The correct answer to this would have been "no", or at least "no" with a qualification... because my question was whether photos in a Smart Gallery could be made to match one another in display parameters, such as thumbs and watermarking. You can't make them match.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.
I thought I was trying to be really clear in the opening post, the help pages also. Collected photos obey the settings from the original gallery.
I feel that you (and the other people) misunderstand the difference between a "virtual copy" and a "true copy". If you make a "true copy", then you get a brand new image ID, and its own separate caption, thumbnail etc. However, if you make a "virtual copy", then you share the image ID between two different galleries. This means that each gallery with share captions, thumbnails etc.
Your request would be satisfied by a simple "copy to gallery" feature. This is completely separate from the "virtual gallery" feature that has been requested many times in the past, and implemented in this release.
I saw this question asked on the release notes page but I can't find an answer to it yet. I was wondering, when you collect a photo from someone's gallery that has right-click protection turned on, will the right-click protection follow the photo to the new gallery where the photo is collected? Know what I mean? Say a basic subscriber with no right-click privileges collects a pro user's photo that DOES have right-click protection enabled. When you view that photo in the basic subscriber's gallery where they added the collected photo, is the right-click protection still there or is it now gone? I realize right-click protection isn't a sure way to prevent people from stealing, but it's better than nothing.
I answered this in the opening post of this thread, it's also in our help pages All[/] restrictions, permissions, etc are honored. RCP, size, sales price, all that
I answered this in the opening post of this thread, it's also in our help pages All[/] restrictions, permissions, etc are honored. RCP, size, sales price, all that
Bump in "Storage used"
I noticed a sudden bump in "Storage used" after I created some smart galleries though I didn't upload any new photographs. Would this be a bug?
I noticed a sudden bump in "Storage used" after I created some smart galleries though I didn't upload any new photographs. Would this be a bug?
I just tried to replicate, can't. Can you please write the numbers down, make some new smart galleries, don't add new photos, use existing photos - and then see if you can replicate?
A suggestion (dunno if this is the right thread to make it) but instead of having "See photo in original gallery" it maybe nicer to have "Photo from " with the still linking to the photo in the original gallery??
Smart Galleries based on Metadata
I was wondering if support for creating Smart Galleries based on metadata is also being planned. For instance, I wanted to create a gallery with all photos I had taken with my Canon S90. To do that, I had to add a common keyword to all of them and create the smart gallery. To me the extra step involved is redundant since the information about which camera was used is already there with the photograph in the metadata. It will also be interesting to create galleries say based on ISO being less than 200 or greater than 1600.
If this is already possible and I missed it, I'll be glad to know.
I was wondering if support for creating Smart Galleries based on metadata is also being planned. For instance, I wanted to create a gallery with all photos I had taken with my Canon S90. To do that, I had to add a common keyword to all of them and create the smart gallery. To me the extra step involved is redundant since the information about which camera was used is already there with the photograph in the metadata. It will also be interesting to create galleries say based on ISO being less than 200 or greater than 1600.
If this is already possible and I missed it, I'll be glad to know.
I just created a new enhancement request along these lines, so please take a look and add comments/votes. This is a wonderful function, and I'm sure we all understand about phasing in such a complex change.
I feel that you (and the other people) misunderstand the difference between a "virtual copy" and a "true copy". If you make a "true copy", then you get a brand new image ID, and its own separate caption, thumbnail etc. However, if you make a "virtual copy", then you share the image ID between two different galleries. This means that each gallery with share captions, thumbnails etc.
Your request would be satisfied by a simple "copy to gallery" feature. This is completely separate from the "virtual gallery" feature that has been requested many times in the past, and implemented in this release.
Personally, I'm extremely happy with the new feature. I've lost track of the number of times that I've had to use keyword galleries on my sites, and then had difficulty integrating the keyword galleries into categories. This new feature should make this a lot simpler.
I don't misunderstand the difference; I've used the "copy to gallery" feature many hundreds of times. (although it's not really so simple, because you first "make a copy" and then "move to gallery"-- and the first means a wait much longer than the new virtual features). Besides, the problem you run into with the old method is not being able to make lots of copies/moves quickly. To cross-reference a whole lot of pics from one gallery (or, say all 2008 photos from several galleries) used to be way too time-consuming, except by keyword (which, as you note, had its own issues... for one thing, you couldn't even change themes in a keyword gallery).
Another problem (besides time) of the "old way" (copy then move) is that if you wanted a keyword-based gallery, the gallery unfortunately showed every copy of that photo on your site (because real copies share keywords). So I thought virtual features would solve this. It does... except that often, as many others have shown, you would not want same captions in a Smart Gallery or Collection that has a different thrust, nor do you necessarily want all thumbs across your site to be the same. I don't think it's so much that people aren't understanding the difference; it's that some of the capabilities were presented in a way that we thought there was more flexibility than there is. (For instance, "Arrange" features have been discussed in this thread as if they're available, yet I haven't found a way to arrange any virtual copies in a Collection or Smart Gallery). If none of those attributes we're whining about are possible, then of course that's one thing. But it sounds as if some have experienced sites where they are possible. Maybe that's not true; I have no idea. If so, I imagine the new features' attributes here will improve over time.
The bottom line is... I completely agree; it's a fabulous feature and should certainly save space on the site and simplify certain tasks. I voted for it! It's just that some of us will probably use it less than we'd hoped, without some of the flexibility we (perhaps wrongly) thought would be there. I can't imagine the attention to detail it took to get this in place, so I am very grateful to the magicians here who made it happen. I also have no doubt that future tweaks will be improvements.
(For instance, "Arrange" features have been discussed in this thread as if they're available, yet I haven't found a way to arrange any virtual copies in a Collection or Smart Gallery). If none of those attributes we're whining about are possible, then of course that's one thing. But it sounds as if some have experienced sites where they are possible. Maybe that's not true; I have no idea. If so, I imagine the new features' attributes here will improve over time.
On this one particular point, it sounds like you can use the gallery sorting capabilities in a virtual gallery, just not the manual arrangement features. Have you tried that?
On this one particular point, it sounds like you can use the gallery sorting capabilities in a virtual gallery, just not the manual arrangement features. Have you tried that?
Yeah, the message I get when I try to do any of the arrange or sort methods (whether bulk or in the gallery) is: "None of the images in this gallery can be arranged" or something similar to that. I gave the link to the galleries I made a few posts back... don't have it at my fingertips right now.
I set up a trial smart gallery based on my keyword "backlighting". Here it is: http://www.winsomeworks.com/Nature/Backlighting/11067505_iRxww#399604563_a4CL8 . As far as I can tell, I can't make these photos behave independently from their native gallery. I'm guessing that's because it's keyword-based, but is there some way I can override that in a smart gallery, or do it in a different way? In other words, I tried in the original smart gallery settings, and then in gallery settings to make the thumbs all square, but they're not... unless it's taking an unusually long time. Similarly, I cannot delete any or arrange them.
One other problem I have had with keyword-based galleries, and I'll state it here since many folks making smart galleries based on a keyword: since I have often had multiple copies of a photo in several galleries, I get some photos showing up a bunch of times in my keyword gallery, which is pretty annoying. What would be handy is if the keyword gallery "knew" not to return an image more than once for its display.
Would there be any "fix" for this in the future, and is there a way I could over-ride it or fool the keyword system for now? With the new Smart Gallery, I thought I could just delete the extras, or arrange them so the extras are all in the last pages. But I can't do either one, presumably because keyword-based Smart Galleries act differently from other Smart Galleries. Just wonderin'.
I haven't read all the thread so many someone mentioned this, but I have multiple copies of a few photos that show up in multiple galleries, and may have the same keywords. I decided I would handle the duplicates in keyword searches by changing the captions, because if I thought someone would want to visit one gallery subject but not another, by saying something in the caption about that, the viewer could choose which gallery to go to. So having duplicate photos in a keyword search turns out to not quite be duplicating if the captions vary. For instance, "If you're viewing this in a keyword search, this gallery is about x and y." versus, "If you see this in a keyword, search, the gallery blah blah a and b."
In my web page www.poggiware.smugmug.com I created a category called Chronological-View and under this category I created a sub-category called "Year 2007". You will notice that I have my photos groupped in 4 major categories (Home Events, Vacation, Family Contribution, and Videos). My goal is to be able to have galleries from a specific year groupped in a new sub-category for each year
I would like a sub-category to contain multiple virtual galleries that corresponds to the year. I do not want to collect all albuns and photos in a single album but instead keep multiple virtual galleries withn my new sub-category
Of course I can create one virtual gallery for each gallery but I would like to take advantage of the sub-category to do this work. Basically I would like to have the option to cutomize at a sub-category level in a similar way as it is possible for in a Virtual Gallery. This would allow me to have galleries from different sub-categories to be shown in a new sub-category. A classical example is to be able to show all galleries from different sub-categories that were created in 2009 in a new sub-category Year 2009 Galleries.
Another way of seeing this feature is to allow a gallery to be assigned to multiple category/sub-category instead of only mapping it to a single category/sub-category.
This may also help to avoid having too many photos in a single virtual gallery and instead have multiple virtual-galleries
Thanks,
Poggi
Wow, I'll bet you have just given SM about 3-new-programmers' worth of new work!
Well well well FANTASTIC!
I hope you get thousands of compliments and hundreds of .
A couple of questions and suggestions:
- When selecting keywords for a smart gallery, the cloud of keywords does not contain *all* keywords. I see I can type in a real keyword not shown, and the system finds it, but is the cloud designed to be that way (incomplete)?
- I see one must select *only* real full keywords, not partial ones. E.g., if my keywords included red flowers, blue flowers, and yellow flowers, the smart gallery keyword field doesn't recognize "flowers" (thereby finding all colors). Do you think at some point partial keywords could be accepted? (Doing so would save on the number of lines of searches and let your final virtual gallery contain more customized sets of photos.)
- A suggestion: I can imagine a new SM account holder coming in, and with the new system, thinking, "Hmm, I'll put alllllll my photos in ONE gallery, and then distribute them to virtual galleries and smart galleries. That way I can always have all photos in one "storage gallery". That might be a useful way to manage one's site, but it would be extremely helpful if the user could go to the gallery of all photos, and under Tools/Collect Photos, click a button that says, "Highlight uncollected photos", and have the un-distributed photos be highlighted in some way, so the user can go and distribute them as needed. That way a user can't accidentally forget to collect (distribute) every photo.
I realize very few users will organize their entire site this way, but being able to see in a gallery which photos haven't been collected (that is, sent out to belong to a virtual or smart gallery) could be very helpful no matter how you manage your site.
- Similarly, it would be helpful to see at a glance into which galleries a photo has been collected. Such as:
- in a gallery, somewhere in Tools (?) one can click a button which brings up thumbs of the collected photos (that is, original photos that have been sent elsewhere), that includes a drop-down list of the galleries (full HTML, plus clickable?) of which each is a virtual member.
- or, in Tools/Collect Photos, one could right click one of the thumbs and see the list of galleries of which which each is a virtual member. I would think this isn't so desireable a solution though because the HTMLs wouldn't be copiable, and one wouldn't want that list to disappear from sight while you did something else on the page.
Wow, I'll bet you have just given SM about 3-new-programmers' worth of new work!
Well, I completely see the point here. This one sentence: " Another way of seeing this feature is to allow a gallery to be assigned to multiple category/sub-category instead of only mapping it to a single category/sub-category" from Poggi is exactly what I'd originally thought was the main idea & main reason for virtual galleries, and also what I think many users here have mentioned in the past. What takes up so much space, and wastes so much time, is when you have a gallery that you really should have in 2 categories. My family can never figure out whether to look in "music" or "family" for the many family music galleries I have. I've copied some (yes, one photo by one!!) But that gets ridiculous, and I thought virtual galleries would solve this. (Yes, I know someone's going to say "just re-upload". But it's SO much easier for me to bulk caption & keyword onsite here, etc., so that's not a good answer for me.
I'd just list a gallery virtually under a second category. Isn't that what so many folks were asking for, with this feature? It's as if our new virtual galleries features, while offering a lot of new capability, just didn't solve some of those bigger problems because the features are so focused on individual photos, not entire galleries & the heirarchy issues. Again though, I just really hope these are the stepping stones to more virtual capability!
Well, I completely see the point here. This one sentence: " Another way of seeing this feature is to allow a gallery to be assigned to multiple category/sub-category instead of only mapping it to a single category/sub-category" from Poggi is exactly what I'd originally thought was the main idea & main reason for virtual galleries, and also what I think many users here have mentioned in the past. What takes up so much space, and wastes so much time, is when you have a gallery that you really should have in 2 categories. My family can never figure out whether to look in "music" or "family" for the many family music galleries I have. I've copied some (yes, one photo by one!!) But that gets ridiculous, and I thought virtual galleries would solve this. (Yes, I know someone's going to say "just re-upload". But it's SO much easier for me to bulk caption & keyword onsite here, etc., so that's not a good answer for me.
I'd just list a gallery virtually under a second category. Isn't that what so many folks were asking for, with this feature? It's as if our new virtual galleries features, while offering a lot of new capability, just didn't solve some of those bigger problems because the features are so focused on individual photos, not entire galleries & the heirarchy issues. Again though, I just really hope these are the stepping stones to more virtual capability!
Why can't you just select all the photos of one gallery to be in a new virtual gallery and solve the exact problem you ask about?
Why can't you just select all the photos of one gallery to be in a new virtual gallery and solve the exact problem you ask about?
I hadn't found the bulk "Collect Photos" option yet. But I just did try that. First, I got there & then realized I had to get out of that to first create the gallery under the new category. Then, yes-- collected all the photos, did all the settings, etc. etc. The process takes about 10 min. Ok, that's obviously way better than before!! And I'm happy I can do it. But I can't see doing this for lots of galleries.
I really wanted to have a "2008" category that had virtual galleries of all 2008 galleries that are otherwise under other headings... and do the same for every other year. But re-creating all those galleries?? Not happening! And all of this would be just so much simpler if you could just list the gallery in two categories. If not, you still have to write titles & descriptions, choose themes, etc. I just always thought this was what "virtual galleries" was all about -- not just individual photos, but being able to have whole galleries simply viewed in other places rather than anchored to one category. I believe that's what lots of people were expecting, having experienced that capability elsewhere. Anyway, for now I'm glad I found the bulk "Collect" tool, so thank you for that, John.
You will find it in the look and feel section. These tools work in collections. So you can sort a collection by filename, by date taken, by caption etc.
Yeah, the message I get when I try to do any of the arrange or sort methods (whether bulk or in the gallery) is: "None of the images in this gallery can be arranged" or something similar to that. I gave the link to the galleries I made a few posts back... don't have it at my fingertips right now.
You will find it in the look and feel section. These tools work in collections. So you can sort a collection by filename, by date taken, by caption etc.
Hope that helps.
ann
Yep, believe me, I know where all the arrange tools are! Heavens... have arranged hundreds & hundreds of galleries! Yes, the problem being discussed in this thread is that they don't work on collections! (or Smart Galleries). The sorting doesn't help most of my collections, because I'd be sorting by the look of the photo & where it looks well in the gallery, not date or name or anything else.
Yep, believe me, I know where all the arrange tools are! Heavens... have arranged hundreds & hundreds of galleries! Yes, the problem being discussed in this thread is that they don't work on collections! (or Smart Galleries). The sorting doesn't help most of my collections, because I'd be sorting by the look of the photo & where it looks well in the gallery, not date or name or anything else.
This one is set to auto sort = none, and it is behaving that way - collected photos are totally randomly arranged, not influenced by when I added them or any other factor.
If yours aren't working, let us have the links so we can get the sorcerers to have a look!
This one is set to auto sort = none, and it is behaving that way - collected photos are totally randomly arranged, not influenced by when I added them or any other factor.
If yours aren't working, let us have the links so we can get the sorcerers to have a look!
Thanks
ann
Ann, that's not what we're saying at all. If you read back, we weren't saying that auto sort doesn't work. Look & see what we actually said. [ETA: although for people who actually want to use some kind of sort, it would help them to find it if it were not only embedded in "gallery settings" but also able to be accessed from the usual tools button. Lots of folks who can use it will never find it there]
If you notice, photos 1 through 46 are all sorted by date taken in descending order.
Photo 46 has a date taken of "2007-09-27." However, Photo 47 then jumps back to "2009-08-08.
After this the sorting by date taken (descending) continues back for photo 47 and 48.
Then photo 49 jumps from August to October (Descending order should place October before August).
Photo 50 jumps from October to December for Photos 50 and 51. (December should come before October)
Photo 53 was taken the same time as Photo 50 and 51 but photo 52 has no "Date Taken" information (must have messed up my EXIF data) and somehow squeezed in.
Things just get cooky after there.
Help? Please! Thanks guys! Let me know if I can provide more info. I'd love to have this fixed.
If you notice, photos 1 through 46 are all sorted by date taken in descending order.
Photo 46 has a date taken of "2007-09-27." However, Photo 47 then jumps back to "2009-08-08.
After this the sorting by date taken (descending) continues back for photo 47 and 48.
Then photo 49 jumps from August to October (Descending order should place October before August).
Photo 50 jumps from October to December for Photos 50 and 51. (December should come before October)
Photo 53 was taken the same time as Photo 50 and 51 but photo 52 has no "Date Taken" information (must have messed up my EXIF data) and somehow squeezed in.
Things just get cooky after there.
Help? Please! Thanks guys! Let me know if I can provide more info. I'd love to have this fixed.
Ok, nevermind then. I set my gallery to sort by "Date Taken" (Ascending) and saved it. Then I set it back to Descending and saved it and everything is in the correct order. Strange! At least it works!
Ok, nevermind then. I set my gallery to sort by "Date Taken" (Ascending) and saved it. Then I set it back to Descending and saved it and everything is in the correct order. Strange! At least it works!
Perhaps you originally sorted it before the bug had been fixed...
Comments
I thought I was trying to be really clear in the opening post, the help pages also. Collected photos obey the settings from the original gallery.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Man, believe it or not, yesterday i was thinking about same feature
My Gallery
Oops. I missed that
I noticed a sudden bump in "Storage used" after I created some smart galleries though I didn't upload any new photographs. Would this be a bug?
EDIT: Nevermind, I replicated
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers
I was wondering if support for creating Smart Galleries based on metadata is also being planned. For instance, I wanted to create a gallery with all photos I had taken with my Canon S90. To do that, I had to add a common keyword to all of them and create the smart gallery. To me the extra step involved is redundant since the information about which camera was used is already there with the photograph in the metadata. It will also be interesting to create galleries say based on ISO being less than 200 or greater than 1600.
If this is already possible and I missed it, I'll be glad to know.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I just created a new enhancement request along these lines, so please take a look and add comments/votes. This is a wonderful function, and I'm sure we all understand about phasing in such a complex change.
http://smugmug.uservoice.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/461483-smart-galleries-enhancement-add-more-selection-cr?ref=title
I don't misunderstand the difference; I've used the "copy to gallery" feature many hundreds of times. (although it's not really so simple, because you first "make a copy" and then "move to gallery"-- and the first means a wait much longer than the new virtual features). Besides, the problem you run into with the old method is not being able to make lots of copies/moves quickly. To cross-reference a whole lot of pics from one gallery (or, say all 2008 photos from several galleries) used to be way too time-consuming, except by keyword (which, as you note, had its own issues... for one thing, you couldn't even change themes in a keyword gallery).
Another problem (besides time) of the "old way" (copy then move) is that if you wanted a keyword-based gallery, the gallery unfortunately showed every copy of that photo on your site (because real copies share keywords). So I thought virtual features would solve this. It does... except that often, as many others have shown, you would not want same captions in a Smart Gallery or Collection that has a different thrust, nor do you necessarily want all thumbs across your site to be the same. I don't think it's so much that people aren't understanding the difference; it's that some of the capabilities were presented in a way that we thought there was more flexibility than there is. (For instance, "Arrange" features have been discussed in this thread as if they're available, yet I haven't found a way to arrange any virtual copies in a Collection or Smart Gallery). If none of those attributes we're whining about are possible, then of course that's one thing. But it sounds as if some have experienced sites where they are possible. Maybe that's not true; I have no idea. If so, I imagine the new features' attributes here will improve over time.
The bottom line is... I completely agree; it's a fabulous feature and should certainly save space on the site and simplify certain tasks. I voted for it! It's just that some of us will probably use it less than we'd hoped, without some of the flexibility we (perhaps wrongly) thought would be there. I can't imagine the attention to detail it took to get this in place, so I am very grateful to the magicians here who made it happen. I also have no doubt that future tweaks will be improvements.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
I haven't read all the thread so many someone mentioned this, but I have multiple copies of a few photos that show up in multiple galleries, and may have the same keywords. I decided I would handle the duplicates in keyword searches by changing the captions, because if I thought someone would want to visit one gallery subject but not another, by saying something in the caption about that, the viewer could choose which gallery to go to. So having duplicate photos in a keyword search turns out to not quite be duplicating if the captions vary. For instance, "If you're viewing this in a keyword search, this gallery is about x and y." versus, "If you see this in a keyword, search, the gallery blah blah a and b."
Just a thought.
Wow, I'll bet you have just given SM about 3-new-programmers' worth of new work!
I hope you get thousands of compliments and hundreds of
A couple of questions and suggestions:
- When selecting keywords for a smart gallery, the cloud of keywords does not contain *all* keywords. I see I can type in a real keyword not shown, and the system finds it, but is the cloud designed to be that way (incomplete)?
- I see one must select *only* real full keywords, not partial ones. E.g., if my keywords included red flowers, blue flowers, and yellow flowers, the smart gallery keyword field doesn't recognize "flowers" (thereby finding all colors). Do you think at some point partial keywords could be accepted? (Doing so would save on the number of lines of searches and let your final virtual gallery contain more customized sets of photos.)
- A suggestion: I can imagine a new SM account holder coming in, and with the new system, thinking, "Hmm, I'll put alllllll my photos in ONE gallery, and then distribute them to virtual galleries and smart galleries. That way I can always have all photos in one "storage gallery". That might be a useful way to manage one's site, but it would be extremely helpful if the user could go to the gallery of all photos, and under Tools/Collect Photos, click a button that says, "Highlight uncollected photos", and have the un-distributed photos be highlighted in some way, so the user can go and distribute them as needed. That way a user can't accidentally forget to collect (distribute) every photo.
I realize very few users will organize their entire site this way, but being able to see in a gallery which photos haven't been collected (that is, sent out to belong to a virtual or smart gallery) could be very helpful no matter how you manage your site.
- Similarly, it would be helpful to see at a glance into which galleries a photo has been collected. Such as:
- in a gallery, somewhere in Tools (?) one can click a button which brings up thumbs of the collected photos (that is, original photos that have been sent elsewhere), that includes a drop-down list of the galleries (full HTML, plus clickable?) of which each is a virtual member.
- or, in Tools/Collect Photos, one could right click one of the thumbs and see the list of galleries of which which each is a virtual member. I would think this isn't so desireable a solution though because the HTMLs wouldn't be copiable, and one wouldn't want that list to disappear from sight while you did something else on the page.
Again, THANKS SO MUCH! Hoot hoot hoot!
www.joinrats.com
I'd just list a gallery virtually under a second category. Isn't that what so many folks were asking for, with this feature? It's as if our new virtual galleries features, while offering a lot of new capability, just didn't solve some of those bigger problems because the features are so focused on individual photos, not entire galleries & the heirarchy issues. Again though, I just really hope these are the stepping stones to more virtual capability!
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Any ideas?
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/craigridleyoutdoorphotography
Want to save $5 on a smugmug account? Use this coupon code: WzG2eZLQPGrqI
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 really wanted to have a "2008" category that had virtual galleries of all 2008 galleries that are otherwise under other headings... and do the same for every other year. But re-creating all those galleries?? Not happening! And all of this would be just so much simpler if you could just list the gallery in two categories. If not, you still have to write titles & descriptions, choose themes, etc. I just always thought this was what "virtual galleries" was all about -- not just individual photos, but being able to have whole galleries simply viewed in other places rather than anchored to one category. I believe that's what lots of people were expecting, having experienced that capability elsewhere. Anyway, for now I'm glad I found the bulk "Collect" tool, so thank you for that, John.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
The Arrange function is in the gallery tools dropdown menu.
http://www.smugmug.com/help/gallery-tools-menu
These 'Arrange' tools do not work in collections.
The Auto Sort function is in the gallery settings:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/picture-storage
You will find it in the look and feel section. These tools work in collections. So you can sort a collection by filename, by date taken, by caption etc.
Hope that helps.
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Perhaps you guys could give us links to galleries where this is not working.
So far I have two galleries that contain collections.
This one is set to auto sort by date taken,
and the files are obeying that parameter.
This one is set to auto sort = none, and it is behaving that way - collected photos are totally randomly arranged, not influenced by when I added them or any other factor.
If yours aren't working, let us have the links so we can get the sorcerers to have a look!
Thanks
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Here's an example of where the auto-sort isn't working. I have the sort set to "Date Taken" (Descending):
http://leftquark.smugmug.com/Photography/favorites/11067518_mjRTC#764379078_jdzrN
- If you notice, photos 1 through 46 are all sorted by date taken in descending order.
- Photo 46 has a date taken of "2007-09-27." However, Photo 47 then jumps back to "2009-08-08.
- After this the sorting by date taken (descending) continues back for photo 47 and 48.
- Then photo 49 jumps from August to October (Descending order should place October before August).
- Photo 50 jumps from October to December for Photos 50 and 51. (December should come before October)
- Photo 53 was taken the same time as Photo 50 and 51 but photo 52 has no "Date Taken" information (must have messed up my EXIF data) and somehow squeezed in.
- Things just get cooky after there.
Help? Please! Thanks guys! Let me know if I can provide more info. I'd love to have this fixed.I'm also monitoring the following thread, which is titled "Gallery arrange photos": http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=157281
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
Ok, nevermind then. I set my gallery to sort by "Date Taken" (Ascending) and saved it. Then I set it back to Descending and saved it and everything is in the correct order. Strange! At least it works!
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
Perhaps you originally sorted it before the bug had been fixed...