Best Of

Re: Customize Pages

@beardedlogic said:
I know this isn't what @sharky meant to use her post for, but it looks like it's got a little traction.

I want the parallax effect, but this code only shows one picture, even though I've linked 3.

If you want a Parallax effect on one of your pages, try this: https://gallery.imagesinthebackcountry.com/Smugmug-customization/Create-a-Parallax-Fixed-Scrolling-SmugMug-Website

Hikin' Mike

1

This is indeed sad news. I am grateful for the energy and creative expertise that Joyce shared with us on Dgrin over the years. She joined in early 2008 and stepped back about a year ago to focus her energies elsewhere. So that's about 15 years in which she was involved with Dgrin in one way or another!

For those who might want to revisit some of JAG's photography - as one way to celebrate her life - here is a link to her photo galleries.

sapphire73

3

Scanning Artifacts in Black & White Negative Scans...Why? How?

Inexperienced with scanning, I'm finding lots of artifacts messing up the high resolution black & white scans I'm trying to produce with an Epson Perfection v800 Photo scanner. Can you tell me: What causes the common issues of artifacts in scans? How can I minimize/eliminate them? Is an "artifact" the same as what many are calling "noise" in the scans? Do I just need to burn/dodge them out or use the spot healing brush in PS? Will using the dust removal function increase the likelihood of artifact creation? Any suggestions and explanations welcome to improve my project!
Michael

MOlwylerPhoto

1

I'm seeing a lot of "oauth_problem=nonce_used" replies in error (the nonce is unique)

Code that I have not changed in years has suddenly started occasionally garnering "oauth_problem=nonce_used" replies from SmugMug, even though the nonce is absolutely unique. I can't imagine that it's anything other than a newly-introduced bug at SmugMug. How can I help investigate this?

Jeffrey Friedl

1

Re: New Google Analytics

@wescandela said:

@Hikin' Mike said:

@wescandela said:
Hi Mike, what did you enter into the Google Analytics box? Did you put the entire Google Analytics property code or just the digits?

I used the "Measurement ID" from the 'Data Streams > Web stream details'.

Interesting...
I have never read anywhere that that's what you're supposed to be putting into the SmugMug Google Analytics box but I will give it a shot. Thank you very much, Mike.

SM should update it, but for now just in your GA account click on 'Admin' on the bottom, find 'Data Stream' and click on that stream and you'll see your 'Web stream details' pop up and copy your 'Measure ID'. Should be good to go.

Hikin' Mike

2

Re: Does this Photo Look Pixelated to You?

You're getting confused between pixel dimension, inch dimension and pixels-per-inch.

For brevity, simply export your photos at full resolution and send those images to the printer. So, do NOT check the box that says to resize your photos.

Your camera shoots images at 5568 x 3712 pixels, which is plenty for printing at those sizes. However, any cropping reduces that size. Being a nature photographer, I know how much we often need to crop. So depending on how far you've cropped your images, it's possible you don't have enough pixels to get the best print quality when blown up to 36". So keep that in mind. Ideally you'd like to print at 300 dpi, which for 36" is 10,800 pixels which obviously you won't have. In that case the printer software enlarges the photo to your size, but quality is lost in the enlargement. That minimum dimension of 3600 pixels they gave you for 36" dimension is only 100 PPI which is very low anyway, so you definitely don't want to go lower than that.

So go ahead and export at full size, and then check the pixel dimensions of your exported images to make sure they meet the minimum dimension they asked. Bigger is better.

kdog

1

Re: Does this Photo Look Pixelated to You?

The image posted in this thread appears to be 1200 x 800 pixels, or what's commonly referred to as a "1 megapixel" image. What I see in that image appears to be heavy JPG Aliasing, which I usually see in an image with post-processing which involves an interpolation of the image plus the addition of contrast and sharpening earlier in the processing process as well as after the interpolation. (IOW, a double-dose of contrast and sharpening.

Yes, I see obvious Aliasing pixelization. If an enlargement print was made from this it will show obvious pixelization as well.

If this was originally captured by a current enthusiast grade or professional grade camera with at least 24 megapixels and as a RAW image file, then I suspect a post-processing error has occured somewhere in the process.

If you have the original RAW file and if it meets the above criteria for potential image quality (24 megapixels or better, RAW image file, from a modern enthusiast or professional camera/lens) you might consider hiring a trusted professional photographer to assess the file and, using the image you posted here as an example of the color tonality you expect, they might achieve more usable results without the pixelization in an enlargement print.

ziggy53

1

Re: I can't believe that the Flavicon issue on Google search is still unresolved

I just want it to be clear that I do not work for SmugMug nor do I represent SmugMug. I'm just interested to know what you tried.

But I saw this and did a bit of checking. As far as I can tell, favicons only work on your SmugMug pages. That's according to the documentation SmugMug provided. It also mentions that favicons don't always work with some browsers. If you go to Google's developer page, it gives you the details for including a favicon in its search results. It also says, about midway down the page, that it's not guaranteed to work even if you follow the instructions.

Were you able to edit the header and add the single favicon as described in Google's doc?

ian408

1