New photo tools?

[kygarden]

I like the new layout of the photo tools and if I'm not mistaken there are a few new things too right? Looks great. Keep it up :)

Hopefully this is not old news...I'm slow sometimes...LOL

[Baldy]

Yes, we've been working on a photo tools cleanup to make them simpler and more polished, with a few new features. We have more to do but this seemed like a nice step forward.

The drag to arrange tool, for example, lets you select multiple photos to arrange at a time instead of just one. Hopefully the pro pricing tool, rotate tool, and a few others are a whole lot more obvious than they were before.

[kygarden]

I honestly apprecaite the effort you all go to for making the site better for us. It keeps getting better and better.

[twincitiesphoto]

I just noticed the changes tonight - I like them - thanks for always making this site better and better for us users -

[Andy]

I honestly apprecaite the effort you all go to for making the site better for us. It keeps getting better and better.
Thanks :) This was a long effort, Baldy and I begain looking at the tools a couple months ago, and then he began chipping away at them. {JT} added some magic and w00p :barb

[jeff318]

With the new rotate feature, I miss the "this photo is currently being processed" replacement image when the rotation has not been done yet.

[aktse]

I don't think "undefined" was here before:

http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/306901916_ydDUf-L.jpg

[Les]

Thanks :) This was a long effort, Baldy and I begain looking at the tools a couple months ago, and then he began chipping away at them. {JT} added some magic and w00p :barb

Is there a way to show the image numbers like before? Without visible image numbers, I have to delete photos one by one.

[adadx6]

Is there any chance you can reactivate the "expert" photo rearrangement process that existed before the cleanup? The new drag and drop works good to rearrange a few photos but I want to totally rearrange an entire gallery. This task becomes much more difficult without the ability to assign each photo a position in the gallery. :cry Thanks for considering this request.

[Baldy]

Is there a way to show the image numbers like before? Without visible image numbers, I have to delete photos one by one.Can you explain what you mean by numbers? Are you saying filenames?

Reason I ask is we had image numbers, which represented what position of the gallery they were in. We felt safe eliminating those. But we also used to let you display filenames.

[Baldy]

Is there any chance you can reactivate the "expert" photo rearrangement process that existed before the cleanup? The new drag and drop works good to rearrange a few photos but I want to totally rearrange an entire gallery. This task becomes much more difficult without the ability to assign each photo a position in the gallery. :cry Thanks for considering this request.Yes, I was hoping no one would notice its absence. :cry

[Baldy]

I don't think "undefined" was here before:

http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/306901916_ydDUf-L.jpgUgh, that's a bug. Firefox 2 on XP?

[Les]

Can you explain what you mean by numbers? Are you saying filenames?

Reason I ask is we had image numbers, which represented what position of the gallery they were in. We felt safe eliminating those. But we also used to let you display filenames.

I'm sorry. Yes, I mean file names. You used to have position numbers to the right of each row but you could also see the file number if you cursored over an image. With those features, I could easily find and select large numbers of photos to delete from a gallery. With the current features, I only see the photo so, I have to select them one by one from the viewing style by way of "Delete Photo" in Photo Tools. For my wedding galleries, clients often reference images they would prefer be taken off prior to opering the gallery to the public.

[Andy]

With the new rotate feature, I miss the "this photo is currently being processed" replacement image when the rotation has not been done yet.
We didn't do that before, AFAIK, I'm sorry...

[aktse]

Ugh, that's a bug. Firefox 2 on XP?

Yes, but on XP and on my Linux box (Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 4 (Nahant Update 4) while using FF 2. I have no issues on IE (6 or 7)

[DrDavid]

Yes, please bring back the expert arrange tool. I loved being able to quickly choose the first 5 or 10 photos from a huge list of photos....

Also, the "Delete Photos" tool needs to have an option to show filenames under the images.

Also.. a Bulk-Edit Geography would be VERY nice!

David

[{JT}]

That had something to do with your Customizations - althought I am not sure what. First - you had a script error on the page: isClass was undefined - so I rewrote that call and you have no more script errors on the page. The Undefined error still showed up though. I turned on Hide Owner which causes all of your customizations to go away and Undefined went away - turned your customizations back on - and the Undefined was gone. I am not sure what to make of it - but yours has been the only reported case of this - so hopefully it was a one time occurence. :)

JT



I don't think "undefined" was here before:

http://aktse.smugmug.com/photos/306901916_ydDUf-L.jpg

[LPC]

At the risk of sounding rude can I ask what the point of Color Effects is and who it's designed to appeal to? It doesn't do anything that the most basic photo editing software could do better and just seems a bit clumsy and amateurish.

I was another fan of Expert Arrange too.

[dirtbikejunkie]

the move photos tool still not working well. this was reported a while back and I was *really* hoping to be fixed with these changes.

to recap, seems like moving more than few photos the tool times out. sometimes the photos are moved if you give it time (after timing out), and sometimes nothing.


any date when it's expected to be fixed?

[Allen]

Ugh, that's a bug. Firefox 2 on XP?
Also FF2 on w2k.:D

btw, deleted theme and user CSS with WebDev and undefined still shows but
is also part of every heading after Pros with two additional ones at the bottom.

[Baldy]

At the risk of sounding rude can I ask what the point of Color Effects is and who it's designed to appeal to? It doesn't do anything that the most basic photo editing software could do better and just seems a bit clumsy and amateurish.How rude.

I'm kidding, of course. That tool needs some love and we think we've got something good in the works. This pass on the tools was mainly to improve look and UI.

[eenusa]

Can we please have the file name display in this tool ... it would definitely help when moving the photos around.

[dogwood]

I'm sorry. Yes, I mean file names. You used to have position numbers to the right of each row but you could also see the file number if you cursored over an image. With those features, I could easily find and select large numbers of photos to delete from a gallery. With the current features, I only see the photo so, I have to select them one by one from the viewing style by way of "Delete Photo" in Photo Tools. For my wedding galleries, clients often reference images they would prefer be taken off prior to opering the gallery to the public.

Okay, so I still don't see a response to this question. But I do see two people in this thread requesting file names be visible again in the bulk delete function-- plus there's another thread (that wasn't even started by me) requesting the same thing. The file names used to be visible-- was there a reason for removing them? :scratch

What would it take to make them visible again? I really can't imagine why this feature was removed... anyone care to enlighten me? Having file names visible is a MAJOR time saver when bulk deleting. Just my two cents, but SM has taken a huge step backwards by removing file names in this feature.

If anyone has a work around that doesn't double or triple my time and work using the bulk delete feature (which is useless without file names-- seriously... I now have to delete photos individually in the galleries to make sure I have the right photo-- having file names visible in the bulk delete gallery did not require this).

So what's the story?

[{JT}]

Yes, the reason was trying to lighten up the look of the page. I would say that most of our users work with photos based off of their subject/content - not it's filename. Filenames may make a come back for the al of the tools, I would love to make it easier to work with again. But beside the two replies here - there has not been a request for adding them back that I know of. :dunno

Okay, so I still don't see a response to this question. But I do see two people in this thread requesting file names be visible again in the bulk delete function-- plus there's another thread (that wasn't even started by me) requesting the same thing. The file names used to be visible-- was there a reason for removing them? :scratch

What would it take to make them visible again? I really can't imagine why this feature was removed... anyone care to enlighten me? Having file names visible is a MAJOR time saver when bulk deleting. Just my two cents, but SM has taken a huge step backwards by removing file names in this feature.

If anyone has a work around that doesn't double or triple my time and work using the bulk delete feature (which is useless without file names-- seriously... I now have to delete photos individually in the galleries to make sure I have the right photo-- having file names visible in the bulk delete gallery did not require this).

So what's the story?

[dogwood]

Yes, the reason was trying to lighten up the look of the page. I would say that most of our users work with photos based off of their subject/content - not it's filename. Filenames may make a come back for the al of the tools, I would love to make it easier to work with again. But beside the two replies here - there has not been a request for adding them back that I know of. :dunno

Here's another one.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=95916

So that's four requests including mine-- all within days of the file names being removed. And the help desk tells me they have another similar request. I guarantee if you poll the active pros here, they will tell you they DO use the file names in sorting and deleting.

With all due respect, I would say most SMer's don't actually sell prints/downloads from their websites, so why is that an option? What I'm saying is there are probably many features on SM that aren't used by most of the users. That doesn't mean they aren't useful tools!

The problem with no file names for bulk deleting is that for most PRO users, uploads to a single gallery often include hundreds of photos. Even using Star*Explorer, there ends up being several duplicate files. Many of these files LOOK very similar-- especially as a small thumbnail. So deleting files based on their appearance is impossible if you want to be accurate. This is where the file names are crucial-- similar to the bulk arrange feature. It simply doesn't work without access to the file names-- you literally have to go to the bulk arrange screen, write down the file names, then go back to the gallery view and hunt down the duplicate files one by one to delete them.

With the file names visible, it's a one step process to go to the bulk delete page, check which file names are duplicates, and delete 'em in one step.

And for anyone shooting events or weddings-- this really is a vital feature/tool. Event shooters have to get their photos posted and sorted fast and SM has put a MAJOR speedbump in the workflow by removing file names in the bulk delete function.

And... I'd just like to point out that including file names with thumbs is pretty much a standard feature for image editing & sorting. Bridge, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic -- even Mac and Windows thumbnail views all offer this feature. Even PBase offers this! I'm just surprised to see that SM actually removed a feature, especially one as crucial at showing file names for bulk delete. And if the reason for removing the file names is that most users don't use them in bulk delete, well, that's not a very good reason at all in my opinion. And it's an even worse reason when it substantially increases the workflow of posting and sorting images.

I strongly urge SM to reconsider this decision to remove file names on the bulk delete function.

[pilotdave]

I definitely want filenames to show in the bulk tools. Sometimes I don't care to see thumbnails, but use filenames instead. I'm glad to see that it appears that SM is getting rid of the "page not finished loading" error message when you try to click on a thumbnail on a bulk tool and not all the thumbnails have loaded. In big galleries, I usually go into the tool knowing exactly which photo I need to do something with.

Here's an example... imagine I messed up the color effects on a few photos in a public gallery. I have those same photos in a backup gallery, along with hundreds of other photos from that day. The process is to look at the filenames of the photos i messed up, then go find them in the big backup gallery and make a second copy of each. Then I use the move tool to bring them to the public gallery.

It's pretty common for me to have a bunch of similar looking pictures in the backup gallery... Sometimes it's hard to tell them apart. I think it's obvious that filenames make the job easy (and yet it's still 200% harder than it needs to be... where's the "copy to another gallery" tool??).

What's the downside of displaying filenames (optionally)?

Also, please add that preview feature from the bulk delete tool to the keyword/caption tool.

Dave

[DJ-S1]

That had something to do with your Customizations - althought I am not sure what. First - you had a script error on the page: isClass was undefined - so I rewrote that call and you have no more script errors on the page. The Undefined error still showed up though. I turned on Hide Owner which causes all of your customizations to go away and Undefined went away - turned your customizations back on - and the Undefined was gone. I am not sure what to make of it - but yours has been the only reported case of this - so hopefully it was a one time occurence. :)

JTSorry JT, I get the "undefined" in my menus as well. FF2 on XP, doesn't happen with IE6 on the same system. Here's a gallery link (http://davidjames.smugmug.com/gallery/5045992_Zasqn#303262002_FvFam) for you.

Maybe it's just a two-time occurence.:wink

[AnneMcBean]

Yes, please bring back the expert arrange tool. I loved being able to quickly choose the first 5 or 10 photos from a huge list of photos....

Also, the "Delete Photos" tool needs to have an option to show filenames under the images.

Also.. a Bulk-Edit Geography would be VERY nice!

David

Hmm.. I must be missing something here. When I want to move some images to the front of my gallery, I go to "Arrange Photos" and click on each image that belongs at the top (or click and drag, now!) and then click "quick move: start". It gets the job done quickly, and leaves me on a page where it's easy to scoot other photos around if needed.

Would that work for you?

-Anne

[AnneMcBean]

It's pretty common for me to have a bunch of similar looking pictures in the backup gallery... Sometimes it's hard to tell them apart. I think it's obvious that filenames make the job easy (and yet it's still 200% harder than it needs to be... where's the "copy to another gallery" tool??).

What's the downside of displaying filenames (optionally)?

Also, please add that preview feature from the bulk delete tool to the keyword/caption tool.

Dave

So as far as I know, we still list filenames on tools where there is no preview feature. The filenames are shown on the Edit Keywords/Captions tool, for instance. On the other tools, hovering your mouse over the info icon on each thumbnail displays the filename, caption, and a larger image. Is it the effort involved with hovering your mouse that is the problem? Or is there a tool where we're missing the filenames entirely?

-Anne

[dogwood]

Or is there a tool where we're missing the filenames entirely?

-Anne

As I keep mentioning, the bulk delete tool does NOT show file names -- even when you hover over the thumbs. Your help desk is aware of this issue.

But... even if it did work with hovering, yes, it is unrealistic to expect a user to hover over hundreds of images individually to see the file names. Imagine if Bridge or Lightroom or Aperture or Photo Mechanic or even Windows or Macs required you to do this? It really is a photo editing STANDARD to display (without hovering) filenames with thumbs. What I don't get is why SM is trying to argue against this? You've removed a very, very, very useful feature this is standard to almost all photo editing software and photo websites.

[eenusa]

So as far as I know, we still list filenames on tools where there is no preview feature. The filenames are shown on the Edit Keywords/Captions tool, for instance. On the other tools, hovering your mouse over the info icon on each thumbnail displays the filename, caption, and a larger image. Is it the effort involved with hovering your mouse that is the problem? Or is there a tool where we're missing the filenames entirely?

-Anne

Drag to Arrange does not seem to have the hover feature to display filenames. It really would be nice to have the file names displayed ... plz keep in mind that some of us having aging eyes :D .

[eenusa]

Hmm.. I must be missing something here. When I want to move some images to the front of my gallery, I go to "Arrange Photos" and click on each image that belongs at the top (or click and drag, now!) and then click "quick move: start". It gets the job done quickly, and leaves me on a page where it's easy to scoot other photos around if needed.

Would that work for you?

-Anne

Anne, are you saying that in the Arrange Photos you can click and drag? I just tried it and I cannot drag within Arrange Photos. I can, however, click and drag within Drag to Arrange, but I can't seem to select multiple photos in that feature, so it is a bit cumbersome to click and drag if I want to arrange a lot of photos - plus no file names as mentioned in a previous post.

[AnneMcBean]

Anne, are you saying that in the Arrange Photos you can click and drag? I just tried it and I cannot drag within Arrange Photos. I can, however, click and drag within Drag to Arrange, but I can't seem to select multiple photos in that feature, so it is a bit cumbersome to click and drag if I want to arrange a lot of photos - plus no file names as mentioned in a previous post.

Sorry, I re-read my post and realized it wasn't very clear.

I meant to say "click and drag to select". The bulk tools now work like your operating systme probably does, where you click the mouse button, hold it, and move it over many images at once. When you release the button, all those images will be selected.

So if the last five images in the gallery should be moved to the front, click click and drag to highlight all five. Release your mouse button. Then click the "quick move: start" button.

Just to be clear, I'm offering this as an alternative to going to those five images in the Arrange Photos (Expert) tool and numbering them 1 through 5.

-Anne

[papajay]

Yes, we've been working on a photo tools cleanup to make them simpler and more polished, with a few new features. We have more to do but this seemed like a nice step forward.

The drag to arrange tool, for example, lets you select multiple photos to arrange at a time instead of just one. Hopefully the pro pricing tool, rotate tool, and a few others are a whole lot more obvious than they were before.

I really like the "new look" of the photo tools displays...nice work!

I know it's been requested (in the Feature Requests forum I think), but "while you're at it...", I hope one of the new features you hinted at above is clearly marking any "hidden" photos (those with the "hide photo" box checked) in all multi-image views, including Arrange, Bulk Capiton/Keyword, etc...a red "x" watermark across the face of the thumbnail or something similar would be very helpful.

I'd like to see which photo's I've already hidden clearly marked when I'm in the Delete Photos tool, the Drag/Drop Arrange tool, the Move Photos tool, the Rotate tool, or Bulk Caption/Keyword tool etc.

[dogwood]

On the other tools, hovering your mouse over the info icon on each thumbnail displays the filename, caption, and a larger image. Is it the effort involved with hovering your mouse that is the problem? Or is there a tool where we're missing the filenames entirely?

Okay, so I figured we're all probably visual people so a visual sample of what I'm talking about would be useful.

The screen grab below is what it looks like in bulk delete after hovering over the image. There are no file names. So based on Anne's post, this feature is not working properly. Is SM looking at fixing this?

It just seems very out-of-character for SM to either remove a very useful feature and/or to release something that apparently isn't working properly. Any estimate on when we might be able to see file names in bulk delete again?

I realize I'm really pushing this issue, but this is very, very important feature for me (and many others even if SM doesn't think so).


http://www.pbase.com/dogwood_digital/image/98228720.jpg

[dennismullen]

Please take note of the severe problem I'm having with arranging photos. I have placed several notices in the bug report thread. I haven't heard a response yet.

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=844599&postcount=255

[Andy]

What I don't get is why SM is trying to argue against this?
Hey Pete, hang in there... I expect you'll be happy again by the time next release comes. Sorry for the hassle.

[dogwood]

Hey Pete, hang in there... I expect you'll be happy again by the time next release comes. Sorry for the hassle.

Thanks for the reply, Andy. Hope that next release comes soon!

[eenusa]

Sorry, I re-read my post and realized it wasn't very clear.

I meant to say "click and drag to select". The bulk tools now work like your operating systme probably does, where you click the mouse button, hold it, and move it over many images at once. When you release the button, all those images will be selected.

So if the last five images in the gallery should be moved to the front, click click and drag to highlight all five. Release your mouse button. Then click the "quick move: start" button.

Just to be clear, I'm offering this as an alternative to going to those five images in the Arrange Photos (Expert) tool and numbering them 1 through 5.

-Anne

IN DRAG TO ARRANGE: I tried the "click drag over images" and see that I can select multiple images that way (normally in Windows, I do the shift or ctrl click to select multiple images). That said, when I then try to move those selected images (without first clicking again), they don't move, and if I hover over the selected images and click on the assumption that I have to click again like I would in a Windows environment to move the selected images, only the image I clicked on gets moved, the rest do not. (I am not a novice when it comes to moving files around, by the way, but this tool has me stumped when it comes to arranging multiple images.)

[Mike Kalcevic]

:dunnoAt least leave us the option to do the arranging by the old number way. These new "upgrades"... they're not helping. When one has hundreds of photos in one gallery, do you really think we want to have to do the drag and drop??? It takes forever.

At least leave us the options to do it the old way. I know this new crap is fancy and everything... but the old adage applies... If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :bash

[PBolchover]

I've got a quick request about the new layout for the "Color Effects" tool. I like the fact that the photos are bigger, but now it is difficult to compare the individual color effects with each other. In particular, I frequently compare the "Auto Color" with the "Tanning Salon". This is now very difficult, since they are separated by the "Sepia" effect, and I can't get the two images on the page simultaneously.

The simple fix would be to move "Sepia" to after "Tanning Salon". Even better would be to have an option to switch sizes....

[AnneMcBean]

I've got a quick request about the new layout for the "Color Effects" tool. I like the fact that the photos are bigger, but now it is difficult to compare the individual color effects with each other. In particular, I frequently compare the "Auto Color" with the "Tanning Salon". This is now very difficult, since they are separated by the "Sepia" effect, and I can't get the two images on the page simultaneously.

The simple fix would be to move "Sepia" to after "Tanning Salon". Even better would be to have an option to switch sizes....

Thanks for the feedback. :thumb

When I open my window wide, I get the previews going two across, so auto and tanning salon are next to each other verticallly (if that makes sense). That's on my 15" laptop so a smaller display might only see the photos in a single column.

It's possible we'll change this, but in the meantime... maybe try opening that same tool in two windows so you can look at the different color effects side-by-side?

As a side note, I always make a second copy first, so if I don't like the effect I chose, I can delete it, make a second copy of the original and go with a different color effect. :D

-Anne

[pigeon]

After spending lots of time rearranging photos, I see in this thread that I could have group-selected my images and moved them. What a Great Thing!

Thing is, I've tried and tried. It just doesn't seem to work.

So, is it working - or not? Or maybe only in certain browsers? I'm using Firefox.

thanks,
teresa