Hmmm... well, not for me. What I see is very very different from what you show here. But I don't like that there's only 3 thumbs in a row in your screenshot, either. (still better than 6, & maybe fine on a small monitor-- sacrifice the thumbs, not the main image, but gee, I'd really like a happy medium like 4 or 5) With only three thumbs in a row, you end up with an awful lot of gallery pages.
There is an old hack that can be used to increase the size of the main image in smugmug style. Take a look at the thread >>> Change SmugMug default settings <<<. In the first post, try the code in the section MORE CONTROL FOR HOW STRETCHY PAGES STRETCH. You may need to experiment with the numbers. I know it still works... won't have any effect on the preview of the new site since our customizations are disabled there.
--- Denise
Thanks for this info., Denise. I'd just been wondering how a few of you are getting those large previews. I think perhaps Samir is using that as well? The only thing is... does it seem to slow down the speed at which your images come up, then? I ask because even now, I see black space for about 1-2 seconds between each photo's main image preview, if clicking through the thumbs. I wouldn't want that time to increase. I've never known if that time length is "just me", or if it's SmugMug, or if it's due to some messiness in my CSS, etc. Anyway, yes, as you mentioned, I realize this has nothing to do with the new site. I need to get to the bottom of why the arrangement looks so bad in my galleries, with the new site. I only see one other person now who has this complaint. Odd.
Thanks for this info., Denise. I'd just been wondering how a few of you are getting those large previews. I think perhaps Samir is using that as well? The only thing is... does it seem to slow down the speed at which your images come up, then? I ask because even now, I see black space for about 1-2 seconds between each photo's main image preview, if clicking through the thumbs. I wouldn't want that time to increase. I've never known if that time length is "just me", or if it's SmugMug, or if it's due to some messiness in my CSS, etc. Anyway, yes, as you mentioned, I realize this has nothing to do with the new site. I need to get to the bottom of why the arrangement looks so bad in my galleries, with the new site. I only see one other person now who has this complaint. Odd.
Larger images take longer to download for display. There is no free lunch there. If you have a really fast internet connection and fast throughput to SM, the difference won't be noticeable. If your connection is not so fast, then larger images load a bit slower. Smug's new display style seems to do some pre-caching (they try to guess which images are likely to be displayed next) to make it appear faster, but that only helps sometimes.
When you add to or change the FAQ post in this thread, please post a note to the end of this thread that you've done so those of us who have participated in this thread will know about it. I had no idea that you had written anything in the FAQ until I saw a reference to it elsewhere on dgrin. We don't get automatically notified when you edit a post.
Absolutely cool design!! I already want it NOW thumb
One thing though: Clicking "more" in the gallery description shows more text but what I miss is a "less" option so that, after reading the description, the text can be "retracted" again by clicking the "less" link.
Andy, for me the appearance of the new gallery style is similar to Winsome's...I also see more thumbnails in each row. My display is 2560x1600. What am I doing wrong?
By the way, thanks for mentioning Jing...that's a pretty good bit of capture software...
You aren't doing anything wrong at all, that's the new layout system making smarter use of the space to get more thumbnails on the page.
Since your gallery is limited to XLarge, the new layout system knows the main image will only ever be that size, so it allows the rest of the space to be used for thumbnails. The old system didn't make that optimization, as you can see in your screen shot, it allocated far more room for the main image than the main image actually was capable of using, since it is limited to XLarge.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
You aren't doing anything wrong at all, that's the new layout system making smarter use of the space to get more thumbnails on the page.
Since your gallery is limited to XLarge, the new layout system knows the main image will only ever be that size, so it allows the rest of the space to be used for thumbnails. The old system didn't make that optimization, as you can see in your screen shot, it allocated far more room for the main image than the main image actually was capable of using, since it is limited to XLarge.
Ahhh, that's a very smart optimization. I wish it could also know that a gallery was entirely portrait or landscape orientation and similarly optimize. I have some sports galleries that are all portrait and the old style was very inefficient with that (leaving lots of empty space for the non-existent landscape images).
I didn't read the entire thread... So, if I'm a "repeat offender", feel free to tell me to not be lazy and read!
Overall, I like the look. Concern-the right-click protection option does NOT work when the individual file is zoomed... While I know that anyone who really wants to download a photo can get around that message, the average user can't/doesn't. Will this be corrected/changed soon?
Also, miss the "owner save" option... I see the download option, but in the "owner save" option, I could save the original file. Am I just missing that in the new version? I've downloaded months worth of files after a hard drive crash and that is a HUGE security blanket for me...
I'm pretty sure intent is for the download link to be the owner save option. That said, there appears to be a minor issue in some cases where it's not selecting the original file. I've made sure that issue has been brought to the engineer working on the new style's attention.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
You aren't doing anything wrong at all, that's the new layout system making smarter use of the space to get more thumbnails on the page.
Since your gallery is limited to XLarge, the new layout system knows the main image will only ever be that size, so it allows the rest of the space to be used for thumbnails. The old system didn't make that optimization, as you can see in your screen shot, it allocated far more room for the main image than the main image actually was capable of using, since it is limited to XLarge.
Ahhh...that makes sense! Thanks!
Edited to add: Maybe I should change that to "Ah ha!" so it doesn't look like I've stolen jfriend's exclamation!
1) Will pros that had completely removed the Smugmug footer when it was allowed continue to have this grandfathered benefit? Or are you going to take the chance to brand every one of your Pro's pages with Smugmug?
2) Is removal of the required downtime and read only during maintenance windows in scope of this upgrade? I've asked this before but it wasn't answered.
1) Will pros that had completely removed the Smugmug footer when it was allowed continue to have this grandfathered benefit? Or are you going to take the chance to brand every one of your Pro's pages with Smugmug?
Right now, we don't intend to change this at all.
2) Is removal of the required downtime and read only during maintenance windows in scope of this upgrade? I've asked this before but it wasn't answered.
Cheers - N
We will continue to use Thursday nights, at 10pm CA time, for possible maintenance windows - we don't always use them but that is the scheduled time.
When you add to or change the FAQ post in this thread, please post a note to the end of this thread that you've done so those of us who have participated in this thread will know about it. I had no idea that you had written anything in the FAQ until I saw a reference to it elsewhere on dgrin. We don't get automatically notified when you edit a post.
We've updated the FAQ, post #2 in this thread. Thanks.
We will continue to use Thursday nights, at 10pm CA time, for possible maintenance windows - we don't always use them but that is the scheduled time.
Thanks for the answers Andy/ Good to hear about the grandfathering in of the branding.
Rebuilding your system without engineering out the requirement for downtime is nuts. I know it's 'the way you do it' but sorry, there's no excuse for this and it makes Smugmug look amateur.
anonymous comments
I have or had no problems with anonymous comments. Can we toggle/"opt
out" to allow anyone to make comments. If not then my whole family is frozen
out of adding comments.
I have or had no problems with anonymous comments. Can we toggle/"opt
out" to allow anyone to make comments. If not then my whole family is frozen
out of adding comments.
I agree, leave the option to: allow anonymous comments, not allow anonymous and or no comments.
comments without login requirement
If you don't have the time to add more reasonable login options than Facebook, please allow us to determine whether or not we allow anonymous comments.
Facebook as the only non-Smug login is unacceptable.
Many of my viewers don't have facebook logins and don't have smug sites. Does that mean I can no longer have a guestbook on my site.
"lightbox feature" image selection tool
To better explain what feature I'm talking about - I would like to see something with a check box style feature that allows ANYONE who is viewing images to "check" the images they like... then view their selections and then edit that down to the print selection or commercial license. can "joe user" create an event by just browsing the images and then email that selection or buy them? Have this an option to have or not have via control panel.
once you see our old site you will see why we are excited to bring over our 100,000+ keyworded images (with more than 30 keywords per image) to Smugmug. If any user can't create an "event" or "lightbox selection" to edit down our images for their final selection it will make things interesting.... Will the site redesign be able to handle images with more than 30 keywords?
I agree with whoever said the keyword and caption info needs to be very close to the image without having to scroll. Maybe move the nav bars above the images.
I'm sure you guys can come up with cutting edge stuff that allows a user to roll over a thumbnail or large image and allow them to add them to a selection... and allow that selection to be ordered, emailed, etc... Keep up the good work.
You aren't doing anything wrong at all, that's the new layout system making smarter use of the space to get more thumbnails on the page.
Since your gallery is limited to XLarge, the new layout system knows the main image will only ever be that size, so it allows the rest of the space to be used for thumbnails. The old system didn't make that optimization, as you can see in your screen shot, it allocated far more room for the main image than the main image actually was capable of using, since it is limited to XLarge.
Ok, I'm sorry, but this is truly not acceptable to me... it's absolutely not smarter use of the space if the thumbs are tiny (100x100, by the appearance of it!) It's not really using any more space for thumbs, either. It's just making them tinier & therefore squishing a previously 6-page gallery into 3 pages. I do not want that. I've carefully arranged thumbs in many of my galleries, knowing how they look on most screens. Yes, I know there are some screens for which my arrangement will be gone, but I've looked at my galleries on a bunch of screens and know that on 90% of them or more, my arrangement stays that way. I don't see any more or less space around my main image in the new system, either. It's really just that the thumbs are tiny. If there are plans to keep this new system this way, then you really need to offer people the possibility of displaying X2 or X3 or something else that's smaller than Original but big enough to force the thumbs to stay a larger size... at least 150x150. Please don't turn SmugMut into one of those sites.
You can't. That's how UserVoice built their feedback system. You can only vote up to 3 votes per topic. (I've wanted to put more on items a few times myself, so I feel your pain here. But they have their reasons.)
And we understand your feature request. As Mark said, that's not part of this project, it would be a separate new feature.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Ok, I'm sorry, but this is truly not acceptable to me... it's absolutely not smarter use of the space if the thumbs are tiny (100x100, by the appearance of it!) It's not really using any more space for thumbs, either. It's just making them tinier & therefore squishing a previously 6-page gallery into 3 pages. I do not want that. I've carefully arranged thumbs in many of my galleries, knowing how they look on most screens. Yes, I know there are some screens for which my arrangement will be gone, but I've looked at my galleries on a bunch of screens and know that on 90% of them or more, my arrangement stays that way. I don't see any more or less space around my main image in the new system, either. It's really just that the thumbs are tiny. If there are plans to keep this new system this way, then you really need to offer people the possibility of displaying X2 or X3 or something else that's smaller than Original but big enough to force the thumbs to stay a larger size... at least 150x150. Please don't turn SmugMut into one of those sites.
Anna Lisa, you're fooling yourself if you think you could ever control how your galleries were paged in the Smugmug view - that's simply not how it works. Smugmug picks a different number of thumbs depending upon how much room there is in the browser window. You don't even have to go to different computers, just change the browser window size and the number of thumbs will change. It has always been this way in the Smugmug view. Maybe you have some new issue you're asking about with the new design, but it is desirable for nearly everyone to fill up empty space with more thumbs and reduce the number of pages in a gallery. It might be nice if Smugmug gave us some control over when large and small thumbs are used (that has always been a mystery), but beyond that, you should not be thinking that you have ever controlled how your gallery is paged or which images were on page 1, page 2, etc...
Ahhh, that's a very smart optimization. I wish it could also know that a gallery was entirely portrait or landscape orientation and similarly optimize. I have some sports galleries that are all portrait and the old style was very inefficient with that (leaving lots of empty space for the non-existent landscape images).
See my post $113. I think it's a ridiculous optimization (well, part of it would be good if it actually did what they're saying, but it doesn't.... so far... at least not in my galleries) It produces tiny little thumbs. But secondly, I agree about the landscape vs. portrait thing; was going to mention that earlier. That is exactly correct-- at least galleries which only contain one or the other should find a way to figure that out & optimize for it. That would be absolutely wonderful... especially when a gallery is full of portrait ones.
See my post $113. I think it's a ridiculous optimization (well, part of it would be good if it actually did what they're saying, but it doesn't.... so far... at least not in my galleries) It produces tiny little thumbs. But secondly, I agree about the landscape vs. portrait thing; was going to mention that earlier. That is exactly correct-- at least galleries which only contain one or the other should find a way to figure that out & optimize for it. That would be absolutely wonderful... especially when a gallery is full of portrait ones.
I did see post 113 - that's what I responded to. I think what you're asking for is the ability to control when larger thumbs are used and keep them from switching to smaller thumbs in some circumstances. This would be a lot clear with side by side screen shots of old style and new style on the same gallery and same window size to see what you're really asking about. Right now, I'm just taking your word for it that the new design is using small thumbs in a place where the old design used large thumbs.
You shouldn't be objecting to Smugmug putting as many thumbs (of whatever size is selected) into the empty space because fewer pages at a given thumbnail size is always a better viewing experience.
Ok, I'm sorry, but this is truly not acceptable to me... it's absolutely not smarter use of the space if the thumbs are tiny (100x100, by the appearance of it!) .
In the case of my gallery, Winsome, it did not make the thumbs any tinier than before. It did work just as cabbey said. I went back in and changed my gallery to allow for X3L and the length of the rows adjusted, but not the size of the thumbnails.
I want the main photo to show as large as possible. Then fill what's left with
thumbs. I want small thumbs in a Smugmug style gallery so more can be
shown per page. I want the thumbs as only a hint of the photo, if visitors
could see nice big thumbs they would not look at the large photo.
And we understand your feature request. As Mark said, that's not part of this project, it would be a separate new feature.
I did read Mark's reply but wanted to explain myself more on that topic and allow for more feedback from other users.
What is the status of allowing more than 30 keywords? Is that being considered during this design phase? Think about photographers who keyword with: image keywords, conceptual ideas, model release ID, etc... All very important tools for the photographer and client when doing image research.
Oh, just wondering... what is the average number of images smugmug clients have hosted? Does the avg SM user have 5000, 10000, 100000, 500000 images? If your average client had 250,000+ images wouldn't those be a powerful tools?
Again, thanks in advance for all your comments and design work.
Anna Lisa, you're fooling yourself if you think you could ever control how your galleries were paged in the Smugmug view - that's simply not how it works. Smugmug picks a different number of thumbs depending upon how much room there is in the browser window. You don't even have to go to different computers, just change the browser window size and the number of thumbs will change. It has always been this way in the Smugmug view. Maybe you have some new issue you're asking about with the new design, but it is desirable for nearly everyone to fill up empty space with more thumbs and reduce the number of pages in a gallery. It might be nice if Smugmug gave us some control over when large and small thumbs are used (that has always been a mystery), but beyond that, you should not be thinking that you have ever controlled how your gallery is paged or which images were on page 1, page 2, etc...
I've known for quite awhile now (even tho I didn't at first) that I can't control this completely, but for a huge percentage of screens, windows & all, the changes would at least remain close (at least within that theme)-- for instance, I might have seen 4 thumbs in a row or 5. But it would rarely go from 3 thumbs in a row to 6 unless the window was vastly different. The only reason it seems to be doing that in this new system is not because it's using the space better, but because it's creating tinier thumbs. This is plain ugly. The only stretchy themes that used to create those tiny thumbs in the past, afaik was Khaki and some other old non-stretchy themes like "Baseball" or whatever it was called... and you knew to expect this. I just don't want a system that's going to plop those tiny thumbs in my galleries where I don't expect it or can't control it. I don't know... I just don't see any less empty space around my large preview, and the preview isn't larger either. It's just tinier thumbs & that's my beef about it.
In the case of my gallery, Winsome, it did not make the thumbs any tinier than before. It did work just as cabbey said. I went back in and changed my gallery to allow for X3L and the length of the rows adjusted, but not the size of the thumbnails.
I know that doesn't help you though...
That's weird, because when I looked at your link, your thumbs looked tiny to me just the way mine do. I don't know what's going on...
I want the main photo to show as large as possible. Then fill what's left with
thumbs. I want small thumbs in a Smugmug style gallery so more can be
shown per page. I want the thumbs as only a hint of the photo, if visitors
could see nice big thumbs they would not look at the large photo.
Do you want the thumbs smaller than the 150x150 we almost always see in the old (current) system though? Because the new system for me is smaller thumbs than that. If so, then I think we need the choice. Cuz there are so many galleries where it would be impossible for a person to know even which family member or which other item they're seeing & wouldn't wanna take the time to find out. In that case, it seems to me it's useless to even have thumbs at all. Either they're large enough that people can decide which photos they'd like to see larger, or they're non-existent so that people are forced to look at everything large. (like in a slideshow)
Comments
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
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
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
One thing though: Clicking "more" in the gallery description shows more text but what I miss is a "less" option so that, after reading the description, the text can be "retracted" again by clicking the "less" link.
Will play further with the preview
Luc
You aren't doing anything wrong at all, that's the new layout system making smarter use of the space to get more thumbnails on the page.
Since your gallery is limited to XLarge, the new layout system knows the main image will only ever be that size, so it allows the rest of the space to be used for thumbnails. The old system didn't make that optimization, as you can see in your screen shot, it allocated far more room for the main image than the main image actually was capable of using, since it is limited to XLarge.
http://wall-art.smugmug.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
I'm pretty sure intent is for the download link to be the owner save option. That said, there appears to be a minor issue in some cases where it's not selecting the original file. I've made sure that issue has been brought to the engineer working on the new style's attention.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Ahhh...that makes sense!
Edited to add: Maybe I should change that to "Ah ha!" so it doesn't look like I've stolen jfriend's exclamation!
stueveshots.smugmug.com
1) Will pros that had completely removed the Smugmug footer when it was allowed continue to have this grandfathered benefit? Or are you going to take the chance to brand every one of your Pro's pages with Smugmug?
2) Is removal of the required downtime and read only during maintenance windows in scope of this upgrade? I've asked this before but it wasn't answered.
Cheers - N
http://www.nzsnaps.com (talkiet.smugmug.com)
We will continue to use Thursday nights, at 10pm CA time, for possible maintenance windows - we don't always use them but that is the scheduled time.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
We've updated the FAQ, post #2 in this thread. Thanks.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Thanks for the answers Andy/ Good to hear about the grandfathering in of the branding.
Rebuilding your system without engineering out the requirement for downtime is nuts. I know it's 'the way you do it' but sorry, there's no excuse for this and it makes Smugmug look amateur.
Cheers - N
http://www.nzsnaps.com (talkiet.smugmug.com)
I have or had no problems with anonymous comments. Can we toggle/"opt
out" to allow anyone to make comments. If not then my whole family is frozen
out of adding comments.
My Website index | My Blog
I'm sorry if we weren't clear, but we're not rebuilding our entire system and this new design has nothing at all to do with our maintenance window.
I agree, leave the option to: allow anonymous comments, not allow anonymous and or no comments.
If you don't have the time to add more reasonable login options than Facebook, please allow us to determine whether or not we allow anonymous comments.
Facebook as the only non-Smug login is unacceptable.
Many of my viewers don't have facebook logins and don't have smug sites. Does that mean I can no longer have a guestbook on my site.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
To better explain what feature I'm talking about - I would like to see something with a check box style feature that allows ANYONE who is viewing images to "check" the images they like... then view their selections and then edit that down to the print selection or commercial license. can "joe user" create an event by just browsing the images and then email that selection or buy them? Have this an option to have or not have via control panel.
It would be great to have a check box next to images or a slick rollover so people could tag them. check out our totally out dated site, see lightbox link under images here - http://www.glacierstock.com/lightbox/index.php?module=media&pId=102&id=67877&category=gallery%2FEndless+Winter+Adventures&start=21
and it displays here http://www.glacierstock.com/lightbox/index.php?module=lightbox&pId=100&start=0 does that make sense?
once you see our old site you will see why we are excited to bring over our 100,000+ keyworded images (with more than 30 keywords per image) to Smugmug. If any user can't create an "event" or "lightbox selection" to edit down our images for their final selection it will make things interesting.... Will the site redesign be able to handle images with more than 30 keywords?
I agree with whoever said the keyword and caption info needs to be very close to the image without having to scroll. Maybe move the nav bars above the images.
I'm sure you guys can come up with cutting edge stuff that allows a user to roll over a thumbnail or large image and allow them to add them to a selection... and allow that selection to be ordered, emailed, etc... Keep up the good work.
Oh, how do you send ALL your votes to this feaure? - http://feedback.smugmug.com/forums/17723-smugmug/suggestions/1295971-add-to-lightbox-needed- It only allowed me to vote parts of my "votes"
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
You can't. That's how UserVoice built their feedback system. You can only vote up to 3 votes per topic. (I've wanted to put more on items a few times myself, so I feel your pain here. But they have their reasons.)
And we understand your feature request. As Mark said, that's not part of this project, it would be a separate new feature.
http://wall-art.smugmug.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
You shouldn't be objecting to Smugmug putting as many thumbs (of whatever size is selected) into the empty space because fewer pages at a given thumbnail size is always a better viewing experience.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
In the case of my gallery, Winsome, it did not make the thumbs any tinier than before. It did work just as cabbey said. I went back in and changed my gallery to allow for X3L and the length of the rows adjusted, but not the size of the thumbnails.
I know that doesn't help you though...
stueveshots.smugmug.com
thumbs. I want small thumbs in a Smugmug style gallery so more can be
shown per page. I want the thumbs as only a hint of the photo, if visitors
could see nice big thumbs they would not look at the large photo.
My Website index | My Blog
I did read Mark's reply but wanted to explain myself more on that topic and allow for more feedback from other users.
What is the status of allowing more than 30 keywords? Is that being considered during this design phase? Think about photographers who keyword with: image keywords, conceptual ideas, model release ID, etc... All very important tools for the photographer and client when doing image research.
Oh, just wondering... what is the average number of images smugmug clients have hosted? Does the avg SM user have 5000, 10000, 100000, 500000 images? If your average client had 250,000+ images wouldn't those be a powerful tools?
Again, thanks in advance for all your comments and design work.
Cheers, Craig
http://www.GlacierLife.com
42 months (and counting) in a row of skiing within 75 miles of home. Have you skied June yet?
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
I also encourage you to use our newer themes, not Khaki and "red" like youv'e been showing.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com