Newbie Question - Picture Size

bipock

As I am uploading pics, I am resizing them from the original 10.1 megapixel into about 1megapixel size (1500x1000 sides). I'm using my Canon camera software to do this. I have allowed 1mp digital downloads and original. I would like to allow 4 mp downloads. My basis for the size was the minimum resolution chart requirement for an 8x10 which is the largest "advertised" print I sell.

My questions is does this require me to load larger picture sizes into Smug or will the pictures be resized to the format required?

If this is not the correct forum for this question, please forgive me. Also, ignore the stupidity of the question as I am new and have never had to deal with sizes before.

Phyxius

Hi Bipock!

Welcome to DGrin and SmugMug! No question is a stupid question.

Here's info from our help pages - http://www.smugmug.com/help/sell-digital-downloads

To find out how many megapixels an image is, just multiply the pixel dimensions together and divide by 1 million. For example, an 816x1224 image is 998,784 pixels. Divide that by 1 million and you get .998784 (just under 1 Megapixel). If it is twice as wide and tall, or an 1632x2448 image, it will be nearly 4 Megapixels.

More info on digital downloads - http://www.smugmug.com/prints/digital-downloads

nipprdog

bipock wrote:

As I am uploading pics, I am resizing them from the original 10.1 megapixel into about 1megapixel size (1500x1000 sides).

I still don't understand why people upload lower resolution files. SM offers unlimited capacity. Why upload files that won't offer the best posible prints??

bipock

I am now using SE to upload the full rez files. 247 files takes about 5-6 hours in my world - can anyone help here? I average 8 4.6mb pics every 10 minutes, or 48 pics an hour. I'm shoting L jpegs, not the more compressed, which could be part of the problem.

Nipprdog, the reason I was using lower size I was basing the size need on the minimum rez requirements for printing the sizes I offer. Of course, now I can offer those sizes and more. Mostly, misunderstanding on my behalf.

termina3

bipock wrote:

As I am uploading pics, I am resizing them from the original 10.1 megapixel into about 1megapixel size (1500x1000 sides).

Why!?! (BTW, that's 1.5 MP)

I have allowed 1mp digital downloads and original.

I hope you're not charging different prices, because you're delivering the same product.

I would like to allow 4 mp downloads.

Smug doesn't let you specify the exact size of the download... only Low, High, or Original Resolution. Lucky for you, "High" is 4 MP.

My questions (sic) is does this require me to load larger picture sizes into Smug or will the pictures be resized to the format required?

Smug can downscale, but can't upscale. (More accurately, no one can create data where there isn't any. Except CSI.)

Phyxius

bipock wrote:

I am now using SE to upload the full rez files. 247 files takes about 5-6 hours in my world - can anyone help here? I average 8 4.6mb pics every 10 minutes, or 48 pics an hour. I'm shoting L jpegs, not the more compressed, which could be part of the problem.

I feel your pain on slow uploads! Just today I switched from basic DSL to Comcast hi-speed. I know many people joke about Comcast, but in my area that's what is available and it's a lot faster than the DSL was!

What kind of connection do you have? Would you mind doing a speed test for us and posting the results? http://www.smugmug.speedtest.net

Nipprdog, the reason I was using lower size I was basing the size need on the minimum rez requirements for printing the sizes I offer. Of course, now I can offer those sizes and more. Mostly, misunderstanding on my behalf.

Minimum requirements are okay, but they are minimum so be careful that you're not limiting yourself too much. Also, the less compression or resizing you do to the original files the better.

Phyxius

Bipock,

I also wanted to include this link to our help page about images sizes and upload times.

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

bipock

Speed test Results:

Download - 3.00 mb/s
Upload - .46 mb/s
Ping - 198ms

Betz

Phyxius wrote:

I feel your pain on slow uploads! Just today I switched from basic DSL to Comcast hi-speed. I know many people joke about Comcast, but in my area that's what is available and it's a lot faster than the DSL was!

Was curious to see what you're getting with your Comcast connection since I have Comcast as well. Lucky for me the new wide band will be available and we're getting that which will increase my upload speed. I uploaded 875 photos from a recent wedding and it took right around 5 hours.

Thanks for posting the link to the Smug speed test, I like that site much better than Speakeasy

Phyxius

bipock wrote:

Speed test Results:

Download - 3.00 mb/s
Upload - .46 mb/s
Ping - 198ms

The upload speed is very low and is indicative of why uploads are taking so long. My previous provider was slower up and down though, so I tried to do my uploads at night or in smaller batches. I know that's a band-aid not a solution.

Phyxius

Here are my results to SmugMug. With basic DSL I was getting about 765k down and 235k up. :cry

Betz, choose the San Jose location, that's the one hosted by smugmug.

Let me try my link again. http://smugmug.speedtest.net/

HockeyDad2324

Hey folks,
New here. I am getting these readings:

Any suggestion on getting better speeds? I just purchased Star Explorer to help with uploads, but it takes forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are using Verizon DSL, and do not have cable here in the mountains!
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Sean

termina3

That's not DSL. That's horrendous.

Sorry, no suggestions, just empathy.

HockeyDad2324

termina3 wrote:

That's not DSL. That's horrendous.

Sorry, no suggestions, just empathy.

...Ridiculous right! We just installed an optimizer and get the same test results, but internet speed has seemed to triple. I will let you know when I upload pictures to smugmug later....

Sean

Shark

Phyxius wrote:

:so I tried to do my uploads at night or in smaller batches.

That's exactly how I do it. If I have hundreds of photos from a sporting event, after I go through them to weed out the ones that definitely aren't worth keeping, I upload them to SmugMug overnight while I'm sleeping. The next morning I wake up, see the little "upload complete" box on my computer, then start my day with a smile. No, wait a minute, maybe not a smile, but you know what I mean. I have a cable internet connection. I just figured it is what it is, and deal with it.

JohnBiggs

HockeyDad2324 wrote:

...Ridiculous right! We just installed an optimizer and get the same test results, but internet speed has seemed to triple. I will let you know when I upload pictures to smugmug later....

Sean

Internet Optimizers just use tricks to speed up the web browser. Nothing but you ISP can make your actual speeds increase.

This is why your test didn't improve but your web browser did.

cabbey

JohnBiggs wrote:

Internet Optimizers just use tricks to speed up the web browser. Nothing but you ISP can make your actual speeds increase.

This is why your test didn't improve but your web browser did.

And by far the worst thing some optimizers do, is crush images down smaller. This is an old article about the practice, but it's still a legit issue in some cases: http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/aol.shtml

cabbey

bipock wrote:

Nipprdog, the reason I was using lower size I was basing the size need on the minimum rez requirements for printing the sizes I offer. Of course, now I can offer those sizes and more. Mostly, misunderstanding on my behalf.

The key thing there to remember is that those are MINIMUM sizes, the printers are capable of using a lot more pixels than those, and the results are noticeably better.

As long as you have proof delay enabled and actually replace the images with high-res files when you get an order, this can be a great time saving strategy. You don't chew up hours and hours of upload time for high res images that never sell... you only upload the full images once you actually have a sale. This way your customers get the best prints possible.

HockeyDad2324

cabbey wrote:

And by far the worst thing some optimizers do, is crush images down smaller. This is an old article about the practice, but it's still a legit issue in some cases: http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/aol.shtml

So should I have optimized or not? Can I revert back to the old way if I ever have any future issues?
Thanks,
Sean

cabbey

HockeyDad2324 wrote:

So should I have optimized or not? Can I revert back to the old way if I ever have any future issues?
Thanks,
Sean

If you're happy with it, leave it. Most of those optimizers have an on/off switch somewhere.

HockeyDad2324

cabbey wrote:

If you're happy with it, leave it. Most of those optimizers have an on/off switch somewhere.

Thank you cabbey,
Sean