Copying to another gallery

Icebear

There does not seem to be a single-step method of copying an image to another gallery. Maybe I'm missing some wonderfulness, but it seems pretty clunky to have to make a second copy in a gallery, then move that copy to the destination gallery. Eh ? ? ?

Allen

Icebear wrote: »

There does not seem to be a single-step method of copying an image to another gallery. Maybe I'm missing some wonderfulness, but it seems pretty clunky to have to make a second copy in a gallery, then move that copy to the destination gallery. Eh ? ? ?

It's been this way forever and there have been a lot of complaints.

Andy

Hi Ice, you can also try our collect photos feature, which allows you to have one photo in any number of galleries.
http://www.smugmug.com/help/collecting-photos

Icebear

It seems like such a basic feature. I mean we have four different ways to "arrange" photos in a gallery (wouldn't a couple do?) a bewildering array of gallery settings to choose from and all sorts of fancy customization bling, but lack something so obvious as a simple "copy and move."

Edit: Whoa Andy, I'll check that out. We stepped on each other there. But seriously: We have "Move to Gallery" and "Move to Multiple Galleries." Wouldn't it be easy to stick a "Copy and Move" or "Copy to Gallery" button in the menu?

Icebear

Andy, The Collections tool is a partial fix IMO. I like it, but if I delete the source photo or gallery at some point, I understand that it disappears from the collection too. Right?

denisegoldberg

I believe you're right - if you delete the gallery that the collected photo comes from, that image is gone too.

I stopped fighting the copy then move game a long time ago. If I need a photo in more than one gallery I do multiple uploads. I find that a lot less troublesome.

--- Denise

Icebear

denisegoldberg wrote: »

I stopped fighting the copy then move game a long time ago. If I need a photo in more than one gallery I do multiple uploads. I find that a lot less troublesome.

--- Denise

I agree with your workaround, Denise. BUT why should we have to fight for something so obvious? It's like someone has drawn a line in the sand and has taken ownership of a particular position. "NO. THEY DON'T NEED WHAT THEY'RE WHINING FOR! SmugMug is SO eager to please normally that this seems aberrant.

Andy

Icebear wrote: »

Andy, The Collections tool is a partial fix IMO. I like it, but if I delete the source photo or gallery at some point, I understand that it disappears from the collection too. Right?

Yup.

Andy

Icebear wrote: »

I agree with your workaround, Denise. BUT why should we have to fight for something so obvious? It's like someone has drawn a line in the sand and has taken ownership of a particular position. "NO. THEY DON'T NEED WHAT THEY'RE WHINING FOR! SmugMug is SO eager to please normally that this seems aberrant.

Hi Ice, we are eager to please. But please do think about it from our perspective ... storage, while declining in cost, is one of our costs. Having Smart Galleries and Collected Photos feature, which allow for photos to live in many galleries but only take up storage 1x is pretty smart, no?

pilotdave

Andy wrote: »

Hi Ice, we are eager to please. But please do think about it from our perspective ... storage, while declining in cost, is one of our costs. Having Smart Galleries and Collected Photos feature, which allow for photos to live in many galleries but only take up storage 1x is pretty smart, no?

So fix the issues with collections and smart galleries! Let us choose different settings for the same photo in two galleries. I understand you can't let us have one watermarked version and another not watermarked, but I don't see why one can't show Medium size and the other show Original. I'd also prefer to be able to use different captions.

I've complained about the lack of a "copy to another gallery" tool many times, including last week. If your concern is that it would be abused, creating many unnecessary copies of the same image, make the tool smarter. When we choose it, why not have a popup message say "do you want to use a smart copy instead?" or something like that.

When deleting an image that has smart copies, we should have the option to keep the copies. We should be warned before the delete happens.

Dave

Andy

pilotdave wrote: »

So fix the issues with collections and smart galleries! Let us choose different settings for the same photo in two galleries. I understand you can't let us have one watermarked version and another not watermarked, but I don't see why one can't show Medium size and the other show Original. I'd also prefer to be able to use different captions.

I've complained about the lack of a "copy to another gallery" tool many times, including last week. If your concern is that it would be abused, creating many unnecessary copies of the same image, make the tool smarter. When we choose it, why not have a popup message say "do you want to use a smart copy instead?" or something like that.

When deleting an image that has smart copies, we should have the option to keep the copies. We should be warned before the delete happens.

Dave

We really can't allow different permissions for the image, I'm sorry. The #thing we need to do with collected images is to allow arranging. It's a priority for us.

you are warned that deleting images will delete their smart versions, too...

Icebear

Andy wrote: »

Hi Ice, we are eager to please. But please do think about it from our perspective ... storage, while declining in cost, is one of our costs. Having Smart Galleries and Collected Photos feature, which allow for photos to live in many galleries but only take up storage 1x is pretty smart, no?

I do see your point Andy, but you might be creating more storage volume requirement than you save. I don't like to keep old junk galleries, but may be nervous about deleting an entire gallery that I no longer need cluttering up my site, just because I might inadvertently be deleting a single image in the gallery that I may have in a collection. How is it to your advantage if I never delete old, unused galleries?

You don't save any storage if I make a copy and move the copy to a new gallery. You don't save any storage if I upload the image a second time to the new gallery. It costs ME time, and irritates me, in my opinion needlessly.

Hey, you guys are so great, just charge me a few more dollars. I won't quibble. You've provided me with a useful workaround, but I'm just tellin' you what I want. Seems like I have some company too.

Andy

Icebear wrote: »

You don't save any storage if I make a copy and move the copy to a new gallery. You don't save any storage if I upload the image a second time to the new gallery.

How do you figure..? The images are now there 2x. So, storage is double, no?

Icebear

Exactly Andy. Those are the options I use now. I haven't (and it seems I'm not alone) bought into the collections idea, so that is what I actually do. All I'm asking is that you make it easier for me to do what I already do. You aren't saving storage space because I'm stubborn and don't use your storage-friendly feature.

Back in college (late sixties) the nitwits in the campus grounds department (encouraged we always suspected by the University Architects) kept putting up barriers across informal footpaths that students continually created. The paths kept messing up the pretty lawns. Finally it got through their heads that people are going to do what makes sense to them, and it was in their long term interest to capitulate. By the time I graduated, they'd started brick paving the dirt paths worn by countless students who knew the best ways from class to class. I don't remember much of what I learned in college, but that lesson stuck.

Icebear

I just discovered another reason I don't like "Collections." It does not allow me to caption an image differently in different galleries. This is a deal breaker for me. I recaptioned several virtual copies in a collected gallery only to have a client ask why the captions had changed in the parent gallery. This was the first I'd known about this. Bad, bad Smugmug.

Allen

Icebear wrote: »

I just discovered another reason I don't like "Collections." It does not allow me to caption an image differently in different galleries. This is a deal breaker for me. I recaptioned several virtual copies in a collected gallery only to have a client ask why the captions had changed in the parent gallery. This was the first I'd known about this. Bad, bad Smugmug.

Totally agree, that's why I don't use them. Also you get double keywords. I
mentioned captions/keywords when they first posted about these virtual
copies.

pilotdave

Andy wrote: »

We really can't allow different permissions for the image, I'm sorry. The #thing we need to do with collected images is to allow arranging. It's a priority for us.

you are warned that deleting images will delete their smart versions, too...

So I think it's perfectly clear that duplicates have their place on smugmug, just like smart copies do. Spend a couple hours and make a "copy to another gallery" tool. It's basic functionality that's missing from SmugMug. And there is no (reasonable) alternative other than wasting bandwidth downloading an Original and re-uploading it to another gallery.

(I'm not always using smugmug from home where I have access to my originals).

Dave

Allen

I can see no down side for a single photo copy/move function. Multiple photo
copy/move function could be abused but not single photo, too repetitive.

Icebear

BANDWAGON!!!!! ivar
The people haz spoke!

Icebear

OK, and I just discovered another thing. I was trying to arrange the photos in my new gallery. Some of the photos in this gallery are virtual copies. I got a message that said: "This gallery contains virtual copies that cannot be arranged." Whut??? Another scuff mark on the lustre of virtual copies.

oobe

Icebear wrote: »

BANDWAGON!!!!! ivar
The people haz spoke!

What he said!

Andy

Hey Guys, thanks for the awesome feedback and suggestions.

Icebear

Smugmug is the best. Can't hurt to make it bettah.

WinsomeWorks

Allen wrote: »

Totally agree, that's why I don't use them. Also you get double keywords. I
mentioned captions/keywords when they first posted about these virtual
copies.

Yeah, that part is really a drag.... the double keywords, I mean. (being stuck w/ same captions is a drag too, but the keywords bug me more). The saddest thing about the double keywords is that it makes the whole keyword-based virtual (smart) gallery function nearly unusable (because you end up with so many duplicate photos in that type of gallery), so you end up right back at square one: re-uploading to a new gallery, or painstakingly slowly copying & moving. So then one of the whole main reasons for having virtual copies at all is undermined by the very functionality (or lack thereof) of the virtual copies. It's too bad, really. I wanted to save Smug some storage space; I really did. But in so many cases, I haven't been able to.

WinsomeWorks

Allen wrote: »

I can see no down side for a single photo copy/move function. Multiple photo
copy/move function could be abused but not single photo, too repetitive.

My thoughts exactly. I mean really... how many people are going to go through this umpteen times per gallery? Goodness... that's the silliest excuse I've heard yet for the lack of this basic function.

girardimages

I'm new to this thread but I'm having the same problem- I cannot arrange any of the photos in my galleries that contain "collected" photos. This is really frustrating! Are there any plans to fix this? This lack of functionality might actually cause people to upload twice instead of using the 'collected photo' function, which defeats the purpose of trying to save bandwidth/space.

LeftyAce

Hey Andy,

How hard would it be to implement a "picture in use" check, so that when you delete a gallery, any images that are collected into other galleries don't get wiped? (I'm thinking of linux package managers where you can remove unused packages, and it'll check whether anything currently installed still relies on the package first). It would still mean only one copy lives on your server, and clearly you have to store the information about which photos are in which galleries anyway....

-Lefty

wayne861

Not being able to arrange or caption collected photos makes this feature pretty usless for many of us.

Wayne