Not sure if this is part of your plan, but I would vote to not force the style based on monitor size (disabling XL, for instance) if you're logged in. What if I want to style that size, but I'm on my lappy, for instance?
Not sure if this is part of your plan, but I would vote to not force the style based on monitor size (disabling XL, for instance) if you're logged in. What if I want to style that size, but I'm on my lappy, for instance?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. We want to show all options while logged in — but somehow we need to do it better than we're doing it now, if possible. Can't tell you how many panic emails we get about things looking differently logged in and out.
I would very much like the ability to select which styles the user is able to see.
I don't really see much of a problem with designing the singleImage gigantor (except if I'm doing the designing on my 1024x768 laptop:uhoh). It's not like Original where you could have an image that ranged in size from 801px to 22,000 px wide. If we know it is going to be either 1024px wide or 768px wide we can create a theme for that. Just a note, you may want to class the body tag, if possible, with the orientation of the image on display lest the white space get a bit too much.
I've got no problems with how the singleImage, Slideshow, or Filmstrip handles the switch from one image size to the next. I like the size picker, I think it works well. Perhaps you can implement that for the smugmug style?
I also very much like the auto select. Perhaps the autoselect should work site-wide. Detect the monitor and then set the default galleries to small, medium, large, or extra large for all galleries. You could include a size body class for all gallery styles. That way I can for example customize allthumbs based on a person's screen size (or not) if I'd like.
All that being said, I have to add that I just gave ideas that would increase the number of galleries there are to style I'm still against a large increase in types of galleries to style and I still think that consolidation could be and should be done.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
I've been reading through this thread, and I have three things to say:
1. Bravo to Smugmug for the upcoming XL size and the accompanying gallery goodness, whatever it might be. In my book, choice is good insofar as it doesn't harm or annoy the consumer. (In other words, choice is good when design is good.)
2. Kudos to all those who chimed in with their exceptionally well-reasoned responses. I found myself nodding my head in agreement, even with conflicting viewpoints. This thread is a great example of civilzed debate. I suppose we all have the same goal - a fantastic Smugmug experience.
3. Bravo to Smugmug for actually listening to its customers, and for taking feedback seriously when you get it.
Anyway, not to get all gushy, but I have to call a good one when I see it.
I do like the popup and I've tested it compared to lightbox on friends and family. The basic pop-up just makes more sense to them. I can see where some folks would like the lightbox feature-- I'm just trying to keep my site really basic and really easy to navigate. I haven't even put the slideshow in there (luckily for people like you on the customization forum who would be helping me!)
Here's a quote from photographer Anoush Abrar in American Photo May/June 2006: "For me a website must be quick. You must find the information very fast. If the pictures are nice you don't need to put fancy stuff around them to make them nicer."
I couldn't agree more.
Hey so it's cool there's a way to turn it off BTW, your work and your site are both aces
There are at least some people who use journal styles and the custom journal JS code to have medium landscapes and large portraits. For people with large monitors, it's odd to have a the portraits be so much smaller than the landscapes.
i don't really care what the defaults are, but I'd love to be able to specify sizes explicitly in order to get a 800px high image link. Note that this has no effect at all on existing styles, it just means I can still get a 800px high image.
There are at least some people who use journal styles and the custom journal JS code to have medium landscapes and large portraits. For people with large monitors, it's odd to have a the portraits be so much smaller than the landscapes.
i don't really care what the defaults are, but I'd love to be able to specify sizes explicitly in order to get a 800px high image link. Note that this has no effect at all on existing styles, it just means I can still get a 800px high image.
Hmmm, maybe another autosense of screen size? I find the differance in size frustrating even on small screens though, however at the same time I can kinda understand why it is that way.
I find the differance in size frustrating even on small screens
It is frustrating and bugs me constantly. But monitors are going even further in the direction of wider than high, so the problem is getting worse. I wish it weren't so, but it's like walking into the frame store and finding out they don't carry portrait-oriented frames anymore. Combine that with consumer dislike for scrolling and you have a tough problem.
monitors are going even further in the direction of wider than high, so the problem is getting worse. Combine that with consumer dislike for scrolling and you have a tough problem.
I bought a monitor that pivots to portrait mode and I rarely pivot it back to landscape mode. Makes my surfing a whole lot easier in portrait mode since I don't have to scroll as much and can see way more of a website at once than in landscape mode.
But I use a new iMac with a wide screen at work. 'Course for audio editing (I'm a radio producer) the wide screen is great since audio editing is linear. But most web pages sure aren't set up for left to right wide viewing. And I don't guess the public is going to embrace pivoting monitors in the near future so they can have the best of both worlds. Especially on laptops.
Let's forget about styles for the moment and just consider the actual images that SM hosts. If storage/compute resources weren't an issue here is what I'd like most of all.
OK, it's not a perfect world for a couple of reasons. The totally arbitrary sizes from 1. won't work because the images should have fixed aspect ratios. It could be specified as a percentage of the original size or a maximum for either dimension. But, of course, SM probably doesn't want either to generate these on demand or keep an arbitrary different number of sizes of each image around. Similarly, the it's probably not practical (yet!) to offer any arbitrary size for 2.
But I do like having a low level way to say exactly what I want AND a higher level way that allows SM to choose what to serve based on the info the browser sends (when it does) about screen/window size.
Once these things exist, they can be used appropriately in SM styles and also as inline images in other web pages, emails, and posts.
store a new size...
Focusing back to the original question. The issue being Large Images that have Portrait orientation and are "too tall" for comfort. Currently the Larges are 800pixels tall. Leave this alone, don't chance breaking what people may be used to... you know what that is like.
To address the issue of Portrait Larges being too tall, store a new size
i.e. ...smugmug.com/photos/648##277-LP.jpg as in LargePortrait, and create this to whatever size you think is best (like 600 tall).
Then, when you make the styles smarter (ie with options), it can retrieve the "LP" file when desired. All it costs is some disk space, and makes for more flexibility for the customizers. (what % of pics are Portrait anyway I wonder, 40% maybe?)
I don't believe this was one of your options, I don't like changing the existing Large size nor the "resize on the fly" option.
FWIW - no biggie - whatever you wanna do - fine - no problemo - either way - doesn't matter - I'm cool...:cool
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited April 20, 2006
Holy cow, is that for peple with 30" monitors?
I may not still have a 56k modem, but I DO still have a 13" monitor. 1024 pixels is my native width. And even at that, it's a stretch for "native"...
I think there's a point at which (no matter how big monitors get) you have to put a cap on how big your display images are, lest people start printing out their own 4x6's or 5x7's and have them look decent.
For me, that cap is 800 pixels. So even if I get myself a 20" monitor I wouldn't use a "Smugmug XL".
But hey, go ahead and offer it, as long as I can disable the 1024 "XL" images.
Preferably, I'd like to have new features debut as OFF in the "customize gallery" setting, an option I already voiced my opinion about: in short, having to go in and turn off a disliked feature in every single gallery is quite a nuisance. But, I'm not asking "the others" to have to go in and turn ON a new feature in each gallery. I'm just asking for a control panel option that allows me to dictate whether features debut on or off. Optimally, I could get 1-2 days advance notice of feature debut, and flip the switch accordingly if I want it on or off. A simple opt in / opt out feature, in effect...
I'm confused by the options, probably because it's the end of a long day
Anyway:
'L'needs to fit on a common sized monitor - which therefore means that 600 high is probabl;y going to be the limit for many still for a while
Those that want bigger just choose 'original' surely?
Sounds like the proposed cahnges could cause more problems than they solve
4. You'll also be able to set the default style that your users can override — a long-time feature request.
Even for standard account holders? Or will that be for power and pro only?
Back to the original question, the added granularity that an XL image would provide is a very welcome addition in my book, the current spectrum of sizes has a huge gaping hole between L and O for anyone with even a moderately high resolution camera. I'm glad to see smugmug trying to ballance the needs of the professionals to protect their images, with the needs of the general public to share baby pictures with Aunt Maude.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Large resize problem, #2 is the only option for me.
For me, I resize all my pics I upload to fit 800x800 for two reasons:
1) First and foremost I don't like the resizing algorithm smugmug uses to produce the large images. The results sometimes look oversharpened and oversaturated. (I don't know if there is now an option to control the algorithm used or if this situation has been fixed.)
2) Upload speeds are much faster. I do my own backups so I don't need to upload original size.
Why am I sharing all this??? Well, if you arbitrarily resize (using your algorithm that I don't like) all my images to 600 high, if I want to keep my images looking the way I want them to look, I'm going to have to go back through almost two years of pictures and resize to 600px and reupload them. Or, I could just live with it and be unhappy.
So, to me, option #2 is the ONLY option that is acceptable.
On a more positive note: I love that you all continue to innovate, and I welcome XL pictures.
For me, I resize all my pics I upload to fit 800x800 for two reasons:
1) First and foremost I don't like the resizing algorithm smugmug uses to produce the large images. The results sometimes look oversharpened and oversaturated. (I don't know if there is now an option to control the algorithm used or if this situation has been fixed.)
2) Upload speeds are much faster. I do my own backups so I don't need to upload original size.
Why am I sharing all this??? Well, if you arbitrarily resize (using your algorithm that I don't like) all my images to 600 high, if I want to keep my images looking the way I want them to look, I'm going to have to go back through almost two years of pictures and resize to 600px and reupload them. Or, I could just live with it and be unhappy.
So, to me, option #2 is the ONLY option that is acceptable.
On a more positive note: I love that you all continue to innovate, and I welcome XL pictures.
Maybe the problem with oversharpening, oversaturating has been fixed. Just found this in the march 17th update:
"Better JPEG Quality. With our customer survey we heard you loud and clear - most of you use broadband. So why not make better looking Small, Medium, and Large images. All photos uploaded from now on will have less compression and better chroma sub-sampling."
I don't get it - why are portrait large photos still only 450x600? Wasn't the purpose of this to make the large size in portrait orientation bigger?
For example - this one was uploaded yesterday and isn't 600x800 at all.
I don't get it - why are portrait large photos still only 450x600? Wasn't the purpose of this to make the large size in portrait orientation bigger?
For example - this one was uploaded yesterday and isn't 600x800 at all.
Oh, now I see. I understood the whole thing wrong and got confused with 600 tall and 800 wide.
I'm not happy with your decision to make the large size smaller, but I understand your reasons. Though if someone was bothered with scrolling in large portraits he could always switch to mediums. Now there's no way to get decent sized portrait pictures.
How are you going to handle this issue on the new XL size?
Chris,
Sorry, didn't see this thread when it started..
While I would most likely welcome the advent of the upcoming XL size,
I stll don't see any valid reason why can't we just scale an image to fit the certain square box, whatever it's orientation is. 600x800 or 800x600 - just make it fit to 800x800 and let the software choose which side is which
I was also longing for proper resize of the panoramic shots. Having spent several hours on a multiimage panorama only to see it's being dispalyed as 50x800 is no joy at all... :cry
I was also longing for proper resize of the panoramic shots. Having spent several hours on a multiimage panorama only to see it's being dispalyed as 50x800 is no joy at all... :cry
I wonder if there is a single place (hopefully organized, categorized and having a nice Index) with al those nifty CSS tircks? Searching the whole dgrin without even knowing exactly what to search for is kinda inefficient..
I wonder if there is a single place (hopefully organized, categorized and having a nice Index) with al those nifty CSS tircks? Searching the whole dgrin without even knowing exactly what to search for is kinda inefficient..
I wonder if there is a single place (hopefully organized, categorized and having a nice Index) with al those nifty CSS tircks? Searching the whole dgrin without even knowing exactly what to search for is kinda inefficient..
Nik, what you can do with CSS and SmugMug is infinite. I do my best, and Mike, Lee, Dev too. We have soldiered up a lot of stuff as stickys in the customization forum, why not try those?
But monitors are going even further in the direction of wider than high, so the problem is getting worse. I wish it weren't so, but it's like walking into the frame store and finding out they don't carry portrait-oriented frames anymore. Combine that with consumer dislike for scrolling and you have a tough problem.
I know what you mean. I use a Mac mini hooked up to my HDTV, which has a native resolution of 1280 x 720. Now, thats a true widescreen ratio, but guess what happens when I look at my Smugmug galleries? Yup, it forces them to SM small, even though my monitor is huge. I know its because it lacks the x 768, but still. Allot of widescreen monitors are going with this res these days.
Comments
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I don't really see much of a problem with designing the singleImage gigantor (except if I'm doing the designing on my 1024x768 laptop:uhoh). It's not like Original where you could have an image that ranged in size from 801px to 22,000 px wide. If we know it is going to be either 1024px wide or 768px wide we can create a theme for that. Just a note, you may want to class the body tag, if possible, with the orientation of the image on display lest the white space get a bit too much.
I've got no problems with how the singleImage, Slideshow, or Filmstrip handles the switch from one image size to the next. I like the size picker, I think it works well. Perhaps you can implement that for the smugmug style?
I also very much like the auto select. Perhaps the autoselect should work site-wide. Detect the monitor and then set the default galleries to small, medium, large, or extra large for all galleries. You could include a size body class for all gallery styles. That way I can for example customize allthumbs based on a person's screen size (or not) if I'd like.
All that being said, I have to add that I just gave ideas that would increase the number of galleries there are to style
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
1. Bravo to Smugmug for the upcoming XL size and the accompanying gallery goodness, whatever it might be. In my book, choice is good insofar as it doesn't harm or annoy the consumer. (In other words, choice is good when design is good.)
2. Kudos to all those who chimed in with their exceptionally well-reasoned responses. I found myself nodding my head in agreement, even with conflicting viewpoints. This thread is a great example of civilzed debate. I suppose we all have the same goal - a fantastic Smugmug experience.
3. Bravo to Smugmug for actually listening to its customers, and for taking feedback seriously when you get it.
Anyway, not to get all gushy, but I have to call a good one when I see it.
Swim for Them | WellmanHouse.net | AlbumFetcher | SmugShowBuilder
Hey so it's cool there's a way to turn it off
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
i don't really care what the defaults are, but I'd love to be able to specify sizes explicitly in order to get a 800px high image link. Note that this has no effect at all on existing styles, it just means I can still get a 800px high image.
Hmmm, maybe another autosense of screen size? I find the differance in size frustrating even on small screens though, however at the same time I can kinda understand why it is that way.
James.
http://www.jamesjweg.com
I bought a monitor that pivots to portrait mode and I rarely pivot it back to landscape mode. Makes my surfing a whole lot easier in portrait mode since I don't have to scroll as much and can see way more of a website at once than in landscape mode.
But I use a new iMac with a wide screen at work. 'Course for audio editing (I'm a radio producer) the wide screen is great since audio editing is linear. But most web pages sure aren't set up for left to right wide viewing. And I don't guess the public is going to embrace pivoting monitors in the near future so they can have the best of both worlds. Especially on laptops.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
- A low level way to specify exactly the size image to display/download. For example: "http://rutt.smugmug.com/XXXXX-600x800.jpg" to download a 600x800 version.
- A higher level way to specify the size of the image contingent on monitor (or better, browser window size). For example: "http://rutt.smugmug.com/XXXXX-AsBigAsWillFit.jpg" or "http://rutt.smugmug.com/XXXX-AboutHalf.jpg"
OK, it's not a perfect world for a couple of reasons. The totally arbitrary sizes from 1. won't work because the images should have fixed aspect ratios. It could be specified as a percentage of the original size or a maximum for either dimension. But, of course, SM probably doesn't want either to generate these on demand or keep an arbitrary different number of sizes of each image around. Similarly, the it's probably not practical (yet!) to offer any arbitrary size for 2.But I do like having a low level way to say exactly what I want AND a higher level way that allows SM to choose what to serve based on the info the browser sends (when it does) about screen/window size.
Once these things exist, they can be used appropriately in SM styles and also as inline images in other web pages, emails, and posts.
Does this make any sense?
Focusing back to the original question. The issue being Large Images that have Portrait orientation and are "too tall" for comfort. Currently the Larges are 800pixels tall. Leave this alone, don't chance breaking what people may be used to... you know what that is like.
To address the issue of Portrait Larges being too tall, store a new size
i.e. ...smugmug.com/photos/648##277-LP.jpg as in LargePortrait, and create this to whatever size you think is best (like 600 tall).
Then, when you make the styles smarter (ie with options), it can retrieve the "LP" file when desired. All it costs is some disk space, and makes for more flexibility for the customizers. (what % of pics are Portrait anyway I wonder, 40% maybe?)
I don't believe this was one of your options, I don't like changing the existing Large size nor the "resize on the fly" option.
FWIW - no biggie - whatever you wanna do - fine - no problemo - either way - doesn't matter - I'm cool...:cool
Holy cow, is that for peple with 30" monitors?
I may not still have a 56k modem, but I DO still have a 13" monitor. 1024 pixels is my native width. And even at that, it's a stretch for "native"...
I think there's a point at which (no matter how big monitors get) you have to put a cap on how big your display images are, lest people start printing out their own 4x6's or 5x7's and have them look decent.
For me, that cap is 800 pixels. So even if I get myself a 20" monitor I wouldn't use a "Smugmug XL".
But hey, go ahead and offer it, as long as I can disable the 1024 "XL" images.
Preferably, I'd like to have new features debut as OFF in the "customize gallery" setting, an option I already voiced my opinion about: in short, having to go in and turn off a disliked feature in every single gallery is quite a nuisance. But, I'm not asking "the others" to have to go in and turn ON a new feature in each gallery. I'm just asking for a control panel option that allows me to dictate whether features debut on or off. Optimally, I could get 1-2 days advance notice of feature debut, and flip the switch accordingly if I want it on or off. A simple opt in / opt out feature, in effect...
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Anyway:
'L'needs to fit on a common sized monitor - which therefore means that 600 high is probabl;y going to be the limit for many still for a while
Those that want bigger just choose 'original' surely?
Sounds like the proposed cahnges could cause more problems than they solve
...pics..
Even for standard account holders? Or will that be for power and pro only?
Back to the original question, the added granularity that an XL image would provide is a very welcome addition in my book, the current spectrum of sizes has a huge gaping hole between L and O for anyone with even a moderately high resolution camera. I'm glad to see smugmug trying to ballance the needs of the professionals to protect their images, with the needs of the general public to share baby pictures with Aunt Maude.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
For me, I resize all my pics I upload to fit 800x800 for two reasons:
1) First and foremost I don't like the resizing algorithm smugmug uses to produce the large images. The results sometimes look oversharpened and oversaturated. (I don't know if there is now an option to control the algorithm used or if this situation has been fixed.)
2) Upload speeds are much faster. I do my own backups so I don't need to upload original size.
Why am I sharing all this??? Well, if you arbitrarily resize (using your algorithm that I don't like) all my images to 600 high, if I want to keep my images looking the way I want them to look, I'm going to have to go back through almost two years of pictures and resize to 600px and reupload them. Or, I could just live with it and be unhappy.
So, to me, option #2 is the ONLY option that is acceptable.
On a more positive note: I love that you all continue to innovate, and I welcome XL pictures.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Maybe the problem with oversharpening, oversaturating has been fixed. Just found this in the march 17th update:
"Better JPEG Quality. With our customer survey we heard you loud and clear - most of you use broadband. So why not make better looking Small, Medium, and Large images. All photos uploaded from now on will have less compression and better chroma sub-sampling."
That being said... I still prefer option 2
Option 2 if I had to chose, I would like to see the XL option implemented as well.
What ever you do the page loads have load faster than they do now.
Just my 2 cents
Brian
For example - this one was uploaded yesterday and isn't 600x800 at all.
Thanks,
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
600max on teh tall side
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/04/27/new-features-april-27-2006/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I reloaded a Portrait image, and now the size is different...
Large portrait before was 536x800
Large portrait now is 402x600
thanks for the heads up...
posted on April 18th
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=292043&postcount=31
change implemented 9 days later on April 27th
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2006/04/27/new-features-april-27-2006/
Should we have maybe sent certified letters to you?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'm not happy with your decision to make the large size smaller, but I understand your reasons. Though if someone was bothered with scrolling in large portraits he could always switch to mediums. Now there's no way to get decent sized portrait pictures.
How are you going to handle this issue on the new XL size?
Thanks,
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
Sorry, didn't see this thread when it started..
While I would most likely welcome the advent of the upcoming XL size,
I stll don't see any valid reason why can't we just scale an image to fit the certain square box, whatever it's orientation is. 600x800 or 800x600 - just make it fit to 800x800 and let the software choose which side is which
I was also longing for proper resize of the panoramic shots. Having spent several hours on a multiimage panorama only to see it's being dispalyed as 50x800 is no joy at all... :cry
Hi Nik,
You can pimp your site for your panos:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28192&highlight=originals+page
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=243580&postcount=6
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'll take a look at that..
I wonder if there is a single place (hopefully organized, categorized and having a nice Index) with al those nifty CSS tircks? Searching the whole dgrin without even knowing exactly what to search for is kinda inefficient..
Like this?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Nik, what you can do with CSS and SmugMug is infinite. I do my best, and Mike, Lee, Dev too. We have soldiered up a lot of stuff as stickys in the customization forum, why not try those?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter