to do this one-by-one.

And since I'm talking/pleading,,, add some important photo products like:

Photo Calendars, giving ability to format June-to-June or Jan-to-Jan so that this would be not just a year-end product. Also would like so see

Photo Albums, quality ones, available,,, these are great for follow-up to event photography, Weddings, and family gifts,,,

Its a shame when all the images are inventoried here, for us to go externally for this production of popuylar products...

:barb :deal :bow :ivar :clap :dunno :rofl :scratch :bow :lust :wink :huh

To me Photography Sites are ALL about the Pictures. I would really like to be able for people to click on my thumbs in the defult smugmug "gallery" and have the image appear on the right to be 800px wide. Not everyone has to do this, however if the option was availible that would be awsome. It saves people to have to click on the image to see it larger. :barb

[nalvarez]

I also agree with FAU4U above. Its all about the pictures and how they are viewed. The current sizes are ok, but being able to view in larger sizes would be fantastic. It somewhat defeats the purpose if we (Pro) accounts can load images as big as 16MGS, but yet the viewing sizes don't change. Adding an XL size for Slideshow would be ideal for better showing off some of our "favorite" galleries. SmugMug also states that its all about the viewing and having this issue addressed soon would keep may of us happy. thanks!

[RichS]

I'll echo the comments above that it's about the pictures. With my 1680x1050 monitor any of the available sizes look positively puny. 800, 1200 would all be great. Is there no way to dynamically size the pix based on screen real estate availability?

[tsk1979]

In the smugmug beta page I did not see this XL feature, will it come for standard users?

[Andy]

In the smugmug beta page I did not see this XL feature, will it come for standard users?
it's not there for any users yet :D but have patience. we just laid the groundwork for this feature. Go to Beta and then shrink your window from wide to really narrow :D

[Mike Lane]

Whoa rad! Smugmug automagically gets the smugmug-small treatment! :clap:clap:clap

[FAU4U]

There is NO Dilemma !! I do not understand the point you are making above. STOP trying to make/force a one-size fits-all arrangement. Visitors/Clients that view the images have choices of sizes. Or the SmubMu/Pro can force sizes to suit their clientele. Why should you/youroperating system, decide whats best, when a bunch of us are screaming for L and XL image availability. We all know that if an image format/dimension is too large for a lo-res monitor scrolling will be needed; and if they have an IQ over 80 they can reset THEIR viewing Style to a smaller version of display to suit their monitor. Your software must keep up with the Hardware technologies. If not, some of the Pro and semi-Pro users, will be forced to migrate to their own systems, as has almost become economically viable. Gosh I certainly do not like this notion. We have appreciated, Smugmug's design for many years as one the earlier customers of yours.

:barb

Also you just gotta have an XL size to keep up with the high resolution monitors that MOST of the Pro users have had for several years.

AND, the thumbs are terribly small now,,, more like "pinkies" not Thumbs anymore.

I also agree with other posters that having a L or XL version of Journal and a M and L version of AllThumbs would be most helpful in screening an entire gallery,, the thumbs are just too small, almost useless.

DLS bandwith has also increased in recent years, and the number of viewers with high bandwith pipes has increased by many hundreds of percent in the last 5 years. In my circles of influence, I cannot think of anyone with dial-up, that's in the digital imaging. You know these things.

Perhaps the Pro level user could restrict the Viewer to several Styles, rather then the present choice of, ALL or ONE Style aviability.


The whispers for a larger image size have turned to a low rumble and we know what that means: the march of monitor pixels will increase the rumble volume, so we're thinking about an XL image size.

(Yes, we know the rumble volume for this is not as loud as for some other things in the queue, but it turns out to be an opportune time given engineering work we're doing on storage right now.)

The rumbles: "I don't get enough L when I click L."

We think XL should be 1024x768. Below the image where you currently see an L link, XL would appear beside it. Just like L, pros will be able to disable XL.

The good:

Two new gallery styles would be born, smugmug L and smugmug XL, which you can preview:

http://onethumb.smugmug.com/gallery/1377106

The dilemma:

smugmug L style (http://onethumb.smugmug.com/gallery/1377106/1/64999017/Original) would use the Large image size, which can be up to 800 pixels wide or high. For landscape photos, 800 px wide looks great and fits a 1280 monitor beautifully. But at 800 px high, you wouldn't be able to read the caption without scrolling, or any of the other stuff below the photo. That's because monitors are wider than tall.

The solution with the medium size was to make them up to 600 px wide or 450 px tall.

We can think of 2 practical solutions to this dilemma. I'll also mention a third not-so-practical solution so someone else doesn't have to propose it:

1. Resize all Large images to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.

The downside is all portrait-mode images that are now posted on forums and blogs at 800 px high would become 600 px high. 99% of forum posts would just adjust, but a few would look distorted -- like the ones on ADVrider where I posted a L image and specified in HTML in the post that it was 800px high.

2. Only resize the Larges going forward to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.

The downside is legacy Large images would make you scroll when viewed in the new smugmug L style. The upside: they would look as they did when they were originally posted in forums and blogs.

3. This one's messy... When the image is requested externally, give it up in it's original 800 px-high glory; when it's requested inside for a smugmug L gallery, resize on the fly to 600 px.

Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?

Thanks!
Baldy

[bwg]

Jim, please stop it with the huge bold yellow text. Besides making your post huuuge, it makes it difficult for people using the white forum theme to read. Your opinions are coming across loud and clear as it is.

Thanks.

[W.W. Webster]

There is NO Dilemma !! I do not understand the point you are making above. STOP trying to make/force a one-size fits-all arrangement.I've been experimenting with the Zenfolio service recently to see how it has been developing, and find the size of the displayed image expands automatically (in steps) to fit as the available size in the window expands.

Perhaps that's what you have in mind for SmugMug, FAU4U?

On my other hobby horse, I've also found they display non-landscape images in a lot larger image size. Take the following examples, SmugMug vs. Zenfolio, for a square image displayed in the SmugMug format (or equivalent) in identically-sized windows.

First, from my SmugMug gallery at http://rosscollins.smugmug.com/gallery/2401970 (including my modest banner and nav bar customisation) -

http://rosscollins.smugmug.com/photos/126803235-L.jpg

Now, a comparative gallery on Zenfolio at http://rosscollins.zenfolio.com/p855561915/?photo=h3B82A626#998417958 (using a standard template) -

http://rosscollins.smugmug.com/photos/126803344-L.jpg

See what I mean? I'm not promoting Zenfolio per se, although they've come a long way and I'm enjoying the experience of mirroring a few galleries there while continuing to maintain my SmugMug location as my principal site. However, I think this example illustrates well the point I've been making in trying to draw attention to the serious disadvantage that square or portrait-oriented images suffer on SmugMug.

Can't something be done to level up the balance a bit? Isn't it just a matter of increasing the 450 pixel vertical size limit, or making it customisable? Seriously, why not? Can I rest my case? :dunno

[Andy]

Can't something be done to level up the balance a bit? Isn't it just a matter of increasing the 450 pixel vertical size limit, or making it customisable? Seriously, why not? Can I rest my case? :dunno
Hang in there, Ross:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=54157

[W.W. Webster]

Hang in there, RossI've just put my case down, for a bit. :wink

[I Simonius]

Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?

Thanks!
Baldy

I'm not a dentist but I recommend...

er... is there a way to have landscape format such and such a width and portrait such and such a height ( or is that what you just said)?

just realised it's only in the lightbox mode where I want bigger sizes

[Andy]

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=77553