What if we change some print resolution requirements?

Baldy

As we've added new products over the years, we haven't been
as careful as we now wish we had been with setting print resolution
requirements.

The problem we now face is you can come to the shopping cart
and get a notice that your pic doesn't have enough resolution
for a 24x36, but does for a 30x40, which no consumer can understand.

So we decided to rationalize the table with three principles in mind:

1. The bigger the print, the more pixels you need.
2. The bigger the print, the lower the dpi it can be.
3. Some products require more pixels because they're made with ink jets,
which have to dither. Like canvas.

Here's before and after tweaking:



Here's the problem: some pros probably have uploaded products that
will no longer be shown in the cart for sale if we do this. Ugh.

Seems like we have three choices:

1. Communicate the changes the best we know how over, say, 30 days
and grovel to those who miss the communications.

2. Re-calculate the numbers so that no res requirement goes up, they
only come down (hello increased returns).

3. Decide the consumer res message problem is tempest in a teapot and that we have
bigger fires to fight (stick with the status quo).

Your thoughts.

Thanks,
Baldy

jfriend

Can you run some sort of script or query across your image base and find out how many images that are being sold by pros would actually be affected (e.g. would no longer show in the cart)? If that number is pretty small, then I say you send an email to those pros explaining the change and then implement it 30-60 days later.

If that number is large, then I'd ask if it is possible to make the new requirements only apply to newly created galleries? While that's certainly more complicated to implement, it would allow you to change the requirements without breaking any existing stuff.

Baldy

jfriend wrote:

Can you run some sort of script or query across your image base and find out how many images that are being sold by pros would actually be affected (e.g. would no longer show in the cart)? If that number is pretty small, then I say you send an email to those pros explaining the change and then implement it 30-60 days later.

Yes, that would be immensely logical. The issue that brings up is, is it worth taking time from the guy working on virtual galleries to extract this data? I'm thinking a few strange-looking messages about print resolutions isn't sounding so bad after all...

jfriend

Baldy wrote:

Yes, that would be immensely logical. The issue that brings up is, is it worth taking time from the guy working on virtual galleries to extract this data? I'm thinking a few strange-looking messages about print resolutions isn't sounding so bad after all...

First off, I'm excited to hear that someone is actually working on virtual galleries! Woohoo!

It seems like you have a pretty strong obligation not to mess up the business of your pros if you want to keep them as customers and keep a good reputation among pros. It seems to me that the only way you can do that is to either know that only a very small number are affected by this change or know that you can successfully communicate with everyone who is.

Not knowing how many people are affected or how long it might take to gather that information makes it hard for me to know how to trade that off vs. features. Perhaps there's a "sampling" method that could give you an idea on how many pros are affected without a large cost. If I were you, I think I'd want some data even if it cost a little time to gather the data.

scwalter

I usually upload full 8MP images so this does not really affect me, but how about a flag that if proof delay it set, then ANY size is allowed. This would allow the upload of "display" sizes, yet still allow any products to be purchased. It would then be up to the pro to ensure that the resolution requirements are met when replacing the file.

I'll admit that I never really believed that people run into this problem, even the most basic P&S nowadays meets the requirements of large prints assuming no cropping. I mean the 30x40" only requires 3MP... but I guess some people may overlook things if they crop too much.

-Scott

jfriend

scwalter wrote:

I usually upload full 8MP images so this does not really affect me, but how about a flag that if proof delay it set, then ANY size is allowed. This would allow the upload of "display" sizes, yet still allow any products to be purchased. It would then be up to the pro to ensure that the resolution requirements are met when replacing the file.

I'll admit that I never really believed that people run into this problem, even the most basic P&S nowadays meets the requirements of large prints assuming no cropping. I mean the 30x40" only requires 3MP... but I guess some people may overlook things if they crop too much.

-Scott

There are people who upload small versions of their photos and then replace them with larger versions only when ordered. The only reason I've seen for that made sense to me is upload time.

Smugmug can speak to this, but there is a problem if the pro does not replace the undersized original in the alloted proof delay time. Then what does Smugmug do? If they print it anyway (with the undersized image), it's likely to get returned and nobody is happy and Smugmug is out money on their guarentee and perhaps support costs on dealing with it. If they don't print it, then everyone is wondering why the order wasn't processsed and it will be unclear who is really at fault. I suppose they could cancel that part of the order because the pro failed to comply with their responsibilities, but that sounds messy too. How would you handle this if you were them?

Matthew Saville

QUESTION: (insert Dwight's voice...)

How does customer cropping play into print resolution requirements? Every now and then I get some crazy parent trying to crop a headshot of their kid out of a group of 20 kids, and I just know the print is going to look like trash. Is there anything I can do? Other than un-cropping the image during proofing and emailing them to say "hey, you can't crop like that, I dont' have a 1Ds mk3!"


=Matt=

Matthew Saville

jfriend wrote:

There are people who upload small versions of their photos and then replace them with larger versions only when ordered. The only reason I've seen for that made sense to me is upload time.

Smugmug can speak to this, but there is a problem if the pro does not replace the undersized original in the alloted proof delay time. Then what does Smugmug do? If they print it anyway (with the undersized image), it's likely to get returned and nobody is happy and Smugmug is out money on their guarentee and perhaps support costs on dealing with it. If they don't print it, then everyone is wondering why the order wasn't processsed and it will be unclear who is really at fault. I suppose they could cancel that part of the order because the pro failed to comply with their responsibilities, but that sounds messy too. How would you handle this if you were them?

Interesting input. YES, especially if Smugmug ever comes out with Smugstock, photographers may wish to quickly upload thousands of low-res "thumbs" from their 1Ds mk3 without having to upload the entire 21 megapixel file.

Which also brings up the point, we need a proof delay on digital downloads! Although I can understand how a designer / editor may want an image immediately, and having to wait up to 7 days might not fly AT ALL...

=Matt=

Andy

Matthew Saville wrote:

QUESTION: (insert Dwight's voice...)

How does customer cropping play into print resolution requirements? Every now and then I get some crazy parent trying to crop a headshot of their kid out of a group of 20 kids, and I just know the print is going to look like trash. Is there anything I can do? Other than un-cropping the image during proofing and emailing them to say "hey, you can't crop like that, I dont' have a 1Ds mk3!"


=Matt=

Print res as we define it comes into play in two ways:

1) it would determine if a photo is available for sale - if below the minimum for a size, it wouldn't be available for print sale

2) once sold, and customer has it in the cart, and chooses to crop, they can't crop below the minimum for any given print size (we're smart like that!)

3) remember, pros can re-adjust crops with Proof Delay.

Andy

Matthew Saville wrote:

Which also brings up the point, we need a proof delay on digital downloads! Although I can understand how a designer / editor may want an image immediately, and having to wait up to 7 days might not fly AT ALL...

=Matt=

exactly, which is why it's not happening at the moment.

Steve Knight Photo

Bigger Fish to Fry
My vote for keeping the staus quo at this point especially if it means taking time and energy away from other features that I feel have a higher priority. Figuring out a way to have coupons, packages, and an optional digital download proof delay makes more sense to me. I believe that the lack of coupons and packages significantly affects the bottom line of Pros and SmugMug alike. If I crop hard I upsize as much as I can without significantly affecting detail and then rely on the current not enough resolution warning. I don't want to have any size allowed if you have a proof delay set. It would be a nightmare for a lot of my fellow sports shooters. Every pixel has its limits!

Steve
www.steveknightphoto.com

Andy

Steve Knight Photo wrote:

My vote for keeping the staus quo at this point especially if it means taking time and energy

No Sorcerers would be required to make this change it won't take away from any other work we're doing

bham

Most decent cameras (dslr) have had at least 3mp (and thats for a 30x40) since 2003 or 2004, probably way before. And I rarely enable a larger size available to order than an 8x10, (because to be honest smugmugs wholesale price on anything over 11x14 is WAY to high, without then adding the 15%) I handle all large orders directly. So I bet a slight upping of the resolution requirements would be fine to 99% of the pros, and 90% of the basic and power customers. A quick notification that says we are changing this in 30 days I think would be fine. This gives them enough time to check things and resize or disenable some items.

Baldy

Andy wrote:

No Sorcerers would be required to make this change it won't take away from any other work we're doing

That's true, we can make the change without sorcerers. But figuring out which pros have products priced for sale that would fall below our new res requirements would take the time of someone really important...

John's right, if we raise the res requirements for something a pro wants to sell and would no longer be for sale, we should do the query and notify them.

But I've been squinting at this chart and I think we could get away with raising the 30x40 requirements because (a) we don't sell many of them and (b) I'm nearly positive if a pro allows them in their shopping cart and not 24x36s, it's a mistake -- our mistake -- and unintentional on their part. It's hard to imagine a case where they want to sell 30x40s but not 20x30s.

For most of the other products, we could forget the increase because we're only talking about going from 1280 to 1300.

That leaves 11x14s as the most glaring SKU with a problem. I'm not too happy with it being 768 for 11 inches when an 8x10 is 800 for 8... But if fixing the one glaring SKU means a lot of sorcerer time and some upset pros, we should probably let it go and focus on bigger fish.

One thing to keep in mind: reaching 50% of pros feels like a high number. They're busy, have spam filters, miss emails, etc., just like we all do, so there will be gnashing of teeth anyway if some pros are depending on their 11x14s selling at our current res.

Do you think we'd be safe raising the 11x14 pixel requirement to be at least what it is for 8x10s on the premise that no pro would intentionally have something for sale at 11x14 and not 8x10 (for reasons of resolution alone)?

jfriend

Baldy wrote:

That's true, we can make the change without sorcerers. But figuring out which pros have products priced for sale that would fall below our new res requirements would take the time of someone really important...

John's right, if we raise the res requirements for something a pro wants to sell and would no longer be for sale, we should do the query and notify them.

But I've been squinting at this chart and I think we could get away with raising the 30x40 requirements because (a) we don't sell many of them and (b) I'm nearly positive if a pro allows them in their shopping cart and not 24x36s, it's a mistake -- our mistake -- and unintentional on their part. It's hard to imagine a case where they want to sell 30x40s but not 20x30s.

That makes sense to me. If they were uploading images "just big enough", they would have targeted the more stringent requirement of the 24x36.

Baldy wrote:

For most of the other products, we could forget the increase because we're only talking about going from 1280 to 1300.

Make sense to me.

Baldy wrote:

That leaves 11x14s as the most glaring SKU with a problem. I'm not too happy with it being 768 for 11 inches when an 8x10 is 800 for 8... But if fixing the one glaring SKU means a lot of sorcerer time and some upset pros, we should probably let it go and focus on bigger fish.

I agree it make sense to raise the 11x14 to at least the 8x10 requirement. By your earlier logic, who would target an upload size for the 11x14 size and not be able to sell 8x10s. They could have done it by mistake, but certainly not on purpose. I personally think there would be very few pros who wouldn't want to enable larger sizes than 11x14 anyway because in the off chance that's what someone wants to buy, they can make good money at the larger sizes with little extra work.

Baldy wrote:

One thing to keep in mind: reaching 50% of pros feels like a high number. They're busy, have spam filters, miss emails, etc., just like we all do, so there will be gnashing of teeth anyway if some pros are depending on their 11x14s selling at our current res.

Do you think we'd be safe raising the 11x14 pixel requirement to be at least what it is for 8x10s on the premise that no pro would intentionally have something for sale at 11x14 and not 8x10 (for reasons of resolution alone)?

Yes.

Baldy

Okay, perfect. Thanks very much for the feedback!

iklimon

Baldy wrote:

3. Decide the consumer res message problem is tempest in a teapot and that we have
bigger fires to fight (stick with the status quo).

I vote for this one, let's put all resources on coupons and packages!