I thought so. At 4Mbps up, and only 1 thread uploading 2Mbps looks like a valid figure. A bit on a low side, but you never know what happens in between the originating machine and the target servers...
I thought so. At 4Mbps up, and only 1 thread uploading 2Mbps looks like a valid figure. A bit on a low side, but you never know what happens in between the originating machine and the target servers...
On the nose -
And Damon, dialing the stats down to more exact numbers, and accounting for a lull between 4am and 7am, where it looks like one batch ended, and you began a new one about four hours later, we're seeing just about 16GB uploaded in appx. 18hrs -
(I'd give my eye teeth for speeds like that! )
Still standing by to ring you again - say the word -
I'm Seán - one of the support heroes here at SmugMug -
As you know, we don't usually handle support by phone, because we all work from our homes -
I'll ask you to shoot us one more email - Att Sean - and provide me with a phone number and a good time to call - I'll ring you from my personal phone and we'll do our best to help you identify and resolve this issue -
[[[Sean - I am looking into connection/speed issues on my end. My computer is reporting one number, Speedtest.net is reporting a much different scenario. I will be speaking with Verizon tomorrow and will get back to you.
I am paying for high-speed DSL, and I hope that's what I'm getting. According to my computer, I am; Speedtest.net numbers say no.
I'm now on day three of this up-load.
What's throwing me is, it's in both of my locations.
I will get back to you tomorrow. Thanks.]]]
Today. Here's what I know.
I have two locations, two computers, both connected to Verizon high speed DSL.
On Sat evening, in Boston, I began an upload consisting of 6Gb/800 images.
On Sunday morning, 170 images had uploaded.
On Sunday night, on Martha's Vineyard, I resumed uploading the rest of the files. Can't remember the exact number, but overnight, maybe a couple hundred loaded.
On Monday, still on Vineyard, intermittently during the day, I continued uploading (with many interruptions and pauses due to work I was trying to do), ran the up-load overnight. Finally, today, project is uploaded.
I ran a speedtest.net test last night and my upload speed was 0.17 mbps; dowload, 0.43 mbps; ping, 732 ms (which Sam says is waaaay too high. I don't know from ping).
Today's speedtest. net test = download, 2.88 mbps; upload, .70 mbps; ping, 43.
I spent some time talking to Verizon this morning and I'm told that Verizon's high-speed service here on the island is guaranteed to be 1.5-3 mbps, and that there are no problems on my line and my upload speed measures 768 kbps (corroborates with speedtest.net); download, 3mbps.
Okay, fine, there are the numbers, and maybe they are not the best in the world, but I have changed nothing in my work flow in the past month. Nothing on my end has changed. I've always had crappy numbers. I've always used either my island computer or my Boston computer. But until three weeks ago, I was able to up-load a crap load of images overnight. Yes, I switched to a 5D (I've had a G12 for longer, and those large files didn't give me problems either) with larger files a few months ago, and yes, my weddings do take longer to upload, but never this long.
The question is (as it was with the video issue): why...even though everything is the same on my end, have my uploads to SM changed drastically?
I would love to speak with you, Sean, but right now I have to move on to other projects and will be tied up most of today. How about tomorrow? I will send you my phone number via e-mail, and I thank you in advance.
On Sat evening, in Boston, I began an upload consisting of 6Gb/800 images.
...
I ran a speedtest.net test last night and my upload speed was 0.17 mbps; dowload, 0.43 mbps; ping, 732 ms (which Sam says is waaaay too high. I don't know from ping).
A little math here:
6Gb at 0.2mbps (6*1000*8/0.2/60/60) would take ~66 hours under the ideal circumstances. Since it's rarely ideal, I'd say 75..80 hours, i.e 3+ days: exactly what you had.
Apparently your ISP cannot provide a sustained "up" level since your speed ranges wildly from 0.17 to 0.7mbps. Naturally, if you choose a period of time when (for whatever reason) the speed can be sustained at least at 0.6mbps, your 3+ days would be cut to a 1 day or less. Still very slow, but better than 3 days.
Considering you probably can't change your ISP on a whim, I would suggest processing files before the upload. SOOC jpegs tend to be huge and carry a lot of noise. Yes, processing would take some time, but it's very likely that your 6Gb would turn into 0.6Gb, so even at 0.2mbps you'd be facing hours, not days..
Just my 2 bits per second...
A little math here:
6Gb at 0.2mbps (6*1000*8/0.2/60/60) would take ~66 hours under the ideal circumstances. Since it's rarely ideal, I'd say 75..80 hours, i.e 3+ days: exactly what you had.
Apparently your ISP cannot provide a sustained "up" level since your speed ranges wildly from 0.17 to 0.7mbps. Naturally, if you choose a period of time when (for whatever reason) the speed can be sustained at least at 0.6mbps, your 3+ days would be cut to a 1 day or less. Still very slow, but better than 3 days.
Considering you probably can't change your ISP on a whim, I would suggest processing files before the upload. SOOC jpegs tend to be huge and carry a lot of noise. Yes, processing would take some time, but it's very likely that your 6Gb would turn into 0.6Gb, so even at 0.2mbps you'd be facing hours, not days..
Just my 2 bits per second...
But I never had a problem before.
What do you mean, process?
I process every RAW image; edit, tweak, and convert to jpg.
I would love to speak with you, Sean, but right now I have to move on to other projects and will be tied up most of today. How about tomorrow? I will send you my phone number via e-mail, and I thank you in advance.
I'm sure tomorrow will be fine, Sara. So I just looked at your uploads from Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Your speed is very low, as you say:
(your actual upload speeds for the three days I mentioned above)
We can't and don't control this speed - but we do have some tips and tricks that might be able to pinpoint any things that are contributing to the speed.
I process every RAW image; edit, tweak, and convert to jpg.
I repeat, I never had this problem before.
800 images at 6Gb = 7.5Mb per image.
Are you saving at PS: 12 (100%) quality?
PS:8 (66%..75%) gives you more than enough details, enough to print 30x40 (and you can always reupload thos you *do* want to print 30x40), while trimming the size down to 1..2Mb - again, decreasing the load.
Also, if your images are not in sRGB (my understanding is that you recently switched to 5D and IIRC its default is Adobe RGB - check your color space!), it takes extra time on SM side, that can substantially slow down the all-around speed.
I'm also using 5DII, so my files are probably similar to yours. And while SM has introduced at lot of changes recently (direct to the cloud being one of them) I haven't noticed any slowness.
Given the hard facts you have provided (volume, speedtest, etc.) your numbers seem on par with what you should have. I understand that the situation was different before, but it could be a whole number of things, e.g. your ISP actually being better, images having correct colorspace, etc.
My primary point is: no matter what it used to be, your current situation is not good, and the primary bottlenecks seems to be your ISP and your workload.
768k isn't much upload bandwidth at all. I know from experience because that's all I could get for the longest time. So I got three of them and an Cisco rv016 multi-wan router. I could then get an effective 768*3 or a little over 2Mb of bandwidth. That's enough to do about a gig per hour. It would still be overnight for uploads, but I'd be ready to work on the morning (assuming that the upload went well).
If you have higher speeds available via the same or another ISP, I'd get it. You'll be saving time not only on uploads, but other computing tasks as well. I have three 25/5 cable modems now that my ISP has upgraded. I wouldn't have it any other way. I can upload 7gb/hr if I can get the bandwidth maximized.
768k isn't much upload bandwidth at all. I know from experience because that's all I could get for the longest time. So I got three of them and an Cisco rv016 multi-wan router. I could then get an effective 768*3 or a little over 2Mb of bandwidth. That's enough to do about a gig per hour. It would still be overnight for uploads, but I'd be ready to work on the morning (assuming that the upload went well).
If you have higher speeds available via the same or another ISP, I'd get it. You'll be saving time not only on uploads, but other computing tasks as well. I have three 25/5 cable modems now that my ISP has upgraded. I wouldn't have it any other way. I can upload 7gb/hr if I can get the bandwidth maximized.
I understand that my numbers are low - and yes, I do want to explore any/all options to maximize my speed, even possibly switching to a new server. And yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm still wondering why - even with my low speed (let's assume my speed really hasn't changed much - unless by some fluke Verizon was running slower than usual in both locations at the same time), I had a workable system for a long time. I guess if I hadn't recently had the video uploading problems (which began only in the past three weeks), and my molasses-slow uploads had not happened in both of my locations, I'd more easily drop the whole thing.
The question is (as it was with the video issue): why...even though everything is the same on my end, have my uploads to SM changed drastically?
Hi Sara -
After a little more digging, I beleive I can answer the question you just asked...
Looking at your most recent uploads, the average file size is running between 10MB and 13MB -
I went back through some of your older galleries, and the images in these galleries are averaging 3MB to 5MB -
Based on these findings, if accurate across the board, your file sizes have almost quadrupled - four times the file size equates into upload times increased by 400% -
Since none of us can affect the service provided by Verizon, if you want to cut your uploads times, your best option, as has been previously put forth, is to reduce the file weight -
I'm going to send you an email with solid information on how you can DRASTICALLY reduce your upload hours - as well as examples and real world results.
I understand that my numbers are low - and yes, I do want to explore any/all options to maximize my speed, even possibly switching to a new server. And yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm still wondering why - even with my low speed (let's assume my speed really hasn't changed much - unless by some fluke Verizon was running slower than usual in both locations at the same time), I had a workable system for a long time. I guess if I hadn't recently had the video uploading problems (which began only in the past three weeks), and my molasses-slow uploads had not happened in both of my locations, I'd more easily drop the whole thing.
The only two things I could think of are that your ISP wasn't properly capping your upload bandwidth (I've seen this happen.), or that there's something changed on your end that's changed the processed file sizes.
If there is a way to adjust the file sizes via the quality settings to something that works, I'd play with that first. Getting more bandwidth is a more expensive option. The rv016 is $500 and it's baby brother, the rv042, is still around $150. Not cheap as far as routers are concerned. :cry Not to mention doubling or tripling your Internet costs. My bill runs over $200/mo just for Internet. I don't even have a TV anymore.
Looking at your most recent uploads, the average file size is running between 10MB and 13MB -
I went back through some of your older galleries, and the images in these galleries are averaging 3MB to 5MB -
Based on these findings, if accurate across the board, your file sizes have almost quadrupled - four times the file size equates into upload times increased by 400% -
Bingo! That's probably the move from the g12 to the 5d. If I had file sizes that large, it would even choke my bandwidth. Great work!
I understand that my numbers are low - and yes, I do want to explore any/all options to maximize my speed, even possibly switching to a new server. And yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm still wondering why - even with my low speed (let's assume my speed really hasn't changed much - unless by some fluke Verizon was running slower than usual in both locations at the same time), I had a workable system for a long time. I guess if I hadn't recently had the video uploading problems (which began only in the past three weeks), and my molasses-slow uploads had not happened in both of my locations, I'd more easily drop the whole thing.
I look forward to speaking with Sean tomorrow.
Hi Sara -
On second thought, I'll put this out here for everyone - just my take on the whole 'speeding it up' topic -
The trick is to find the balance between image quality, resolution, printing requirements and upload times - whew -
You can downsize your files, to make uploading faster. But you will need to make sure that the files meet the minimum resolution for the largest sizes you wish to offer. In other words, if you wish to offer 16x24s, as the largest size. The minimum resolution will need to be 1024x1536. This may be smaller than original image file's resolution, but it will be large enough to order a 16x24.
Lastly - as a pro, one of your most powerful tools in this realm is the proof delay, use it to replace images that have been purchased with the highest quality files - and this can eliminate the need to retouch every single image before upload as well. You would only need to hit the images that have been selected by your customers: http://www.smugmug.com/help/proof-retouch-replace
How do I speed it up?
I prefer to retain full resolution - I use Lighroom and LOVE the flexibility of it - To give you some perspective, here's an extreme example of what can be done - two galleries with the same image files:
This gallery is original size/unedited - total folder size for 322 images is about 2GB > loaded in just over 2 hours (on my connection with COX Cable here in Phoenix) -
(that linked image file is 6.39MB - Resolution = 4384 X 3288)
I loaded the same files in this gallery > I 'tweaked' them with some batch enhancements in LR - and exported compressed w/ no change to resolution - on export, I set LR to 'cap' file weight at no higher than 1MB - after export, the total folder size was knocked down to 159MB and took 8 minutes to upload!
Speaking of speading up (followup to Sean's post):
here's what S*E can do for you
1) configure it for converting "jpegs to jpegs", lowering the resolution, and possibly, size (to a degree that it doesn't hurt) (you can substitute this step by running PS Image Processor or some other batch tool)
2) upload those low res files *fast*
3) now that you're not pressed for time, switch S*E to "check-and-replace" mode and upload the full-res ones.
Or, better yet, wait until the orders come and only reupload (with replacing) those, that you actually need. I typically set 1-2 days print delay, so it gives me plenty of time to process/reupload.
HTH
Lay back on the couch, relax, close your eyes, all is well with the universe, you are at peace.
Everything is as it should be. It's time to move on, the horse is dead, God rest his little soul. His passing also is as it should be.
The universe is fine, you are fine. The greatest scientists, and physicists on our planet have confirmed this.
Please give up your unhealthy pursuit of the past..........madness lies there.
Take a deep breath and let it out slowly as I count. On the count of three you will be wide awake, and unconcerned with past events. These events have no more power over you.
Lay back on the couch, relax, close your eyes, all is well with the universe, you are at peace.
Everything is as it should be. It's time to move on, the horse is dead, God rest his little soul. His passing also is as it should be.
The universe is fine, you are fine. The greatest scientists, and physicists on our planet have confirmed this.
Please give up your unhealthy pursuit of the past..........madness lies there.
Take a deep breath and let it out slowly as I count. On the count of three you will be wide awake, and unconcerned with past events. These events have no more power over you.
Is it just me or is the smaller image brighter and lacking some dynamic range. Granted, it's highly compressed, but I was expecting to notice nothing different between the two images.
Is it just me or is the smaller image brighter and lacking some dynamic range. Granted, it's highly compressed, but I was expecting to notice nothing different between the two images.
Hi Samir -
As stated, the images were 'tweaked' in bulk in LR - contrast, vibrance, brightness, sharpness etc - and then highly compressed -
I'd mentioned that this was an 'extreme' example of what was possible - the point was a) much smaller files for faster loads, b) retention of original resolution for access to all print options and c) photos that still looked good online for guests -
And that tied with the 'proof delay' should, for most, cut work-flow (from memory card to print production) down by a pretty large chunk -
By no means was I suggesting that these particular settings would be optimum -
..
I'd mentioned that this was an 'extreme' example of what was possible - the point was a) much smaller files for faster loads, b) retention of original resolution for access to all print options and c) photos that still looked good online for guests -
And that tied with the 'proof delay' should, for most, cut work-flow (from memory card to print production) down by a pretty large chunk -
...
+1
A big RAWflow proponent, I have been using the following method for the last few years:
shoot RAW + small coarse JPEG.
Break material by folders (in Bridge, if you move RAW, jpeg follows)
Optional culling
Drag the folders to S*E
Hit Upload: S*E would create albums and upload the jpegs
Delete jpegs as they are no longer needed.
This approach (along with the high quality of sooc jpegs) allows me to produce proofs/mass copies within an hour of the shoot end/my arrival home, even if I return with thousands of images.
Okay, busted. I'm a perseverator. Call it stubborn, or - the flip side of the same coin is tenacity. Yeah, tenacious, that's what I am, otherwise I surely could not have been able (and continue) to accomplish and manage all that I have in this life.
But I don't think it's totally unreasonable to wonder why a couple of things I've been doing that worked fine for a long time have suddenly gone kerflooey, coincidentally in the same time period.
But as I told Sam in our phone conversation (in which he succeeded in talking me off the ledge), the funny thing is, sometimes things happen that make us go nuts, but often what happens is we get pushed into a new method or workflow - and even though we go in kicking and screaming, it all turns out for the better.
One of the things I was dreading, and part of the cause for holding on to my prior systems, is the idea of changing servers, which among other things will affect business cards, correspondence, etc.
However, I have thought of a possible solution that will probably work out for the best on a lot of levels.
I apologize if my temporary insanity caused any hard feelings or stepped on any toes. I'm actually a nice person and you'd probably like me if you sat down and had a beer with me. Some things, however, like endless uploads and tech support issues sometimes push me to the edge.
Anyway, thank you for all the replies - all useful.
Hey Sean, I think you were calling my 386 number. I am out of town so where I am it doesn't work. I have another as well if you want to PM Me...
Right this moment can you check my numbers and compare to a couple of days ago before Nik* told me to make a couple of settings in SE? It "seems" like it maybe going a bit faster though, I am not sure...
And Damon, dialing the stats down to more exact numbers, and accounting for a lull between 4am and 7am, where it looks like one batch ended, and you began a new one about four hours later, we're seeing just about 16GB uploaded in appx. 18hrs -
(I'd give my eye teeth for speeds like that! )
Still standing by to ring you again - say the word -
Sean
SMSH
! That is actually pretty slow, really! You should see my FTP speeds on the other site I am on! It's really not a comparison I can do about 25 gigs in that time...
! That is actually pretty slow, really! You should see my FTP speeds on the other site I am on! It's really not a comparison I can do about 25 gigs in that time...
Which is closer to maxing out your bandwidth. I'm actually surprised that the new SM uploader isn't doing this. . Which uploader are you using? I've seen good results with Simple under firefox.
frustrainingly, Star Explorer...
Frustratingly I am using Starexplorer. It has more bugs! I fire it up 5 times, it works one time out of the 5. No logs to show files that weren't uploaded, so I actually have NO CLUE what is missing out of the folders.
FTP is Fastest
Smugloader never used (wouldn't work any how) doesn't do mass creation of directories
Star is the only alternative, however frustrating for reasons mentioned above.
Ironically if there was an FTP option that created directories and moved files that WEREN'T SUCCESSFULLY UPLOADED into a sep folder like FTP Does so you can one click (restart) it would be perfect!
GRRRRRRRR! I can't be the only one uploading 4500 files at a time, and having these issues or complaints
Frustratingly I am using Starexplorer. It has more bugs! I fire it up 5 times, it works one time out of the 5. No logs to show files that weren't uploaded, so I actually have NO CLUE what is missing out of the folders.
FTP is Fastest
Smugloader never used (wouldn't work any how) doesn't do mass creation of directories
Star is the only alternative, however frustrating for reasons mentioned above.
Ironically if there was an FTP option that created directories and moved files that WEREN'T SUCCESSFULLY UPLOADED into a sep folder like FTP Does so you can one click (restart) it would be perfect!
GRRRRRRRR! I can't be the only one uploading 4500 files at a time, and having these issues or complaints
I'd suggest you take your issues up with the StarExplorer author here.
StarExplorer leaves images that weren't uploaded properly right in the upload queue so all you have to do is hit upload again or investigate why they didn't upload. That feature works reliably for me.
There is a StarExplorer log (Tools menu/Log Files) and there is a Smugmug log (Control Panel/Stats tab/Upload Log link). Either should show you why some images didn't upload.
Mine doesn't. If let's say (it's uploading) and it freezes up which has happened quite a bit - it ended with 4002 photos at freeze. When it comes back up it's 3998 - but those photos did not upload. Nothing in the logs at all. Not to mention some other SE issues where you log in, it takes forever to load up, then "Saves queue" and hangs for over an hour then I have to restart and "FILES DONT ALL GET SAVED" Which means I have to erase the entire gallery and start back over again to ensure they all get put back.
Mine doesn't. If let's say (it's uploading) and it freezes up which has happened quite a bit - it ended with 4002 photos at freeze. When it comes back up it's 3998 - but those photos did not upload. Nothing in the logs at all. Not to mention some other SE issues where you log in, it takes forever to load up, then "Saves queue" and hangs for over an hour then I have to restart and "FILES DONT ALL GET SAVED" Which means I have to erase the entire gallery and start back over again to ensure they all get put back.
Those are software bugs (hanging, freezing, crashing), not transmission issues. As I said in my previous post, you should report bugs to the software author if you care to see them fixed.
Bingo! That's probably the move from the g12 to the 5d. If I had file sizes that large, it would even choke my bandwidth. Great work!
Sean, I saw the files you were looking at, from a couple of years ago, back at least to the 40D, maybe even 10D. I've been using the 5D for a couple of months, the G12 for 3-4 months.
I look forward to speaking with you. Home and ready.
Comments
er yes
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
On the nose -
And Damon, dialing the stats down to more exact numbers, and accounting for a lull between 4am and 7am, where it looks like one batch ended, and you began a new one about four hours later, we're seeing just about 16GB uploaded in appx. 18hrs -
(I'd give my eye teeth for speeds like that!
Still standing by to ring you again - say the word -
Sean
SMSH
Originally Posted by Rogue 1
Hi Sara -
I'm Seán - one of the support heroes here at SmugMug -
As you know, we don't usually handle support by phone, because we all work from our homes -
I'll ask you to shoot us one more email - Att Sean - and provide me with a phone number and a good time to call - I'll ring you from my personal phone and we'll do our best to help you identify and resolve this issue -
I'm standing by -
Seán
Support Hero
http://www.smugmug.com/help
[[[Sean - I am looking into connection/speed issues on my end. My computer is reporting one number, Speedtest.net is reporting a much different scenario. I will be speaking with Verizon tomorrow and will get back to you.
I am paying for high-speed DSL, and I hope that's what I'm getting. According to my computer, I am; Speedtest.net numbers say no.
I'm now on day three of this up-load.
What's throwing me is, it's in both of my locations.
I will get back to you tomorrow. Thanks.]]]
Today. Here's what I know.
I have two locations, two computers, both connected to Verizon high speed DSL.
On Sat evening, in Boston, I began an upload consisting of 6Gb/800 images.
On Sunday morning, 170 images had uploaded.
On Sunday night, on Martha's Vineyard, I resumed uploading the rest of the files. Can't remember the exact number, but overnight, maybe a couple hundred loaded.
On Monday, still on Vineyard, intermittently during the day, I continued uploading (with many interruptions and pauses due to work I was trying to do), ran the up-load overnight. Finally, today, project is uploaded.
I ran a speedtest.net test last night and my upload speed was 0.17 mbps; dowload, 0.43 mbps; ping, 732 ms (which Sam says is waaaay too high. I don't know from ping).
Today's speedtest. net test = download, 2.88 mbps; upload, .70 mbps; ping, 43.
I spent some time talking to Verizon this morning and I'm told that Verizon's high-speed service here on the island is guaranteed to be 1.5-3 mbps, and that there are no problems on my line and my upload speed measures 768 kbps (corroborates with speedtest.net); download, 3mbps.
Okay, fine, there are the numbers, and maybe they are not the best in the world, but I have changed nothing in my work flow in the past month. Nothing on my end has changed. I've always had crappy numbers. I've always used either my island computer or my Boston computer. But until three weeks ago, I was able to up-load a crap load of images overnight. Yes, I switched to a 5D (I've had a G12 for longer, and those large files didn't give me problems either) with larger files a few months ago, and yes, my weddings do take longer to upload, but never this long.
The question is (as it was with the video issue): why...even though everything is the same on my end, have my uploads to SM changed drastically?
I would love to speak with you, Sean, but right now I have to move on to other projects and will be tied up most of today. How about tomorrow? I will send you my phone number via e-mail, and I thank you in advance.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
6Gb at 0.2mbps (6*1000*8/0.2/60/60) would take ~66 hours under the ideal circumstances. Since it's rarely ideal, I'd say 75..80 hours, i.e 3+ days: exactly what you had.
Apparently your ISP cannot provide a sustained "up" level since your speed ranges wildly from 0.17 to 0.7mbps. Naturally, if you choose a period of time when (for whatever reason) the speed can be sustained at least at 0.6mbps, your 3+ days would be cut to a 1 day or less. Still very slow, but better than 3 days.
Considering you probably can't change your ISP on a whim, I would suggest processing files before the upload. SOOC jpegs tend to be huge and carry a lot of noise. Yes, processing would take some time, but it's very likely that your 6Gb would turn into 0.6Gb, so even at 0.2mbps you'd be facing hours, not days..
Just my 2 bits per second...
But I never had a problem before.
What do you mean, process?
I process every RAW image; edit, tweak, and convert to jpg.
I repeat, I never had this problem before.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I'm sure tomorrow will be fine, Sara. So I just looked at your uploads from Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Your speed is very low, as you say:
(your actual upload speeds for the three days I mentioned above)
We can't and don't control this speed - but we do have some tips and tricks that might be able to pinpoint any things that are contributing to the speed.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
800 images at 6Gb = 7.5Mb per image.
Are you saving at PS: 12 (100%) quality?
PS:8 (66%..75%) gives you more than enough details, enough to print 30x40 (and you can always reupload thos you *do* want to print 30x40), while trimming the size down to 1..2Mb - again, decreasing the load.
Also, if your images are not in sRGB (my understanding is that you recently switched to 5D and IIRC its default is Adobe RGB - check your color space!), it takes extra time on SM side, that can substantially slow down the all-around speed.
I'm also using 5DII, so my files are probably similar to yours. And while SM has introduced at lot of changes recently (direct to the cloud being one of them) I haven't noticed any slowness.
Given the hard facts you have provided (volume, speedtest, etc.) your numbers seem on par with what you should have. I understand that the situation was different before, but it could be a whole number of things, e.g. your ISP actually being better, images having correct colorspace, etc.
My primary point is: no matter what it used to be, your current situation is not good, and the primary bottlenecks seems to be your ISP and your workload.
If you have higher speeds available via the same or another ISP, I'd get it. You'll be saving time not only on uploads, but other computing tasks as well. I have three 25/5 cable modems now that my ISP has upgraded. I wouldn't have it any other way. I can upload 7gb/hr if I can get the bandwidth maximized.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
I understand that my numbers are low - and yes, I do want to explore any/all options to maximize my speed, even possibly switching to a new server. And yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm still wondering why - even with my low speed (let's assume my speed really hasn't changed much - unless by some fluke Verizon was running slower than usual in both locations at the same time), I had a workable system for a long time. I guess if I hadn't recently had the video uploading problems (which began only in the past three weeks), and my molasses-slow uploads had not happened in both of my locations, I'd more easily drop the whole thing.
I look forward to speaking with Sean tomorrow.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Hi Sara -
After a little more digging, I beleive I can answer the question you just asked...
Looking at your most recent uploads, the average file size is running between 10MB and 13MB -
I went back through some of your older galleries, and the images in these galleries are averaging 3MB to 5MB -
Based on these findings, if accurate across the board, your file sizes have almost quadrupled - four times the file size equates into upload times increased by 400% -
Since none of us can affect the service provided by Verizon, if you want to cut your uploads times, your best option, as has been previously put forth, is to reduce the file weight -
I'm going to send you an email with solid information on how you can DRASTICALLY reduce your upload hours - as well as examples and real world results.
Seán
Support Hero
http://www.smugmug.com/help
If there is a way to adjust the file sizes via the quality settings to something that works, I'd play with that first. Getting more bandwidth is a more expensive option. The rv016 is $500 and it's baby brother, the rv042, is still around $150. Not cheap as far as routers are concerned. :cry Not to mention doubling or tripling your Internet costs. My bill runs over $200/mo just for Internet. I don't even have a TV anymore.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Hi Sara -
On second thought, I'll put this out here for everyone - just my take on the whole 'speeding it up' topic -
The trick is to find the balance between image quality, resolution, printing requirements and upload times - whew -
Here is our 'minimum' resolution chart: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality#minprintres
You can downsize your files, to make uploading faster. But you will need to make sure that the files meet the minimum resolution for the largest sizes you wish to offer. In other words, if you wish to offer 16x24s, as the largest size. The minimum resolution will need to be 1024x1536. This may be smaller than original image file's resolution, but it will be large enough to order a 16x24.
And we recommend increasing compression (to a point), NOT reducing resolution: http://www.smugmug.com/help/speed
Lastly - as a pro, one of your most powerful tools in this realm is the proof delay, use it to replace images that have been purchased with the highest quality files - and this can eliminate the need to retouch every single image before upload as well. You would only need to hit the images that have been selected by your customers: http://www.smugmug.com/help/proof-retouch-replace
How do I speed it up?
I prefer to retain full resolution - I use Lighroom and LOVE the flexibility of it - To give you some perspective, here's an extreme example of what can be done - two galleries with the same image files:
This gallery is original size/unedited - total folder size for 322 images is about 2GB > loaded in just over 2 hours (on my connection with COX Cable here in Phoenix) -
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/14623753_dQb5K#1087914994_AoHcx-X2-LB
(that linked image file is 6.39MB - Resolution = 4384 X 3288)
I loaded the same files in this gallery > I 'tweaked' them with some batch enhancements in LR - and exported compressed w/ no change to resolution - on export, I set LR to 'cap' file weight at no higher than 1MB - after export, the total folder size was knocked down to 159MB and took 8 minutes to upload!
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/14624867_xZvF9#1088009943_8u9Lf-X2-LB
(same image - the linked image file is now 530KB - Resolution is STILL 4384 X 3288)
Here's a great page on 'speeding it up' - http://www.smugmug.com/help/speed
I really hope this helps - and I'll be available for that call when you are ready -
Seán
Support Hero
http://www.smugmug.com/help
here's what S*E can do for you
1) configure it for converting "jpegs to jpegs", lowering the resolution, and possibly, size (to a degree that it doesn't hurt) (you can substitute this step by running PS Image Processor or some other batch tool)
2) upload those low res files *fast*
3) now that you're not pressed for time, switch S*E to "check-and-replace" mode and upload the full-res ones.
Or, better yet, wait until the orders come and only reupload (with replacing) those, that you actually need. I typically set 1-2 days print delay, so it gives me plenty of time to process/reupload.
HTH
Lay back on the couch, relax, close your eyes, all is well with the universe, you are at peace.
Everything is as it should be. It's time to move on, the horse is dead, God rest his little soul. His passing also is as it should be.
The universe is fine, you are fine. The greatest scientists, and physicists on our planet have confirmed this.
Please give up your unhealthy pursuit of the past..........madness lies there.
Take a deep breath and let it out slowly as I count. On the count of three you will be wide awake, and unconcerned with past events. These events have no more power over you.
Go, be free, enjoy life in good health!
Sam
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Hi Samir -
As stated, the images were 'tweaked' in bulk in LR - contrast, vibrance, brightness, sharpness etc - and then highly compressed -
I'd mentioned that this was an 'extreme' example of what was possible - the point was a) much smaller files for faster loads, b) retention of original resolution for access to all print options and c) photos that still looked good online for guests -
And that tied with the 'proof delay' should, for most, cut work-flow (from memory card to print production) down by a pretty large chunk -
By no means was I suggesting that these particular settings would be optimum -
Hope that clarifies -
Seán
Support Hero
A big RAWflow proponent, I have been using the following method for the last few years:
shoot RAW + small coarse JPEG.
Break material by folders (in Bridge, if you move RAW, jpeg follows)
Optional culling
Drag the folders to S*E
Hit Upload: S*E would create albums and upload the jpegs
Delete jpegs as they are no longer needed.
This approach (along with the high quality of sooc jpegs) allows me to produce proofs/mass copies within an hour of the shoot end/my arrival home, even if I return with thousands of images.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
But I don't think it's totally unreasonable to wonder why a couple of things I've been doing that worked fine for a long time have suddenly gone kerflooey, coincidentally in the same time period.
But as I told Sam in our phone conversation (in which he succeeded in talking me off the ledge), the funny thing is, sometimes things happen that make us go nuts, but often what happens is we get pushed into a new method or workflow - and even though we go in kicking and screaming, it all turns out for the better.
One of the things I was dreading, and part of the cause for holding on to my prior systems, is the idea of changing servers, which among other things will affect business cards, correspondence, etc.
However, I have thought of a possible solution that will probably work out for the best on a lot of levels.
I apologize if my temporary insanity caused any hard feelings or stepped on any toes. I'm actually a nice person and you'd probably like me if you sat down and had a beer with me. Some things, however, like endless uploads and tech support issues sometimes push me to the edge.
Anyway, thank you for all the replies - all useful.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Right this moment can you check my numbers and compare to a couple of days ago before Nik* told me to make a couple of settings in SE? It "seems" like it maybe going a bit faster though, I am not sure...
Thanks again
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Frustratingly I am using Starexplorer. It has more bugs! I fire it up 5 times, it works one time out of the 5. No logs to show files that weren't uploaded, so I actually have NO CLUE what is missing out of the folders.
FTP is Fastest
Smugloader never used (wouldn't work any how) doesn't do mass creation of directories
Star is the only alternative, however frustrating for reasons mentioned above.
Ironically if there was an FTP option that created directories and moved files that WEREN'T SUCCESSFULLY UPLOADED into a sep folder like FTP Does so you can one click (restart) it would be perfect!
GRRRRRRRR! I can't be the only one uploading 4500 files at a time, and having these issues or complaints
StarExplorer leaves images that weren't uploaded properly right in the upload queue so all you have to do is hit upload again or investigate why they didn't upload. That feature works reliably for me.
There is a StarExplorer log (Tools menu/Log Files) and there is a Smugmug log (Control Panel/Stats tab/Upload Log link). Either should show you why some images didn't upload.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Sean, I saw the files you were looking at, from a couple of years ago, back at least to the 40D, maybe even 10D. I've been using the 5D for a couple of months, the G12 for 3-4 months.
I look forward to speaking with you. Home and ready.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook