Images over the Smugmug upload limit....

Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
edited February 28, 2011 in SmugMug Support
How do clients of Sm get the enlargements they need if out files are too large to upload to our SM sites???

Since vids can be upto 1gb per file that would be nice if the stills could be at least 250mb.....or even 175MB that would be enough even for the Medium format shooters.........be real...1GB space is !GB space weather it is vid or still...............................
"Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

Comments

  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2011
    Not sure what the issue is, Art. 24Mb and 48megapixels is plenty for even the largest sizes that we print at our labs. Can you please elaborate?
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2011
    Andy wrote: »
    Not sure what the issue is, Art. 24Mb and 48megapixels is plenty for even the largest sizes that we print at our labs. Can you please elaborate?

    It may be large enuff when you figure in viewing distance.....but if a client wants viewing distance to be 1 foot or less for an 80 x 120 inch print or even a 40x60 or 30x 40 ......then the RIP programs are not going to do it.......and those images are going to be run thru Genuine Fractals (now called Perfect Resize) or a similar program......A simple 20x40 at 300dpi is over 35MB...that is the problem......I have had images done at several PRO labs and the rip programs are not even close to what GF does for uprezing......that is why GF has such a following and constantly wins awards for being the best uprez program on the market.........

    I have images from before I signed on with SM that I still cannot upload....
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • racerracer Registered Users Posts: 333 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2011
    Wouldn't it be easier and less time consuming to upload the smaller size to your site (faster), and if someone wants the very large high res print, upload it straight to the lab? I do wonder though why if were allowed to upload 1gb video, why the photo restriction is so low headscratch.gif
    Todd - My Photos
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2011
    racer wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be easier and less time consuming to upload the smaller size to your site (faster), and if someone wants the very large high res print, upload it straight to the lab? I do wonder though why if were allowed to upload 1gb video, why the photo restriction is so low headscratch.gif

    Bay Photo for example will not honor smugmug customer guarantees if you upload directly......so that is out if you need / want the SM customer Protection Plan......
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2011
    Art, show me an image that you can't upload at size well enough to print at our largest sizes. We've NEVER had a complaint resulting from a JPG that was not big enough for our largest sizes, if it was of appropriate size (up to 24mb, 48 mpix).
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Andy wrote: »
    Art, show me an image that you can't upload at size well enough to print at our largest sizes. We've NEVER had a complaint resulting from a JPG that was not big enough for our largest sizes, if it was of appropriate size (up to 24mb, 48 mpix).

    As I stated Bays Rip will not do what I want....I want no viewing distance on all my enlargements and it cannot be done with out uprezing....you asked me to elaborate and I did.........I have files I cannot upload period, cause they are too big........

    it is not a matter of, it is good enough, if you want to step back 15 to 50 feet to get the greatest view ever.....it is a matter of my clients want to view a 40x60 on their hall wall as they walk down it at 8x10 viewing distance.....I give them that by uprezing first..........

    And in this thread ( http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1560008#post1560008 ) a CSR at Bay told the poster that he needed to uprez before they print.......

    I do not think that asking my clients to settle for good enough is right................

    Since the casual video maker gets 1 GB of storage, then the Pro STILL Photographer should be given no less than 250MB but in reality we should have the same 1gb of storage so if our work warrants the space we have it.....
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Saw your post on our feedback forum Art, thank you.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Art Scott wrote: »
    And in this thread ( http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1560008#post1560008 ) a CSR at Bay told the poster that he needed to uprez before they print.......
    Art, I don't see anywhere in that thread where a CSR at Bay said that your particular situation required uprezzing. What I found was a CSR saying that if you had a pretty small image and you wanted to print really large that their RIP wasn't optimized for that. If you wanted to do that, then you should probably do some uprezzing yourself to see what kind of result you were going to get. IMO, that's their way of saying that if you want to blow something up more than it should be given a small size you're starting with, then they aren't going to be responsible for the results (which makes sense for a printer to say that).

    I don't see where they said that if you have a typical resolution high resolution photo that you want to print large that you needed to uprez before handing it to the RIP.

    If you want info from them about your specific situation, you probably should talk to them about your specific situation.

    As for getting your image to work through Smugmug at the output quality you want, have you tried a middle ground? What if you uprezzed yourself to just under the Smugmug pixel limit and saved that at Photoshop JPEG level 10 or Lightroom level 85%. Is that still too large for the Smugmug MB limit? Compression levels 10 and 85% are indistinguishable from higher levels in print. Less compression is only potentially useful if you will be repeatedly editing your image, but you should never be saving in lossy JPEG format anyway if you're repeatedly editing.

    The answer on why you cant upload ginormous images is because too many people are really dumb about JPEG compression levels. If Smugmug lets people take 12-18MP images and upload all of them at Photoshop level 12 or Lightroom level 100%, those images are 3-5x larger than anyone needs for viewing or printing and Smugmug's storage costs could skyrocket. At that point, they'd either have to raise rates, stop offering unlimited storage or reduce services in some other way all because people were being dumb about uploading lots of massively larger images than needed. The limit is to force some sanity on folks, require them to learn about efficient uploading and preserve the level of service for everyone else.

    I've heard the pixel count limit is a practical one so that they can properly gauge the amount of memory needed in their image processing servers to process images. Since the most efficient way to work on an image is to be able to load the whole thing into server memory while working on it, it helps a lot if you have a pixel count limit that you can design and provision for and, I presume, it's a lot more cost efficient if that limit isn't larger than most people would need.

    One other suggestion. If you're selling wall-size prints, I wonder if this isn't something you might be better off taking control of the whole production process yourself anyway. When Smugmug prints wall size images for their own office, they don't go through the normal Smugmug print ordering process. I don't think they even use the same printers. I think they go to someone who specializes in those super large images and they can work with that printer in a custom fashion.
    --John
    Homepage • Popular
    JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
     Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • dennismullendennismullen Registered Users Posts: 709 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    I agree!

    The PP output from my 24meg Sony A900 is frequently more than 25meg.
    It really bugs me to have to compress it to upload it to SmuMug.

    Cheers,
    See my gallery at http://www.dennismullen.com
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    dennismullen wrote: »
    I agree!

    The PP output from my 24meg Sony A900 is frequently more than 25meg.
    It really bugs me to have to compress it to upload it to SmuMug.

    Cheers,
    What JPEG compression levels are you using?
    --John
    Homepage • Popular
    JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
     Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    dennismullen wrote: »
    I agree!

    The PP output from my 24meg Sony A900 is frequently more than 25meg.
    It really bugs me to have to compress it to upload it to SmuMug.

    Cheers,
    I'd love it if you could send me a raw file, and the exact steps you've taken to create a JPG that is over 24Mb in size. Can you do this? http://smugmug.com/help/emailreal attn: Andy

    Also, as John says, save-as in Photoshop at JPG 10 won't be distinguishable to any human from JPG 12.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    jfriend wrote: »

    As for getting your image to work through Smugmug at the output quality you want, have you tried a middle ground? What if you uprezzed yourself to just under the Smugmug pixel limit and saved that at Photoshop JPEG level 10 or Lightroom level 85%. Is that still too large for the Smugmug MB limit? Compression levels 10 and 85% are indistinguishable from higher levels in print. Less compression is only potentially useful if you will be repeatedly editing your image, but you should never be saving in lossy JPEG format anyway if you're repeatedly editing.

    The answer on why you cant upload ginormous images is because too many people are really dumb about JPEG compression levels. If Smugmug lets people take 12-18MP images and upload all of them at Photoshop level 12 or Lightroom level 100%, those images are 3-5x larger than anyone needs for viewing or printing and Smugmug's storage costs could skyrocket. At that point, they'd either have to raise rates, stop offering unlimited storage or reduce services in some other way all because people were being dumb about uploading lots of massively larger images than needed. The limit is to force some sanity on folks, require them to learn about efficient uploading and preserve the level of service for everyone else.

    I've heard the pixel count limit is a practical one so that they can properly gauge the amount of memory needed in their image processing servers to process images. Since the most efficient way to work on an image is to be able to load the whole thing into server memory while working on it, it helps a lot if you have a pixel count limit that you can design and provision for and, I presume, it's a lot more cost efficient if that limit isn't larger than most people would need.

    One other suggestion. If you're selling wall-size prints, I wonder if this isn't something you might be better off taking control of the whole production process yourself anyway. When Smugmug prints wall size images for their own office, they don't go through the normal Smugmug print ordering process. I don't think they even use the same printers. I think they go to someone who specializes in those super large images and they can work with that printer in a custom fashion.

    From MY own experience....there is a noticeable difference in saving a file at jpg10 and 12.......If I wanted to be at 8 or 10 as has been suggested years back, I would not be shooting raw, i would just shoot large jpg and leave it at that......Also as to my self fulling, been doing that, want to be able to offer the same images to anyone any where......as to processing servers.....the processing servers would be at BAY or EZ prints....SM is storage and simple hosting......I can FTP to BAY but that does not give the same customer guarantees as going directly thru Sm, which is what we pay for in hosting fees, higher product prices and the 15% commission to SM......Plus the casual video maker is getting 1GB of storage.....we should have at least and at the very least 500mb......

    In the beginning I would take each file at native resolution and look at it at print size and then would I uprez and this became my workflow, again well before coming to SM...... I did this when SM first announced the 24MB's.....it was better but not good enough.......obviously my standards are too high........Maybe I should start accepting good enough.......and forget about what I am actually capable of producing..........

    Every Pro lab I have been in contact with....has told me they prefer to get a #12jpg not a #8 or 10......
    Also I have watched my files grow while processing thru photoshop, without any uprezing...just manipulation, ...stacking, combining, layers and so on.......again to be over the 24mb limit.........before uprezing to the largest size I want to be able to offer it at without self fulfillment.......
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Art Scott wrote: »
    Plus the casual video maker is getting 1GB of storage.....we should have at least and at the very least 500mb......
    Find me any business that lets you store an unlimited quantity of 500mb JPEGs with unlimited bandwidth for what you pay here. I'm not aware of one and I think the reason is that it's way too easy to lose money on the storage costs when people really take advantage of storing lots of large images.

    For videos, people don't create videos in the same quantity that they create photos. That's why it works as a business to offer larger per video storage limits than per photo storage limits.
    --John
    Homepage • Popular
    JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
     Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Art Scott wrote: »
    From MY own experience....there is a noticeable difference in saving a file at jpg10 and 12.....

    I'm sorry then I think you are the only human on the planet able to really tell the difference :D

    This is re: Lightroom but it's applicable:
    http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • dennismullendennismullen Registered Users Posts: 709 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    jfriend wrote: »
    Find me any business that lets you store an unlimited quantity of 500mb JPEGs with unlimited bandwidth for what you pay here. I'm not aware of one and I think the reason is that it's way too easy to lose money on the storage costs when people really take advantage of storing lots of large images.

    For videos, people don't create videos in the same quantity that they create photos. That's why it works as a business to offer larger per video storage limits than per photo storage limits.

    I'm not looking for 500mb jpgs. 35mb would do nicely. I'm paying for a pro account. I don't think this is asking too much.

    Cheers,
    See my gallery at http://www.dennismullen.com
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    dennismullen wrote: »
    I'm not looking for 500mb jpgs. 35mb would do nicely. I'm paying for a pro account. I don't think this is asking too much.

    Cheers,
    Art was asking for 500 and that's who I was responding to. Whether 35mb is needed or not (and whether Smugmug should accept the additional storage costs of the larger sizes) depends upon what size 24MP image is reasonably needed in order to make high quality prints via Smugmug's printers. That's why I asked what JPEG compression level you were using that generates 35mb files which isn't something you have responded to. Smugmug does evaluate their limits from time to time and has raised them in the last few years as higher megapixel cameras became more common.

    But, I fully understand why they don't raise them more than they believe are needed for high quality prints. Because they offer unlimited storage, they have to make sure that the typical usage stays within a boundary that makes sense for their business and that there are appropriate reasons for photogs to not upload things that are massively larger than are needed.

    For you to convince them you need more than their current limits, you need explain to Andy what your workflow is that generates 35mb files and why a workflow that genereates 20mb files wouldn't generate results just as good for both web display and printing via Smugmug's printers. He's a reasonable guy and has some high res equipment himself so if you have a legitimate case for why larger files are needed, he'll listen and take that back to Smugmug HQ to discuss. But, if your workflow could be tweaked to generate smaller files and there would be no resulting perceived difference in either web display or prints via Smugmug, then I'd be surprised if you could convince them to up the limits. And, if that was the case, why not just tweak your own workflow to be compatible with the current rules.

    I personally don't have a 24MP camera so I can't really say for sure, but I shoot with a 12MP camera and my uploads are all under 7MB so I'm having a hard time understanding why twice the pixels would need 5x the file size.
    --John
    Homepage • Popular
    JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
     Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    jfriend wrote: »
    He's a reasonable guy and has some high res equipment himself so if you have a legitimate case for why larger files are needed, he'll listen and take that back to Smugmug HQ to discuss.

    I am and I would.

    iloveyou.gif John Friend! We tussle all the time (that's actually a good thing!) I just want to say I have great respect for you. BTW I'm waiting to see a rowing shots post in the sports forum deal.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Andy wrote: »
    I am and I would.

    iloveyou.gif John Friend! We tussle all the time (that's actually a good thing!) I just want to say I have great respect for you. BTW I'm waiting to see a rowing shots post in the sports forum deal.gif
    A funny thing happened at the first rowing regatta of the spring season. Rather than shooting from the shore like I did all last season, the coach helped me get into the chase boat following each race and I took the 70-200 and 200-400 (on separate bodies) and got some shots I don't normally get (didn't need the reach of the 600 from the boat). It was one of those days when my access, the lighting angle and the conditions all cooperated. The 600 didn't come out of the trunk that day (to the consternation of my son who wanted everyone to see the new lens). But, there will be plenty of other chances for it coming up and now I've got a Wimberley head too so I can manage things better. I did post a few 200-400 rowing shots over at dpr: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&message=37737298.

    I got out for some birding with the 600 in the Palo Alto marshlands at the end of last week and really, really enjoyed myself. If the &*^*%^$ rain would let up here (haven't had a break all week), I'd be out there some more - probably Sat or Sun morning is my next chance. I haven't uploaded any of those 600 shots yet, but I'm blown away by what I can capture that I couldn't before. It's wicked sharp and what great reach. A bit more challenging to locate a bird in flight - particularly a quick one though, but great sharpness and IQ. Lots of fun. I'll post some shots in the next few days.
    --John
    Homepage • Popular
    JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
     Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • Erick LErick L Registered Users Posts: 355 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Panoramic images can easily go over the 24mb limit. No a real problem for me but I can see it would be a problem for some.
    Erick - borealphoto.com
    borealphoto.smugmug.com
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Erick L wrote: »
    Panoramic images can easily go over the 24mb limit. No a real problem for me but I can see it would be a problem for some.

    :nah

    I have printed big panos from our labs - both at EZP and Bay. This one is 35+ Mpix and 17mb
    http://www.moonriverphotography.com/Galleries/Landscapes-for-Sale/634937_G88Gj#438064000_xDKa5

    looks great. (and has sold well, too deal.gif )
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2011
    Andy wrote: »
    I'm sorry then I think you are the only human on the planet able to really tell the difference :D

    This is re: Lightroom but it's applicable:
    http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality
    really andy...getting snarky is not helping at all.......I took your friggin advice over 5yrs ago and printed somne images at jpg8....and my clients puked....so I went back to jpg 12 and after talking to several labs that all wondered why anyone would want to why waste time shooting raw and processing if they were not going to utilize the whole file....it is not just me.....and by admission of more than one lab GF does much better upsizing than any rip software out there............How about getting back to my original question and forget the sports pix and crap...wanna talk sports do it in that forum!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2011
    Art Scott wrote: »
    really andy...getting snarky is not helping at all.......I took your friggin advice over 5yrs ago and printed somne images at jpg8....and my clients puked....so I went back to jpg 12 and after talking to several labs that all wondered why anyone would want to why waste time shooting raw and processing if they were not going to utilize the whole file....it is not just me.....and by admission of more than one lab GF does much better upsizing than any rip software out there............How about getting back to my original question and forget the sports pix and crap...wanna talk sports do it in that forum!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Hi Art, I'm sorry you are upset.

    I think you are overthinking things. You do not need ginormous files upressed with GF or any other tool to get great big prints up to 30x40 at either of our labs. You need great files, well processed, all (or as many) of the original pixels as possible, and let our labs (and our 9year old guarantee of quality) stand by you and your clients. I just printed this at 24" x 48x on Metal at Bay Photo for the most demanding client of all, my wife:

    1185532527_JyJDg-X2.jpg

    It's 8 megapixels and 12Mb from a point and shoot. The result? Spectacular. Jaws have been dropping since I mounted it on the wall.

    1190462560_w4XnA-XL.jpg

    The way I look at it is - and I'm not being snarky, Art - you can print stuff, sell stuff and have happy clients, or you can over-analyze and be paralyzed and do it yourself via other means. Whichever you choose, that's cool by me!

    You can print amazing images with 24mb and 48mpix files at our labs. If you want specific, exact, and precise help with any image, just email me at the help desk. Happy to assist.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2011
    I freakin guess you are not hearing me..........I need to KNOW to do the work I do as I do it thru SM......now I have elaborated and explained until I am blue....and as far as your wife is concerned it is your wife and your images, not really an outside client......and obviously your standards are lower than mine................


    I want no friggin viewing distance at 300 dpi for any IMAGE OF ANY SIZE AND THAT DOES REQUIRE UPREZING ......I am not settling for good enuff ..... I know what I want ...now I need to know how to work it thru SM...................I am not down sizing my images.....
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • dennismullendennismullen Registered Users Posts: 709 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2011
    art scott wrote: »
    i freakin guess you are not hearing me..........i need haow to do the work i do as i do it thru sm......now i have elaborated and explained until i am blue....and as far as your wife is concerned it is your wife and your images, not really an outside client......and obviously your standards are lower than mine................


    I want no friggin viewing distance at 300 dpi for any image of any size and that does require uprezing ......i am not settling for good enuff ..... I know what i want ...now i need to know how to work it thru sm...................i am not down sizing my images.....

    +1
    See my gallery at http://www.dennismullen.com
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2011
    Art Scott wrote: »
    I freakin guess you are not hearing me..........I need to KNOW to do the work I do as I do it thru SM......now I have elaborated and explained until I am blue....and as far as your wife is concerned it is your wife and your images, not really an outside client......and obviously your standards are lower than mine................


    I want no friggin viewing distance at 300 dpi for any IMAGE OF ANY SIZE AND THAT DOES REQUIRE UPREZING ......I am not settling for good enuff ..... I know what I want ...now I need to know how to work it thru SM...................I am not down sizing my images.....

    Hi Art, I'm going to ask you to remain civil if you wish to continue to use Dgrin. Otherwise you can write me at Support Heroes and we will help from the help desk.

    I can't imagine what else I can say - as I've said, on SmugMug, right now, you can upload up to 24Mb and 48Mpix. Properly prepared files will print beautifully (even at as you say, "8x10" viewing distance on a 30"x40" print). I know this, as we have the experience of doing millions and millions of prints, and seeing in person first hand, more actual prints than most see in a lifetime. As I said before, I'll be happy to work with you and show you. Heck, I'm even willing to print you something at 20x30 and let you see it for yourself - on our dime, Art. Interested? ear.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2011
    Andy wrote: »
    Hi Art, I'm going to ask you to remain civil if you wish to continue to use Dgrin. Otherwise you can write me at Support Heroes and we will help from the help desk.

    I can't imagine what else I can say - as I've said, on SmugMug, right now, you can upload up to 24Mb and 48Mpix. Properly prepared files will print beautifully (even at as you say, "8x10" viewing distance on a 30"x40" print). I know this, as we have the experience of doing millions and millions of prints, and seeing in person first hand, more actual prints than most see in a lifetime. As I said before, I'll be happy to work with you and show you. Heck, I'm even willing to print you something at 20x30 and let you see it for yourself - on our dime, Art. Interested? ear.gif

    Civil????????? What is not civil......I am being very civil...no all caps typing no use of any colored font...just bolded what I wanted to emphasize.........

    Interested in a 30x40...not really but but an 120x160 (or even a 60x80) at native resolution that can be sold that has no viewing distance needed and would look as good as an 8x10 at native resolution...hell Ya I would be interested......but you cannot do it.....without uprezing........

    As much as I would like to take you up on the offer there is no need I have done all the testing, on my own dime and doing another on YOUR dime is not going to change the outcome at all.................

    Again I need a solution for large files to be shown to clients...........I have scanned imaged that can not be uploaded.......why I had to scan 30x40 inch prints is of no concern but the files cannnot be uploaded and offered for sale....but I can FTP them to any lab for printing.........

    As PROS we NEED more space........... again a 300dpi 20x40 is over 35mb.......again I have file of scanned images that very near 950mb and you want me to down resize them to be good enough.......

    It is time for more space to be relinquished to the still photographers.....
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2011
    Art Scott wrote: »
    Interested in a 30x40...not really but but an 120x160 (or even a 60x80)

    Art. The largest we sell on SmugMug is 30x40, 24x36 at our two labs. http://www.smugmug.com/prints/catalog/AB
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • BradfordBennBradfordBenn Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited February 19, 2011
    I have watched this "discussion" go on for a while. I am not saying that you can't see the difference between different compressions or that your sizes are unrealistic, I am saying that from my view in the cheap seats that what you are asking for is outside of SmugMug's defined and documented limitations.

    There are things that SmugMug doesn't do that I would like, my solution I still have my own domain. You seem like a fairly smart guy Art, the effort to pay for a hosting service with your own domain that you can host any size image is minimal. When I hit into problems with limits that is what I do, has not been a problem. I just put on my SmugMug site a link to the longer video file. I am not sure how anyone is going to view the larger files you are talking about easily, but there are software solutions for that are available and I am pretty sure if you asked here on DGrin people can point you in the right direction.
    -=Bradford

    Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
  • racerracer Registered Users Posts: 333 Major grins
    edited February 28, 2011
    Not wanting to start this back up again, but here is a suggestion that would make people happy who are wanting to print large files. Could this be a special order type thing, were we would be able to upload it threw smugmug, to the photo labs. Like uploading to smugmug to be able to print it, but not being able to save it. This would prevent the files from being saved on smugmug, while still making smugmug money, and satisfying the smugmug guarante on prints threw there labs, and satisfy the requirements of some people.

    I dont want to debate if this is needed or not, just a suggestion, nothing more
    Todd - My Photos
Sign In or Register to comment.