@leftquark said:
In terms of your thoughts, our new engine for displaying photos has gotten really smart. While we don't necessarily generate Display Copies in a bunch of sizes (for obvious storage reasons), we've gotten really speedy at generating and delivering custom image sizes when they're needed. If we need a size in between X3 and X5, we'll use a custom size and you won't notice anything but beautiful photos.
I appreciate the value of generating special sizes to produce minimally-scaled fill images, and will appreciate it more when I take the plunge and buy a higher-res monitor. (That day may be soon.) It's still good now, though, to be able to proof using images that don't have any extra browser scaling. That's the best way to check for over sharpening and over contrasting, sins I've been known to commit ... and the best way to enjoy an optimally sharp image once it's right, at least in Chrome. For that, the generated display copies are what's accessible.
@leftquark said:
The second issue should also now be fixed. Sorry for making you type up a whole long thought
Thank you. I reloaded the relevant pictures in the gallery I linked and all is back to normal. If you are still thinking about 1:1 bounds on the X3's and below, my comments still have some relevance. If not, we at least know Markdown tables work!
@Jtring said:
I'd like expand on the comment I made earlier about viewing un-scaled display copies. As noted, I like to browse through my own pictures in the lightbox at an X2 setting if I'm not full screen, or X3 if I am, so as to avoid browser re-scaling.
I have not tried this, but...
Assume for the moment no constraints on size to show, isn't smugmug's intent to always "fill" by default, and that it will generate an image that will not have the browser scale?
Again, I have perhaps been blissfully unaware, but I typically do something similar to you as a final check on a gallery, but I just click an image from landscape collage, then go right and left, with the default settings, and have been assuming (there's that word) that SM was doing the scaling not the browser, all the time?
Assume for the moment no constraints on size to show, isn't smugmug's intent to always "fill" by default, and that it will generate an image that will not have the browser scale?
Smugmug produces a display copy (or, I gather, a special size when you get larger), but the downsizing from the display copy to the specific browser window is done by the browser. They don't build a scaled image for every size. Here's an example of the HTML for a lightbox image:
<img class="sm-lightbox-image" src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Browser/Bay-Area-Day-Hiking/Bay-Area-Day-Hiking-2017/Carson-Falls-Jan-15-2017/i-s87LXzZ/3/X3/P1010111-X3.jpg" alt="I started down at Alpine Lake, in a cold, murky fog. The good news: the lake is full." style="height: 1079px; width: 1436px; position: absolute;">
I set my screen resolution to 1920 x 1080 for this and was working full screen. Smugmug downloads the X3 (at 1600 x 1200) and the HTML command tells the browser to shrink it to 1436 x 1079, a non-SmugMug size. If you browse in a window, instead of full screen like this example, and resize the window, you'll note the resizing is almost instantaneous. There's no re-download. It's all done locally. That's good because its fast, but browsers have to make speed vs quality trades to pull it off. Not surprisingly, different browsers make different choices. When SmugMug produces the display copies off-line, speed is not an issue and they can go all the way for quality.
Just for reference, here is what the HTML with a special size looks like. The image in question has a very wide aspect ratio and I've asked it to fill the screen in the lightbox.
<img class="sm-lightbox-image" src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Browser/Sierra-Nevada-North/Fish-Creek-Basin/Fish-Creek-Basin-3/i-k3556LJ/7/2289x986/P1070618-2289x986.jpg" alt="Purple Lake panorama from north of the outlet, looking northeast." style="height: 818px; width: 1899px; position: absolute;">
SmugMug generated a 2289 x 986 image and had the browser scale it to 1899 x 818. I'm not entirely sure why SM didn't just generate a 1899 x 818 in the first place, rather than one 20% larger. My guess is that they are allowing for the possibility I'm browsing in a window and may want to make the window larger ... and they really want to avoid having to ask the browser to up-scale an image.
Would you mind outlining the steps that got you to an image using a custom size? The lightbox should pull in the next largest display size and then scale that down using the HTML tag. When I looked now, with my window set to 1920x1080, it pulled in the X4 and then resized it down to 1905 x 820px. With the window at full screen, it grabbed the original and then shrunk that one.
@leftquark said:
Would you mind outlining the steps that got you to an image using a custom size? The lightbox should pull in the next largest display size and then scale that down using the HTML tag. When I looked now, with my window set to 1920x1080, it pulled in the X4 and then resized it down to 1905 x 820px. With the window at full screen, it grabbed the original and then shrunk that one.
I'm not seeing the special sizes today. I'm seeing the same thing you mentioned. I wonder if the push that enabled all the appropriate entries on the size menu, the one that appears after when hitting the sizes button in the lightbox panel, also cleaned up an issue with size selection/generation.
@leftquark said:
Would you mind outlining the steps that got you to an image using a custom size? The lightbox should pull in the next largest display size and then scale that down using the HTML tag. When I looked now, with my window set to 1920x1080, it pulled in the X4 and then resized it down to 1905 x 820px. With the window at full screen, it grabbed the original and then shrunk that one.
I'm not seeing the special sizes today. I'm seeing the same thing you mentioned. I wonder if the push that enabled all the appropriate entries on the size menu, the one that appears after when hitting the sizes button in the lightbox panel, also cleaned up an issue with size selection/generation.
Woo That was my hope! Seemed super weird to me if we were pulling in custom size, then using HTML to resize it!
I am just now realizing what you all have done. So for roughly half a year or longer most of my galleries that I had set to X3 1600 pixels x 1000 pixels, have been freely available to anyone to download and crop off my watermark and repost at over 3 times the resolution up to 5120 pixels x 3413, more than 3 times larger than I originally assigned to them?????? More than THREE TIMES larger than I ever intended for them to be available to anyone!! This is ridiculous and I am furious over this. Why was this implemented in this fashion??? I have hundreds of galleries that had I set at different resolutions for different clients and now they are all altered from how I originally intended for them to see them. I gave specific access to images at varying resolutions depending on the price tier they paid me for access. Now I know why so many of my images have been surfacing by clients at larger sizes than I granted them. I have filed well over 50 DMCA reports over the past 2 months on tumblr, Facebook and instagram because you all thought it would be fine to adjust my gallery settings for me. I have no way of knowing how many hours I have spent trying to track down all the people that have been stealing my images and it was my own photo host the whole time! You made it infinitely more easy for thieves to crop my watermark off of my images and still have a ridiculous amount of resolution for printing. Seriously this may be the breaking point for me to continue using your services. I will have to spend additional days going through all my galleries individually to make sure they are at the correct setting and see which ones you all fucked up. This is time I don't have and it is costing me additional money on top of all the time and frustration I already spent having to file all the DMCA's and searching through social media feeds for my images . I would love to know exactly who at the highest level of the company decided to implement this change so I can be sure they hear my anger personally and direct. I am livid!
@livverlips said:
I am just now realizing what you all have done. I would love to know exactly who at the highest level of the company decided to implement this change so I can be sure they hear my anger personally and direct. I am livid!
Hi Jim. I'm going to reach out to you directly via email but I think there's been some confusion: if your maximum display size is set to X3, then the largest resolution image that was available was the 1600x1000 images.
There is absolutely no confusion. It has already been pointed out in this thread that there is a serious problem. Why in the world you would question someone about this at this point is beyond me. (It's probably being discussed in many more threads, this was just the first one I found when I googled the issue).
I need to know exactly when this change was implemented so I can start to go back and see which galleries were most likely affected. I am seeing numerous galleries with this issue and Ive only spent a small amount of time looking. I am currently caring for my father who is going through chemotherapy and this is not how I need to be spending my time. The fact that I pay you all $250 a year for this crap is amazing. This is just one of the samples, any images that I did not crop at all on a full frame canon sensor would be 5760 wide at full res. I set the gallery to x3 or whatever the largest without going to original was before you all made the changes. IN my settings for these galleries it still shows that the gallery is set to X3 which should be 1600 pixels MAXIMUM. Instead You or anyone else looking at my galleries can download or screencap the Super highress 5K image giving them a 5120x3413 image! SO I've basically been giving away my images for free for as long as this has been implemented.
If you are deleting or censoring my comments you wont like how I respond next. There is ABSOLUTELY no confusion, there is a problem that has already been mentioned in this thread. I had my galleries set to X3, they are still set at X3 as can be seen in the image below yet they are being displayed all the way up to super high res 5K!! That is a major PROBLEM. This means I am giving away images up to 5120 pixels wide instead of my intended 1600 pixels wide selection. Even the ones with watermarks (most of my watermarks are just small corner because I'm only displaying up to x3 or so I thought!) and javascript right click, anyone could have still gotten the 5120 pixel images very easily and they have enough resolution to crop and print and do whatever they want with them, which they have been doing. I have only gone through a few galleries and I have seen the issue in many of them. I am currently away from home caring for my father as he receives chemotherapy and this is not how I need to be spending my time.
I need to know exactly when this change was implemented so that I can figure out when it was that I started to give away my work for free.
Are you sure you are not mis-interpreting the fact that you, as the owner, can see any size? You need to log in as a regular user (or more precisely, log out as owner) to see what a user can see.
@livverlips said:
I had my galleries set to X3, they are still set at X3 as can be seen in the image below yet they are being displayed all the way up to super high res 5K!!
I took a look at some of your photos from 2017 (using the URL in your signature and assuming that is the problem site). As Ferguson mentioned, the largest display size I can see is X3.
Or is the problem you are seeing on a different site?
A stretch here. Were these photos collected from another gallery were originals are on? Perhaps each collected photo inherits its parent gallery settings?
**PLEASE NOTE I do not **want any of my account info or gallery settings changed until I hear back directly from Don. I need him to see exactly what has happened to my galleries.
While I appreciate everyone else comments I have hundreds of galleries, a large number of them are only visible to the client, some are unlisted some require passwords but the client can still access way more than they should be able to. The majority of the affected galleries however are in fact public. One gallery that is displaying the wrong size for months on end is one too many. But I do in fact have a large number that have this issue, I wont say how many at this point but its enough to make me chew out the owner of the company. And yes I am looking at them through my own account and I am looking at them through an entirely different browser that I am not logged in on. I would rather not post a bunch of the galleries that are affected here as I do not yet want to draw more attention to my personal issues publicly. I have emailed Aaron and Don but here is one said gallery that may no longer have as much monetary value. http://www.primitivejim.com/MusicEvents/Best-Day-Ever-Clown-Club/ The settings had been set at X3 when I initially posted the gallery and I haven't changed them, they still show they are set to X3 yet 5K (All but Original) is available to all. I will be expecting to hear back from Don within the next 24 hours as this is an extremely serious issue for me and I imagine hundreds of other unaware users.
It seems as though my replies here are being moderated. Up above I have a double post, the first one was hidden by someone and didnt show back up here until about an hour after it was originally posted by me. I just had another reply go missing. Until that one pops back up, you all are picking one gallery out of hundreds some galleries are unlisted or just not on the front page. The issue is real, for me it is very real and extremely damaging. I have emailed both Aaron and Don, I expect to hear from Don within 24 hours. I do not want my account or galleries modified by anyone until Don has seen the issue himself. One gallery for an example http://www.primitivejim.com/MusicEvents/Best-Day-Ever-Clown-Club/ and the settings still showing it is set at X3
I can't comment on moderation, but I did just look at that gallery, and the largest I indeed X5 for the first image and 4K for the second and third. The last was 5K.
Just to verify -- the gallery is a regular, ordinary gallery, not a smart gallery or something that has images collected from other galleries?
Because at first glance it sure looks wrong.
I also notice the partial watermark name MIGHT be implying "Big Centered" or some such, but they are small and on the bottom right side as I see them. Is the watermark coming out correctly?
The galleries affected are regular galleries. The watermark in place on this gallery is correct, I may have had a default in place initially in the settings but the small corner watermark is correct. There are some galleries that are affected where there may be one watermark up to the X3 size and another pops up when it displays beyond that size. (when it shouldn't) Not sure whats going on in those.
The reason you don't see 5K for all the images is because some have been cropped slightly by me in editing prior to uploading. That is all I'm going to say about this until I hear more back from Aaron and Don. I need sleep, Ive been up all night going through all my galleries to see which ones were affected.
@livverlips said:
The reason you don't see 5K for all the images is because some have been cropped slightly by me in editing prior to uploading. That is all I'm going to say about this until I hear more back from Aaron and Don.
I understood, I was just stating what was observable. I agree this does not look right, and am interested in what SM finds.
@livverlips said:
It seems as though my replies here are being moderated.
DGrin has some built in rules in regards to what kinds of things someone can include in a post and how frequently posts can be made until they reach a certain "rank" is achieved, as a way to prevent spam. dGrin has and always will remain an open community and there is no intentional moderation going on above what automated checks are in place. All of your posts should be coming through. If the automatic check flags a post, it goes into a "moderation queue" that one of the dGrin moderators will approve in a little bit of time, which could account for the double posts.
@livverlips said:
I have provided both Don and Aaron a list of all the affected galleries.
We are taking this very seriously and currently have a team investigating and we'll respond to you as you requested @livverlips.
Comments
I appreciate the value of generating special sizes to produce minimally-scaled fill images, and will appreciate it more when I take the plunge and buy a higher-res monitor. (That day may be soon.) It's still good now, though, to be able to proof using images that don't have any extra browser scaling. That's the best way to check for over sharpening and over contrasting, sins I've been known to commit ... and the best way to enjoy an optimally sharp image once it's right, at least in Chrome. For that, the generated display copies are what's accessible.
Thank you. I reloaded the relevant pictures in the gallery I linked and all is back to normal. If you are still thinking about 1:1 bounds on the X3's and below, my comments still have some relevance. If not, we at least know Markdown tables work!
I have not tried this, but...
Assume for the moment no constraints on size to show, isn't smugmug's intent to always "fill" by default, and that it will generate an image that will not have the browser scale?
Again, I have perhaps been blissfully unaware, but I typically do something similar to you as a final check on a gallery, but I just click an image from landscape collage, then go right and left, with the default settings, and have been assuming (there's that word) that SM was doing the scaling not the browser, all the time?
Smugmug produces a display copy (or, I gather, a special size when you get larger), but the downsizing from the display copy to the specific browser window is done by the browser. They don't build a scaled image for every size. Here's an example of the HTML for a lightbox image:
<img class="sm-lightbox-image" src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Browser/Bay-Area-Day-Hiking/Bay-Area-Day-Hiking-2017/Carson-Falls-Jan-15-2017/i-s87LXzZ/3/X3/P1010111-X3.jpg" alt="I started down at Alpine Lake, in a cold, murky fog. The good news: the lake is full." style="height: 1079px; width: 1436px; position: absolute;">I set my screen resolution to 1920 x 1080 for this and was working full screen. Smugmug downloads the X3 (at 1600 x 1200) and the HTML command tells the browser to shrink it to 1436 x 1079, a non-SmugMug size. If you browse in a window, instead of full screen like this example, and resize the window, you'll note the resizing is almost instantaneous. There's no re-download. It's all done locally. That's good because its fast, but browsers have to make speed vs quality trades to pull it off. Not surprisingly, different browsers make different choices. When SmugMug produces the display copies off-line, speed is not an issue and they can go all the way for quality.
Just for reference, here is what the HTML with a special size looks like. The image in question has a very wide aspect ratio and I've asked it to fill the screen in the lightbox.
<img class="sm-lightbox-image" src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Browser/Sierra-Nevada-North/Fish-Creek-Basin/Fish-Creek-Basin-3/i-k3556LJ/7/2289x986/P1070618-2289x986.jpg" alt="Purple Lake panorama from north of the outlet, looking northeast." style="height: 818px; width: 1899px; position: absolute;">SmugMug generated a 2289 x 986 image and had the browser scale it to 1899 x 818. I'm not entirely sure why SM didn't just generate a 1899 x 818 in the first place, rather than one 20% larger. My guess is that they are allowing for the possibility I'm browsing in a window and may want to make the window larger ... and they really want to avoid having to ask the browser to up-scale an image.
Would you mind outlining the steps that got you to an image using a custom size? The lightbox should pull in the next largest display size and then scale that down using the HTML tag. When I looked now, with my window set to 1920x1080, it pulled in the X4 and then resized it down to 1905 x 820px. With the window at full screen, it grabbed the original and then shrunk that one.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
I'm not seeing the special sizes today. I'm seeing the same thing you mentioned. I wonder if the push that enabled all the appropriate entries on the size menu, the one that appears after when hitting the sizes button in the lightbox panel, also cleaned up an issue with size selection/generation.
Woo
That was my hope! Seemed super weird to me if we were pulling in custom size, then using HTML to resize it!
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
I am just now realizing what you all have done. So for roughly half a year or longer most of my galleries that I had set to X3 1600 pixels x 1000 pixels, have been freely available to anyone to download and crop off my watermark and repost at over 3 times the resolution up to 5120 pixels x 3413, more than 3 times larger than I originally assigned to them?????? More than THREE TIMES larger than I ever intended for them to be available to anyone!! This is ridiculous and I am furious over this. Why was this implemented in this fashion??? I have hundreds of galleries that had I set at different resolutions for different clients and now they are all altered from how I originally intended for them to see them. I gave specific access to images at varying resolutions depending on the price tier they paid me for access. Now I know why so many of my images have been surfacing by clients at larger sizes than I granted them. I have filed well over 50 DMCA reports over the past 2 months on tumblr, Facebook and instagram because you all thought it would be fine to adjust my gallery settings for me. I have no way of knowing how many hours I have spent trying to track down all the people that have been stealing my images and it was my own photo host the whole time! You made it infinitely more easy for thieves to crop my watermark off of my images and still have a ridiculous amount of resolution for printing. Seriously this may be the breaking point for me to continue using your services. I will have to spend additional days going through all my galleries individually to make sure they are at the correct setting and see which ones you all fucked up. This is time I don't have and it is costing me additional money on top of all the time and frustration I already spent having to file all the DMCA's and searching through social media feeds for my images . I would love to know exactly who at the highest level of the company decided to implement this change so I can be sure they hear my anger personally and direct. I am livid!
Hi Jim. I'm going to reach out to you directly via email but I think there's been some confusion: if your maximum display size is set to X3, then the largest resolution image that was available was the 1600x1000 images.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
There is absolutely no confusion. It has already been pointed out in this thread that there is a serious problem. Why in the world you would question someone about this at this point is beyond me. (It's probably being discussed in many more threads, this was just the first one I found when I googled the issue).
I need to know exactly when this change was implemented so I can start to go back and see which galleries were most likely affected. I am seeing numerous galleries with this issue and Ive only spent a small amount of time looking. I am currently caring for my father who is going through chemotherapy and this is not how I need to be spending my time. The fact that I pay you all $250 a year for this crap is amazing. This is just one of the samples, any images that I did not crop at all on a full frame canon sensor would be 5760 wide at full res. I set the gallery to x3 or whatever the largest without going to original was before you all made the changes. IN my settings for these galleries it still shows that the gallery is set to X3 which should be 1600 pixels MAXIMUM. Instead You or anyone else looking at my galleries can download or screencap the Super highress 5K image giving them a 5120x3413 image! SO I've basically been giving away my images for free for as long as this has been implemented.
If you are deleting or censoring my comments you wont like how I respond next. There is ABSOLUTELY no confusion, there is a problem that has already been mentioned in this thread. I had my galleries set to X3, they are still set at X3 as can be seen in the image below yet they are being displayed all the way up to super high res 5K!! That is a major PROBLEM. This means I am giving away images up to 5120 pixels wide instead of my intended 1600 pixels wide selection. Even the ones with watermarks (most of my watermarks are just small corner because I'm only displaying up to x3 or so I thought!) and javascript right click, anyone could have still gotten the 5120 pixel images very easily and they have enough resolution to crop and print and do whatever they want with them, which they have been doing. I have only gone through a few galleries and I have seen the issue in many of them. I am currently away from home caring for my father as he receives chemotherapy and this is not how I need to be spending my time.
I need to know exactly when this change was implemented so that I can figure out when it was that I started to give away my work for free.
Are you sure you are not mis-interpreting the fact that you, as the owner, can see any size? You need to log in as a regular user (or more precisely, log out as owner) to see what a user can see.
I took a look at some of your photos from 2017 (using the URL in your signature and assuming that is the problem site). As Ferguson mentioned, the largest display size I can see is X3.
Or is the problem you are seeing on a different site?
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
A stretch here. Were these photos collected from another gallery were originals are on? Perhaps each collected photo inherits its parent gallery settings?
My Website index | My Blog
**PLEASE NOTE I do not **want any of my account info or gallery settings changed until I hear back directly from Don. I need him to see exactly what has happened to my galleries.
While I appreciate everyone else comments I have hundreds of galleries, a large number of them are only visible to the client, some are unlisted some require passwords but the client can still access way more than they should be able to. The majority of the affected galleries however are in fact public. One gallery that is displaying the wrong size for months on end is one too many. But I do in fact have a large number that have this issue, I wont say how many at this point but its enough to make me chew out the owner of the company. And yes I am looking at them through my own account and I am looking at them through an entirely different browser that I am not logged in on. I would rather not post a bunch of the galleries that are affected here as I do not yet want to draw more attention to my personal issues publicly. I have emailed Aaron and Don but here is one said gallery that may no longer have as much monetary value. http://www.primitivejim.com/MusicEvents/Best-Day-Ever-Clown-Club/ The settings had been set at X3 when I initially posted the gallery and I haven't changed them, they still show they are set to X3 yet 5K (All but Original) is available to all. I will be expecting to hear back from Don within the next 24 hours as this is an extremely serious issue for me and I imagine hundreds of other unaware users.
It seems as though my replies here are being moderated. Up above I have a double post, the first one was hidden by someone and didnt show back up here until about an hour after it was originally posted by me. I just had another reply go missing. Until that one pops back up, you all are picking one gallery out of hundreds some galleries are unlisted or just not on the front page. The issue is real, for me it is very real and extremely damaging. I have emailed both Aaron and Don, I expect to hear from Don within 24 hours. I do not want my account or galleries modified by anyone until Don has seen the issue himself. One gallery for an example http://www.primitivejim.com/MusicEvents/Best-Day-Ever-Clown-Club/ and the settings still showing it is set at X3
I have provided both Don and Aaron a list of all the affected galleries.
I can't comment on moderation, but I did just look at that gallery, and the largest I indeed X5 for the first image and 4K for the second and third. The last was 5K.
Just to verify -- the gallery is a regular, ordinary gallery, not a smart gallery or something that has images collected from other galleries?
Because at first glance it sure looks wrong.
I also notice the partial watermark name MIGHT be implying "Big Centered" or some such, but they are small and on the bottom right side as I see them. Is the watermark coming out correctly?
The galleries affected are regular galleries. The watermark in place on this gallery is correct, I may have had a default in place initially in the settings but the small corner watermark is correct. There are some galleries that are affected where there may be one watermark up to the X3 size and another pops up when it displays beyond that size. (when it shouldn't) Not sure whats going on in those.
The reason you don't see 5K for all the images is because some have been cropped slightly by me in editing prior to uploading. That is all I'm going to say about this until I hear more back from Aaron and Don. I need sleep, Ive been up all night going through all my galleries to see which ones were affected.
I understood, I was just stating what was observable. I agree this does not look right, and am interested in what SM finds.
DGrin has some built in rules in regards to what kinds of things someone can include in a post and how frequently posts can be made until they reach a certain "rank" is achieved, as a way to prevent spam. dGrin has and always will remain an open community and there is no intentional moderation going on above what automated checks are in place. All of your posts should be coming through. If the automatic check flags a post, it goes into a "moderation queue" that one of the dGrin moderators will approve in a little bit of time, which could account for the double posts.
We are taking this very seriously and currently have a team investigating and we'll respond to you as you requested @livverlips.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations