Hoping to change font size, maybe color... Sorry I mis-typed on the thumbs question... can they be moved to bottom?
You can change the look of the captions for Journal gallery, but not slideshow (post in customizing forum, for help, if you need it).
Sorry, the thumbs can't be on the bottom, at least not now.
I was running a show that was thumbnail size with captions using real old
show code. The problem now is with the new show there is no way to scale
the captions to the show size. In this case the caption is 4x the size of the
slides and an ugly white.
I was running a show that was thumbnail size with captions using real old
show code. The problem now is with the new show there is no way to scale
the captions to the show size. In this case the caption is 4x the size of the
slides and an ugly white.
Have a look at my biobox. Not a pretty site.:D
In your bio box you can choose to show them or not show them, Allen.... right?
In your bio box you can choose to show them or not show them, Allen.... right?
Yal, had them not showing when I saw how ugly they were. Just turned them back on so you all could see how bad they look. You've now forced everyone to either show those big ugly captions or turn them off. Although with SS style or in FSSS shows there's no option unless the viewer sees the itty bity toggle at the top even if they have time to noticed it. I fell sorry for those that embed in galleries and blogs etc. at maybe 200x300 size and can't use captions because they are so ugly and don't scale to their show size.
Yal, had them not showing when I saw how ugly they were. Just turned them back on so you all could see how bad they look. You've now forced everyone to either show those big ugly captions or turn them off. Although with SS style or in FSSS shows there's no option unless the viewer sees the itty bity toggle at the top even if they have time to noticed it. I fell sorry for those that embed in galleries and blogs etc. at maybe 200x300 size and can't use captions because they are so ugly and don't scale to their show size.
Hey Allen, it's been two days, let Sam digest the emails I've sent him with your great comments. We get the issue. If there's something that can be done, to satisfy big images filling the screen, and the captions too, we'll do it.
Hey Allen, it's been two days, let Sam digest the emails I've sent him with your great comments. We get the issue. If there's something that can be done, to satisfy big images filling the screen, and the captions too, we'll do it.
Thanks!
Is there a way to please make the slideshow show in large size withouth the bar on the top. Please please please someone find a way. I would love to show my portfolio gallery to my clients that way but can't because some of the images get cut off by the bar and yes I know that if I stop moving the mouse it will go away but my clients don't know that and the fact that the arrows on the side appear as soon as the slideshow appears it only sends a stronger message that the arrows need be clicked on. ( In fact I didnt' realize the banner would go away if I stopped moving the mouse until I read this discussion board) so I am convinced that my potential clients would not know that either. Journal style I guess will have to do for now but if someone finds a way please share the good news.
please leave an option for the old journal style
Just want to add my vote...All for progress, but my instructive gallery for brides took a lot of work and I get tons of positve feedback from them on it. It is like a book, and the new style won't work for it. But for other galleries, I'll give it a try.
Thanks for considering...Most of us don't have time to re-do this stuff because "styles change."
Yeah that pic is 5:4 ratio, roughly ... try the next one, the motorcycle - I set my system to 1900 x1200 and that pic fits perfectly... it's 3:2 ratio. I'll ask if there are enhancements that can make all of 'em fit exactly,, not sure if that's possible.
Andy,
here's the screenshot of the motorbike:
As you an see it is abit too large for the screen.
I also had a look at the other motorcycle (on the beach). That one falls even more of the screen.
I absolutely do not understand that a viewer would want to see an image that is optimised for width, thereby having to scroll to see the whole picture. I would say that is certainly not user-friendly and only suitable for detailed analysis of images.
In my perception people (both viewers and custmomers) want to see an image fitting optimally on the screen when browsing images. And that would make the software simpler in the sense that almost all cases only the heigth of the image is determining for the scaling/rendering that has to be done. Also we see more and more widescreen monitors appearing which will make our images extend over the vertical borders.
It would be interesting to know the background of the requirement for having the images optimized for width. For whom is it intended and why do they only want to see part of the image and not the whole image?
Greetings, Jan http://kooreman.smugmug.com
Save 5$ on your subscription fee when you subscribe to Smugmug;
Use this referral code ( n6vdfbmkCEeXU ) in the 'Referred by' field on the signup form.
As you an see it is abit too large for the screen.
I also had a look at the other motorcycle (on the beach). That one falls even more of the screen.
I absolutely do not understand that a viewer would want to see an image that is optimised for width, thereby having to scroll to see the whole picture. I would say that is certainly not user-friendly and only suitable for detailed analysis of images.
In my perception people (both viewers and custmomers) want to see an image fitting optimally on the screen when browsing images. And that would make the software simpler in the sense that almost all cases only the heigth of the image is determining for the scaling/rendering that has to be done. Also we see more and more widescreen monitors appearing which will make our images extend over the vertical borders.
It would be interesting to know the background of the requirement for having the images optimized for width. For whom is it intended and why do they only want to see part of the image and not the whole image?
Andy, I think there's something just wrong with the algorithm for picking the new journal photo size. I can take a window size where the images just fit perfectly into the window and make it a little bit wider and then the new journal view will switch to a size of image that no longer fits in the window and requires vertical scrolling. There is no legitimate reason for this so I think it's most likely an error in the algorithm because I can't find any reason why anyone would want it to do this. I can reproduce this problem very easily. Please have the sorcerers take a look at what they intended versus how it actually works.
All I have to do to reproduce it is make a window size that just fits the vertical dimension of the images. Then, make the window wider (no change in height) and at some point, it will switch to a larger image that no longer fits vertically.
From comments in this thread, it sounds as if the algorithm is based around trying to fit a 3x2 landscape photo within the window. However, the 3x2 photo is fairly rare nowadays - it seems to be only used in SLR cameras.
Since the vast majority of cameras use a 4x3 ratio, which for landscapes is slightly taller than 3x2, I would suggest that you change the algorithm to fit a 4x3 photo within the frame.
This would still give a pretty large photo for the SLR-philes, while still ensuring that a landscape photo fits on the screen for the majority who use compact cameras.
Just want to add my vote...All for progress, but my instructive gallery for brides took a lot of work and I get tons of positve feedback from them on it. It is like a book, and the new style won't work for it. But for other galleries, I'll give it a try.
Thanks for considering...Most of us don't have time to re-do this stuff because "styles change."
As you an see it is abit too large for the screen.
I also had a look at the other motorcycle (on the beach). That one falls even more of the screen.
I absolutely do not understand that a viewer would want to see an image that is optimised for width, thereby having to scroll to see the whole picture. I would say that is certainly not user-friendly and only suitable for detailed analysis of images.
In my perception people (both viewers and custmomers) want to see an image fitting optimally on the screen when browsing images. And that would make the software simpler in the sense that almost all cases only the heigth of the image is determining for the scaling/rendering that has to be done. Also we see more and more widescreen monitors appearing which will make our images extend over the vertical borders.
It would be interesting to know the background of the requirement for having the images optimized for width. For whom is it intended and why do they only want to see part of the image and not the whole image?
We can adjust the algorithm, but it brings up the age-old complaint that SmugMug made a mistake by making portrait images smaller than landscape versions. When you sit someone down and watch as they view and how they like the big images, the first question they ask is how come some of them are smaller? When we explain, some of them say, "well, we're scrolling anyway" and many of the rest say it looks like a mistake.
So we erred a little on the side of nipping the edge of the image rather than bump a size down.
In your screen shot of the motorcycle image, it looks like the entire image is there, but the caption is cut off. We could bump the size of the image down a notch to not get close to the edge or nip any of it, but I personally wouldn't like it (that doesn't matter) and we'll take more heat over the portrait-oriented images.
We can adjust the algorithm, but it brings up the age-old complaint that SmugMug made a mistake by making portrait images smaller than landscape versions. When you sit someone down and watch as they view and how they like the big images, the first question they ask is how come some of them are smaller? When we explain, some of them say, "well, we're scrolling anyway" and many of the rest say it looks like a mistake.
So we erred a little on the side of nipping the edge of the image rather than bump a size down.
In your screen shot of the motorcycle image, it looks like the entire image is there, but the caption is cut off. We could bump the size of the image down a notch to not get close to the edge or nip any of it, but I personally wouldn't like it (that doesn't matter) and we'll take more heat over the portrait-oriented images.
Why do portrait images have to have anything to do with what size landscape images you pick? If you're generating dynamic sizes, can't portrait and landscape image sizes be completely independent from one another? Why wouldn't you make each as large as you could without scrolling in either direction?
All I have to do to reproduce it is make a window size that just fits the vertical dimension of the images. Then, make the window wider (no change in height) and at some point, it will switch to a larger image that no longer fits vertically.
Yeah, I can see this now that you mention it. I wouldn't have thought to make my browser area so wide and short, but when it is in that configuration, I can really see wanting smaller images.
Why do portrait images have to have anything to do with what size landscape images you pick? If you're generating dynamic sizes, can't portrait and landscape image sizes be completely independent from one another?
We do that now, but the customer reaction is it's a mistake. They don't understand why sometimes you give them a small image and sometimes a large one. I think that's why you rarely (never?) see a portrait-oriented image on Boston.com's Big Picture. I cringed when I included them in my gallery.
We do that now, but the customer reaction is it's a mistake. They don't understand why sometimes you give them a small image and sometimes a large one. I think that's why you rarely (never?) see a portrait-oriented image on Boston.com's Big Picture. I cringed when I included them in my gallery.
That problem occurs in the Smugmug view, but that's because the two image sizes are linked and you're stuck with preset sizes and the landscape image often doesn't fill the available space because of the constraint of the portrait size.
But, I don't see how that would be a problem in the journal view. Nobody will legitimately wish for a larger portrait image when they can see it already fills the available height.
As long as the image fills at least one dimension of the screen, most reasonable people are going to realize, it's as large as will fit. If they're being unreasonable and wishing for even larger (e.g. wishing for scrolling), then you will probably just have to let their wishes go because making it even larger will generate more dissatisfaction from those who don't think it should force scrolling.
Scrolling is bad. Undersize images are bad (in this case). Since you have dynamic sizes, I would think the best you can do is make the image fill one dimension without ever scrolling in either direction. I "thought" that was the design objective of the journal view, but it's missing that mark slightly. Was their a different design objective?
That problem occurs in the Smugmug view, but that's because the two image sizes are linked and you're stuck with preset sizes and the landscape image often doesn't fill the available space because of the constraint of the portrait size.
But, I don't see how that would be a problem in the journal view. Nobody will legitimately wish for a larger portrait image when they can see it already fills the available height.
As long as the image fills at least one dimension of the screen, most reasonable people are going to realize, it's as large as will fit. If they're being unreasonable and wishing for even larger (e.g. wishing for scrolling), then you will probably just have to let their wishes go because making it even larger will generate more dissatisfaction from those who don't think it should force scrolling.
Scrolling is bad. Undersize images are bad (in this case). Since you have dynamic sizes, I would think the best you can do is make the image fill one dimension without ever scrolling in either direction. I "thought" that was the design objective of the journal view, but it's missing that mark slightly. Was their a different design objective?
Just take your laptop out on the street and demo and people will ask why that image there is smaller (referring to a portrait image).
The design objective was to not scroll horizontally but the world has gotten used to vertical scrolling and adores Boston.com's Big Picture, which makes you scroll a lot.
Their solution to the problem of portrait-oriented images is to not use them.
From an ops point of view, serving up the pre-made sizes is so much more practical than custom-making images on the fly. Unlike full-screen slideshow, where you have time to make them on the fly and they don't go viral, these galleries do go viral and you have to spray 10 images up on the screen instantly. So far I've gotten a zillion views on the demo gallery. Those pre-made image sizes are in the CDN all over the world, but you can't put custom-made images in a CDN...
Just take your laptop out on the street and demo and people will ask why that image there is smaller (referring to a portrait image).
The design objective was to not scroll horizontally but the world has gotten used to vertical scrolling and adores Boston.com's Big Picture, which makes you scroll a lot.
Their solution to the problem of portrait-oriented images is to not use them.
From an ops point of view, serving up the pre-made sizes is so much more practical than custom-making images on the fly. Unlike full-screen slideshow, where you have time to make them on the fly and they don't go viral, these galleries do go viral and you have to spray 10 images up on the screen instantly. So far I've gotten a zillion views on the demo gallery. Those pre-made image sizes are in the CDN all over the world, but you can't put custom-made images in a CDN...
I didn't realize you were not using custom image sizes in the new journal view. That does make it more difficult. But, you should be able to still pick the optimal portrait pre-made size independently from the optimal landscape pre-made size. For example, they don't have to both be X2, one could be X2 and one X1 if that's what it takes to match the window size. Then, both the landscape and portrait images are always as big as they can be (within the contraints of the pre-made sizes) even when the window is an odd shape.
For example, they don't have to both be X2, one could be X2 and one X1 if that's what it takes to match the window size. Then, both the landscape and portrait images are always as big as they can be (within the contraints of the pre-made sizes) even when the window is an odd shape.
Yes, that's what we do and we get negative feedback about it. I don't think there's a solution.
What we have been doing is pushing the edges vertically because dropping a size with portrait images exacerbates the issue. Maybe the best thing is with portrait images to let them go up to 5% bigger than the display area and take a little heat on that end to reduce the heat on the other end.
Yes, that's what we do and we get negative feedback about it. I don't think there's a solution.
What we have been doing is pushing the edges vertically because dropping a size with portrait images exacerbates the issue. Maybe the best thing is with portrait images to let them go up to 5% bigger than the display area and take a little heat on that end to reduce the heat on the other end.
I'm just surprised that you think it's ever the right thing to force vertical scrolling on a single image (e.g. make the image taller than the viewable area). You never do that in the lightbox view, do you? Yes, users are used to vertical scrolling in web pages to read content that continues beyond the fold, but NOT when there's no way to see all of a single image at once. That's just a pain and if your window size is already maxed in the vertical direction, you're just screwed - the viewer can't fix it. Sure seems like a bug to me.
I'm just surprised that you think it's ever the right thing to force vertical scrolling on a single image (e.g. make the image taller than the viewable area). You never do that in the lightbox view, do you? Yes, users are used to vertical scrolling in web pages to read content that continues beyond the fold, but NOT when there's no way to see all of a single image at once. That's just a pain and if your window size is already maxed in the vertical direction, you're just screwed - the viewer can't fix it. Sure seems like a bug to me.
Here are a couple examples. These are not with a particular odd window size either. These are all 3:2 images. In this first one, it's a landscape image that cuts off about 10% of the photo with no way to see the whole image.
In the same gallery is a portrait image, that loses even more of the image:
I don't understand how this could be the intent of the design to make images that you can't see all of. Yes, we want them as big as possible, but not so big you can't see the whole image.
The motorcycle caption clipping is interesting, though. Are we saying we don't want to cut off the caption? There could be some pretty long ones.
I don't see how you can possibly plan for captions. First off, technically it's difficult to even calculate how big they will be ahead of time. Second, I rather doubt you want all images in the gallery to be made smaller just because there's one large caption. You probably should usually leave room for a one line caption.
I think it's an OK tradeoff to have larger images and require scrolling to read multi-line captions.
Comments
Sorry, the thumbs can't be on the bottom, at least not now.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
show code. The problem now is with the new show there is no way to scale
the captions to the show size. In this case the caption is 4x the size of the
slides and an ugly white.
Have a look at my biobox. Not a pretty site.:D
My Website index | My Blog
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My Website index | My Blog
Thanks!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
borealphoto.smugmug.com
Is there a way to please make the slideshow show in large size withouth the bar on the top. Please please please someone find a way. I would love to show my portfolio gallery to my clients that way but can't because some of the images get cut off by the bar and yes I know that if I stop moving the mouse it will go away but my clients don't know that and the fact that the arrows on the side appear as soon as the slideshow appears it only sends a stronger message that the arrows need be clicked on. ( In fact I didnt' realize the banner would go away if I stopped moving the mouse until I read this discussion board) so I am convinced that my potential clients would not know that either. Journal style I guess will have to do for now but if someone finds a way please share the good news.
Shamu
Just want to add my vote...All for progress, but my instructive gallery for brides took a lot of work and I get tons of positve feedback from them on it. It is like a book, and the new style won't work for it. But for other galleries, I'll give it a try.
Thanks for considering...Most of us don't have time to re-do this stuff because "styles change."
Andy,
here's the screenshot of the motorbike:
As you an see it is abit too large for the screen.
I also had a look at the other motorcycle (on the beach). That one falls even more of the screen.
I absolutely do not understand that a viewer would want to see an image that is optimised for width, thereby having to scroll to see the whole picture. I would say that is certainly not user-friendly and only suitable for detailed analysis of images.
In my perception people (both viewers and custmomers) want to see an image fitting optimally on the screen when browsing images. And that would make the software simpler in the sense that almost all cases only the heigth of the image is determining for the scaling/rendering that has to be done. Also we see more and more widescreen monitors appearing which will make our images extend over the vertical borders.
It would be interesting to know the background of the requirement for having the images optimized for width. For whom is it intended and why do they only want to see part of the image and not the whole image?
http://kooreman.smugmug.com
Save 5$ on your subscription fee when you subscribe to Smugmug;
Use this referral code ( n6vdfbmkCEeXU ) in the 'Referred by' field on the signup form.
Andy, I think there's something just wrong with the algorithm for picking the new journal photo size. I can take a window size where the images just fit perfectly into the window and make it a little bit wider and then the new journal view will switch to a size of image that no longer fits in the window and requires vertical scrolling. There is no legitimate reason for this so I think it's most likely an error in the algorithm because I can't find any reason why anyone would want it to do this. I can reproduce this problem very easily. Please have the sorcerers take a look at what they intended versus how it actually works.
All I have to do to reproduce it is make a window size that just fits the vertical dimension of the images. Then, make the window wider (no change in height) and at some point, it will switch to a larger image that no longer fits vertically.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Since the vast majority of cameras use a 4x3 ratio, which for landscapes is slightly taller than 3x2, I would suggest that you change the algorithm to fit a 4x3 photo within the frame.
This would still give a pretty large photo for the SLR-philes, while still ensuring that a landscape photo fits on the screen for the majority who use compact cameras.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Thanks for the feedback, I've made sure that Sorcery has seen it!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
So we erred a little on the side of nipping the edge of the image rather than bump a size down.
In your screen shot of the motorcycle image, it looks like the entire image is there, but the caption is cut off. We could bump the size of the image down a notch to not get close to the edge or nip any of it, but I personally wouldn't like it (that doesn't matter) and we'll take more heat over the portrait-oriented images.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
But, I don't see how that would be a problem in the journal view. Nobody will legitimately wish for a larger portrait image when they can see it already fills the available height.
As long as the image fills at least one dimension of the screen, most reasonable people are going to realize, it's as large as will fit. If they're being unreasonable and wishing for even larger (e.g. wishing for scrolling), then you will probably just have to let their wishes go because making it even larger will generate more dissatisfaction from those who don't think it should force scrolling.
Scrolling is bad. Undersize images are bad (in this case). Since you have dynamic sizes, I would think the best you can do is make the image fill one dimension without ever scrolling in either direction. I "thought" that was the design objective of the journal view, but it's missing that mark slightly. Was their a different design objective?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
The design objective was to not scroll horizontally but the world has gotten used to vertical scrolling and adores Boston.com's Big Picture, which makes you scroll a lot.
Their solution to the problem of portrait-oriented images is to not use them.
From an ops point of view, serving up the pre-made sizes is so much more practical than custom-making images on the fly. Unlike full-screen slideshow, where you have time to make them on the fly and they don't go viral, these galleries do go viral and you have to spray 10 images up on the screen instantly. So far I've gotten a zillion views on the demo gallery. Those pre-made image sizes are in the CDN all over the world, but you can't put custom-made images in a CDN...
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
What we have been doing is pushing the edges vertically because dropping a size with portrait images exacerbates the issue. Maybe the best thing is with portrait images to let them go up to 5% bigger than the display area and take a little heat on that end to reduce the heat on the other end.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Here are a couple examples. These are not with a particular odd window size either. These are all 3:2 images. In this first one, it's a landscape image that cuts off about 10% of the photo with no way to see the whole image.
In the same gallery is a portrait image, that loses even more of the image:
I don't understand how this could be the intent of the design to make images that you can't see all of. Yes, we want them as big as possible, but not so big you can't see the whole image.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I think it's an OK tradeoff to have larger images and require scrolling to read multi-line captions.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
The Frame, which the new journal gallery style appears to closely model, is currently displaying 20 images in a single page.
Ross, imagine 20, 1600px wide, ~600kb images... that's a lot to load
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question