Enhancement Request
I really wish there were a way that the user could choose the size of the 'large' images that are displayed on your page.
Right now the problem I am facing is that the 'portrait' orientation images are just too small, even in 'large' view. They are only something like 400x600 whereas the landscape images are 800x533, a significant difference.
Many of my site viewers complain about this and it almost makes me not want to show portrait orientation size images on my site.
Other sites like Pbase don't have this problem and I have honestly thought about hosting some images there, specifically to avoid this problem.
It would be great if someone from Smugmug would read this and come to the rescue with a fix.
Feature request
Elsewhere I have noted that it appears any image displayed as medium size in the SmugMug style in the gallery view will not exceed either 603 pixels wide or 452 pixels high. This means that the longest side of an image in portrait mode can never be as long as the longest side of an image in landscape mode. It also means a landscape image will not utilise the full limit of 603 pixels wide if the aspect ratio would cause the image height to exceed 452 pixels.
I can understand this may be to prevent the overall page length getting too long, allowing for the information that normally is displayed under the image. However I have suppressed from display on my site all of the detail under each image except the caption (i.e. the size selection, EXIF information, etc does not display) and I would like to take advantage of the available space at the foot of the right hand column to increase the maximum height of an image.
Can you please consider making the height of the image user-changeable via CSS?
Is it "larger" or is it "100% crop" that people really want?
New here - I'll get to the intro at some point soon - but I just put in a FR that goes like this:
I'd like there to be a way to show something akin to a 100% crop of a small portion of the picture to show the sharpness and/or detail of the picture. Resizing and jpeg compression can take the zing out of a lot of pictures by blurring fine detail, and that might just be the selling point!!
If there's a way to do this that makes sense, please let me know how. Ideally, I'd love to have a mouse_over kind of thing that gives you a non-static pop-up of a postage-stamp sized crop while you're hovering over a picture, and have it go away when you move the mouse off the picture.
Thanks for any help/feedback!
Eric
So... I then saw this thread and wondered if my FR is really more do-able and reasonable than offering a huge image for people to download and scroll around on. The down-side - if you want to call it that - would be having to seperately upload the "detail view". I'm willing to live with that!
New here - I'll get to the intro at some point soon - but I just put in a FR that goes like this:
I'd like there to be a way to show something akin to a 100% crop of a small portion of the picture to show the sharpness and/or detail of the picture. Resizing and jpeg compression can take the zing out of a lot of pictures by blurring fine detail, and that might just be the selling point!!
If there's a way to do this that makes sense, please let me know how. Ideally, I'd love to have a mouse_over kind of thing that gives you a non-static pop-up of a postage-stamp sized crop while you're hovering over a picture, and have it go away when you move the mouse off the picture.
Thanks for any help/feedback!
Eric
So... I then saw this thread and wondered if my FR is really more do-able and reasonable than offering a huge image for people to download and scroll around on. The down-side - if you want to call it that - would be having to seperately upload the "detail view". I'm willing to live with that!
Try this. Go to a gallery where originals are enabled. Switch to critique view. Check the checkbox called "Smugloupe". Then drag the loupe around on your photo to check sharpness at 100%. Is this what you wanted?
New here - I'll get to the intro at some point soon - but I just put in a FR that goes like this:
I'd like there to be a way to show something akin to a 100% crop of a small portion of the picture to show the sharpness and/or detail of the picture. Resizing and jpeg compression can take the zing out of a lot of pictures by blurring fine detail, and that might just be the selling point!!
If there's a way to do this that makes sense, please let me know how. Ideally, I'd love to have a mouse_over kind of thing that gives you a non-static pop-up of a postage-stamp sized crop while you're hovering over a picture, and have it go away when you move the mouse off the picture.
Thanks for any help/feedback!
Eric
So... I then saw this thread and wondered if my FR is really more do-able and reasonable than offering a huge image for people to download and scroll around on. The down-side - if you want to call it that - would be having to seperately upload the "detail view". I'm willing to live with that!
Hi Eric, what about "critique" style? Here's an example. Use the "smugloupe" which on my customized site is called "Get a Closer Look"
Boy, Andy, that's REAL close to what I'm looking for, but the problem is it just magnifies the pixels already there, as I understand it, and is not a crop of the original, which is what I think is important to the customer so they can see what kind of detail they're buying. I understand it would be too slow to do that - for sure - but a loupe might be more than I really need. I just want to give them an idea of what the detail and sharpness is like on the whole picture. The (new) first picture in my (only "pro") gallery is a prime example of that. the resized version - even the Large - does not show the excellent level of detail, which really makes this shot.
If what I suggested in my FR is not do-able, perhaps offer a D(etail) option which we would have to manage/upload-to seperately...?
Boy, Andy, that's REAL close to what I'm looking for, but the problem is it just magnifies the pixels already there, as I understand it, and is not a crop of the original, which is what I think is important to the customer so they can see what kind of detail they're buying. I understand it would be too slow to do that - for sure - but a loupe might be more than I really need. I just want to give them an idea of what the detail and sharpness is like on the whole picture. The (new) first picture in my (only "pro") gallery is a prime example of that. the resized version - even the Large - does not show the excellent level of detail, which really makes this shot.
If what I suggested in my FR is not do-able, perhaps offer a D(etail) option which we would have to manage/upload-to seperately...?
Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?
#2 seems the least of the evils..
However, I have actually been thinking of turning off larges as well as originals. I feel it is still big and tempts folks to do a screen print and be happy with a low res image.
I actually wish that the O selection would not even show up when folks click the size selections. Since I have originals disabled, it only shows the L, but why oh why does it even come up since the proceeding page doesn't show it? (oops sorry.. off topic)
However for private galleries that I might want to give away, XL might be nice and so I would select #2.
Well... it's promising, but all it does is show a big empty text box. Is there supposed to be a picture in the box? Can I put a URL in there, somehow? where da code, where da code?
The whispers for a larger image size have turned to a low rumble and we know what that means: the march of monitor pixels will increase the rumble volume, so we're thinking about an XL image size.
hi, any updates regarding this. Will standard account people get XL size viewing?
All I know is, that I TRY to set things up to look good on the screens of MOST of my visitors.
At this time, it's the people with 800x600 screens. So I use smugmug small. I find the image too small but if I go to the normal smugmug, I find now that it appears (i cud b wrong) that everything won't fit.
Yeah, I love the thought of larger images. But you know guys, a really really big photo on a small 800x600 screen looks like doo doo.
All I know is, that I TRY to set things up to look good on the screens of MOST of my visitors.
At this time, it's the people with 800x600 screens. So I use smugmug small. I find the image too small but if I go to the normal smugmug, I find now that it appears (i cud b wrong) that everything won't fit.
Yeah, I love the thought of larger images. But you know guys, a really really big photo on a small 800x600 screen looks like doo doo.
BUT: I like having the extra choice.
yes. I am wishy washy
Are the stats for 800x600 from your own tracking or are you using old data? According to the w3c, 77% of people are using 1024x768 or greater resolution and only 17% are using 800x600 (the balance are unknown). So unless your google analytics or stat counter (or whatever) is telling you that most of your visitors are using 800x600, you are probably pretty safe to use a style larger than smugmug small.
Just saying.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
Are the stats for 800x600 from your own tracking or are you using old data? According to the w3c, 77% of people are using 1024x768 or greater resolution and only 17% are using 800x600 (the balance are unknown). So unless your google analytics or stat counter (or whatever) is telling you that most of your visitors are using 800x600, you are probably pretty safe to use a style larger than smugmug small.
Just saying.
Over the last month, the numbers for unique visitors to the main Smugmug pages are:
1024 x 768: 49.72%
1280 x 1024: 15.51%
800 x 600: 10.44%
1280 x 800: 6.85%
This isn't data from your specific Smugmug site, but it lends credibility to Mike's data. I would expect, unless you have a vastly different audience, for the above numbers to be somewhat accurate.
Another thing to consider, though, is that not all people browse in full-size windows and they may have additional toolbars and things taking up even more space.
Are the stats for 800x600 from your own tracking or are you using old data? According to the w3c, 77% of people are using 1024x768 or greater resolution and only 17% are using 800x600 (the balance are unknown). So unless your google analytics or stat counter (or whatever) is telling you that most of your visitors are using 800x600, you are probably pretty safe to use a style larger than smugmug small.
Just saying.
Hi Mike.
Not sure how accurate the info is - but I've been using Extreme tracking since October 28th of 2002. And it reports 40.53% using 800x600, and 31.56% using 1024x768.
I like having the larger images like I mentioned, but I always figured I should design the site to fit the screens of the majority.
this should already be in the feature request... but applies here: the lightbox viewer should be upgraded so that if a picture being viewed is larger than the window it is contained in, then allow the pic to be clicked on and dragged around in the window.. just like google maps!
This is the type of technology users are expecting nowaday's...(especially from a rising star like Smugmug) don't be like mapquest! say NO to scroll bars (a cheesy way to look at oversized pics)
time for more viewing enhancments....
sorry to sound cranky, but some requests seem so obvious and simple to do, yet don't get done... how long does it take to add to the if statement like
if (easy_share OR logged_in)
display_share_photo_link()
here's another one...
if (allow_originals OR logged_in)
display_original_link()
and lastly
if (disable_right_click AND not logged_in))
disable_right_click()
(flaming anyone who complains that their "right click protection" isn't working (because they are logged in) would be allowed)
Another thing to consider, though, is that not all people browse in full-size windows and they may have additional toolbars and things taking up even more space.
Thats true enough - and is the main reason I don't load extra toolbars!
My main computer is a laptop, and I don't open the browser to fill the screen - not all sites adjust properly, so I have it opened to have about an inch on iether side of the browser from the edge of the screen. (that make sense?), so your first point is quite valid. The screen is 1280x800, so on my screen I have room to play with.
Maybe my info is accurate - but 'dated' ?
I've only had my site on smugmug for 6 months, but I've had my site since '02
Not sure how accurate the info is - but I've been using Extreme tracking since October 28th of 2002. And it reports 40.53% using 800x600, and 31.56% using 1024x768.
I like having the larger images like I mentioned, but I always figured I should design the site to fit the screens of the majority.
The majority of people in 2002 HAD 800x600 screens. I think the stats are skewed towards the bilk of "history", as it were. I'd use just the last years-worth and see what that says. 49% for 1024 x 768 sounds much more likely.
hi, any updates regarding this. Will standard account people get XL size viewing?
Per an FR I put in, wouldn't just having a "detail view" of the image be good enough? This way you don't have to worry about scrolling around, or Google Map-type panning around. The viewer just gets to see what a (carefully selected by you, the photographer), 100% crop of the best resolution looks like. I think most people have a big enough imagination to figure out what the rest looks like.
That feature, plus offering custom matting, would make selling a smooth-er process and likely result in more sales.
The majority of people in 2002 HAD 800x600 screens. I think the stats are skewed towards the bilk of "history", as it were. I'd use just the last years-worth and see what that says. 49% for 1024 x 768 sounds much more likely.
Yeah, I would tend to agree.
I've actaully just changed the layout to use the regular smugmug style instead of the smugmug small.
I checked another tracker report for another site that was tracked since end of 2004, and it was like 61% 1024x768 and abot 8-9 % 800x600.
... The viewer just gets to see what a (carefully selected by you, the photographer), 100% crop of the best resolution looks like. I think most people have a big enough imagination to figure out what the rest looks like....
That feature, plus offering custom matting, would make selling a smooth-er process and likely result in more sales.
seems like mostly photographers here on dgrin.. which I am not. I find that my desires are almost the opposite of the photographer's. I am trying to improve the viewing experience while the photographers are trying to limit it (so they can sell the images without them being "lifted")
also, Photographers want public smugmug search, google, etc to bring strangers to their sites, photo sharers don't, etc. hmmm
Are most of smugmug's customers photographers? I doubt it.
seems like mostly photographers here on dgrin.. which I am not. I find that my desires are almost the opposite of the photographer's. I am trying to improve the viewing experience while the photographers are trying to limit it (so they can sell the images without them being "lifted")
also, Photographers want public smugmug search, google, etc to bring strangers to their sites, photo sharers don't, etc. hmmm
Are most of smugmug's customers photographers? I doubt it.
Well, I think there is currently options only available to "pro" accounts. Some features, like a "detail view", or panning within an image frame of a larger image than can fit in the frame, might be other options just for pro accounts.
I think, as a budding "pro", what I'm looking for is almost what SmugMug offers right now - a fantastic interface to showcase my work and help "manage" my sales - if I ever actually get any, and I just started, so I'm not complainin'. I'd imagine most pro's are either using SmugMug as a portfolio manager to sell to magazines and what-not, or are, more likely, selling art prints to the general public, and SmugMug is just one sales channel, as it were.
What would make it much more conveinent and valuable for the art-print type guys, like me, is to offer matting and, to a lesser degree, framing. I can see where framing online can be limiting, but matting should be quite straightforward - especially with art prints, where you typically just use white.
I would think that a small "detail view" option would satisfy the need for a true, full res representation of what the customer is buying, as well as squelch any concern over someone doing a screen grab of your print.
Also, I never want my work cropped, and all mattes and frames would be custom sizes, most likely.
seems like mostly photographers here on dgrin.. which I am not. I find that my desires are almost the opposite of the photographer's. I am trying to improve the viewing experience while the photographers are trying to limit it (so they can sell the images without them being "lifted")
also, Photographers want public smugmug search, google, etc to bring strangers to their sites, photo sharers don't, etc. hmmm
Are most of smugmug's customers photographers? I doubt it.
I'm no pro. But I am a photographer.
I personally tried to set things up to look the best to the majority of my visitors (people using 800x600 screens). So, *I* am not trying to limit the viewing experience. I'm not trying to sell anything (nor am I trying to keep people from "lifting' my images).
I actually don't want public search. But I like seeing traffic comming to my site. The reason my site was created was for family only (out of town family). But the site has grown along with my now 4 year old son.
I occasionally get emails from people wanting to purchase prints, sure. But I'm no pro.
Are most of smugmugs customers photographers? I don't know. I would assume so, since this is a photo gallery site. Key word being photo.
If you use a camera, you're a photographer. Iether a amature, or a pro.
I'm no pro. But I am a photographer.
....
If you use a camera, you're a photographer. Iether a amature, or a pro.
if it helps to get back to my point, please imagine the word "pro" everywhere I wrote "photographer". sorry about the confusion.
Maybe I used the word incorrectly, but to me, a photographer is someone who takes pictures for money.... has a pro account... watermarks their pictures... does not allow originals, or even Large pics to be viewed (without watermark)... has pricing set on their photos to make profit... advertises and or displays their website url... wants google/smugmug search to show their site, etc.
otherwise, it sounds like you and I are here for the same reason. we like sharing pics with friends and family and whoever we invite to the site. I do have some galleries as part of communities for sharing with the dslr club I shoot with and it is fun to get feedback on pics.
...I was just trying to point out how different the needs were between pro's and non-pro's??? ...and that "non-pro's" are not well represented here and .... well... who cares... i'll just go back under my rock...
That will be hell on your camera - lots of sand, mud, dust....bugs...
I enjoy photography - have since I was very young (I'm betting since I was around 7ish). Until the net came around, the vast majority of my images where only seen by the film processor - and my immediate family.
So, imagine my glee when I get an e-mail from someone who may live on the other side of the planet commenting on my photos! Or wanting to purchase one.
I hope this doesn't turn into a digital vs film debate, but for ME personally, digital is the way to go. I'm taking more photos now then I ever did because of the lack of cost (no film to buy/process). Plus starting as a digital photo, it sure makes it easy to get it into the computer, 'process' it, and get it on the web!
I visit about 7 different forums - only about 2 are non photo related. A great way to learn. You can meet interesting people from all over the world. You can also pass on your own experiences so that others may learn from you. Dgrin is a great example for that.
My sites have always being a learning experience for me. Learning to code. Learning how to set up a site that is visually pleasing to a visitor. Learning how to do a better job with my photos from when I get e-mails about certain photos (wether they think photos A or B is in need of work). Plus wanting to post the good stuff, not just a quick snapshot - altho most of my photos of my kid are snapshots but those photos are meant for my family to view so they can watch him grow up.
Pro. Amature. Snapshooter. I don't care what a person is - I enjoy seeing photos from people from around the world - seeing photos taken around the world. Sometimes I see photos I want to attempt to duplicate (example, macro shots of water/milk drops to try and capture a crown shot). Another great way to learn. Another way to increase my skills and knowledge that I may be able to pass on to others. (havent attempted the water/milk drops yet)
The net was a boon for a lot of things good and bad. But for me it's being a great way to keep in touch with friends and family. To allow others (family) to watch my son grow up (he's 4 now). But due to me having interests in other subjects (trains, planes, scenic images), I have other images that others might also find of interest.
I recently got into IR images. I've learned a lot from trial and error, and from the forums. And I've passed on what I learned to others who want to attempt IR.
The net is a excellent tool.
I just realised, that I never addressed your comment at all in any way did I!
Comments
I really wish there were a way that the user could choose the size of the 'large' images that are displayed on your page.
Right now the problem I am facing is that the 'portrait' orientation images are just too small, even in 'large' view. They are only something like 400x600 whereas the landscape images are 800x533, a significant difference.
Many of my site viewers complain about this and it almost makes me not want to show portrait orientation size images on my site.
Other sites like Pbase don't have this problem and I have honestly thought about hosting some images there, specifically to avoid this problem.
It would be great if someone from Smugmug would read this and come to the rescue with a fix.
-Brandon
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Elsewhere I have noted that it appears any image displayed as medium size in the SmugMug style in the gallery view will not exceed either 603 pixels wide or 452 pixels high. This means that the longest side of an image in portrait mode can never be as long as the longest side of an image in landscape mode. It also means a landscape image will not utilise the full limit of 603 pixels wide if the aspect ratio would cause the image height to exceed 452 pixels.
I can understand this may be to prevent the overall page length getting too long, allowing for the information that normally is displayed under the image. However I have suppressed from display on my site all of the detail under each image except the caption (i.e. the size selection, EXIF information, etc does not display) and I would like to take advantage of the available space at the foot of the right hand column to increase the maximum height of an image.
Can you please consider making the height of the image user-changeable via CSS?
Thanks
if i've learned anything here on this forum, when Andy says "Stay tuned" it is usually a good thing...
New here - I'll get to the intro at some point soon - but I just put in a FR that goes like this:
I'd like there to be a way to show something akin to a 100% crop of a small portion of the picture to show the sharpness and/or detail of the picture. Resizing and jpeg compression can take the zing out of a lot of pictures by blurring fine detail, and that might just be the selling point!!
If there's a way to do this that makes sense, please let me know how. Ideally, I'd love to have a mouse_over kind of thing that gives you a non-static pop-up of a postage-stamp sized crop while you're hovering over a picture, and have it go away when you move the mouse off the picture.
Thanks for any help/feedback!
Eric
So... I then saw this thread and wondered if my FR is really more do-able and reasonable than offering a huge image for people to download and scroll around on. The down-side - if you want to call it that - would be having to seperately upload the "detail view". I'm willing to live with that!
Try this. Go to a gallery where originals are enabled. Switch to critique view. Check the checkbox called "Smugloupe". Then drag the loupe around on your photo to check sharpness at 100%. Is this what you wanted?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Hi Eric, what about "critique" style? Here's an example. Use the "smugloupe" which on my customized site is called "Get a Closer Look"
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/1782861
http://www.smugmug.com/help/smugloupe
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Boy, Andy, that's REAL close to what I'm looking for, but the problem is it just magnifies the pixels already there, as I understand it, and is not a crop of the original, which is what I think is important to the customer so they can see what kind of detail they're buying. I understand it would be too slow to do that - for sure - but a loupe might be more than I really need. I just want to give them an idea of what the detail and sharpness is like on the whole picture. The (new) first picture in my (only "pro") gallery is a prime example of that. the resized version - even the Large - does not show the excellent level of detail, which really makes this shot.
If what I suggested in my FR is not do-able, perhaps offer a D(etail) option which we would have to manage/upload-to seperately...?
http://ezryder.smugmug.com
Thanks for the quick reply - as always!!
Eric
http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/52248/1/32115994
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27392&highlight=pimp+ride
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
#2 seems the least of the evils..
However, I have actually been thinking of turning off larges as well as originals. I feel it is still big and tempts folks to do a screen print and be happy with a low res image.
I actually wish that the O selection would not even show up when folks click the size selections. Since I have originals disabled, it only shows the L, but why oh why does it even come up since the proceeding page doesn't show it? (oops sorry.. off topic)
However for private galleries that I might want to give away, XL might be nice and so I would select #2.
..and I appreciate the chance to vote!
jww
Well... it's promising, but all it does is show a big empty text box. Is there supposed to be a picture in the box? Can I put a URL in there, somehow? where da code, where da code?
Thanks!
hi, any updates regarding this. Will standard account people get XL size viewing?
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
come to think of it... it has been a while since we've gotten any new stuff...
wassup???
At this time, it's the people with 800x600 screens. So I use smugmug small. I find the image too small but if I go to the normal smugmug, I find now that it appears (i cud b wrong) that everything won't fit.
Yeah, I love the thought of larger images. But you know guys, a really really big photo on a small 800x600 screen looks like doo doo.
BUT: I like having the extra choice.
yes. I am wishy washy
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
Just saying.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Over the last month, the numbers for unique visitors to the main Smugmug pages are:
1024 x 768: 49.72%
1280 x 1024: 15.51%
800 x 600: 10.44%
1280 x 800: 6.85%
This isn't data from your specific Smugmug site, but it lends credibility to Mike's data. I would expect, unless you have a vastly different audience, for the above numbers to be somewhat accurate.
Another thing to consider, though, is that not all people browse in full-size windows and they may have additional toolbars and things taking up even more space.
You'd think a stats geek would have the browser viewport size handy though
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Hi Mike.
Not sure how accurate the info is - but I've been using Extreme tracking since October 28th of 2002. And it reports 40.53% using 800x600, and 31.56% using 1024x768.
I like having the larger images like I mentioned, but I always figured I should design the site to fit the screens of the majority.
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
This is the type of technology users are expecting nowaday's...(especially from a rising star like Smugmug) don't be like mapquest! say NO to scroll bars (a cheesy way to look at oversized pics)
time for more viewing enhancments....
sorry to sound cranky, but some requests seem so obvious and simple to do, yet don't get done... how long does it take to add to the if statement like
if (easy_share OR logged_in)
display_share_photo_link()
here's another one...
if (allow_originals OR logged_in)
display_original_link()
and lastly
if (disable_right_click AND not logged_in))
disable_right_click()
(flaming anyone who complains that their "right click protection" isn't working (because they are logged in) would be allowed)
I just fixed 3 commonly asked for features...
My main computer is a laptop, and I don't open the browser to fill the screen - not all sites adjust properly, so I have it opened to have about an inch on iether side of the browser from the edge of the screen. (that make sense?), so your first point is quite valid. The screen is 1280x800, so on my screen I have room to play with.
Maybe my info is accurate - but 'dated' ?
I've only had my site on smugmug for 6 months, but I've had my site since '02
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
See if anyone complains :soapbox
EDIT: Can I make it so only say 6 thumbnails appear on the 'smugmug' style?
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
The majority of people in 2002 HAD 800x600 screens. I think the stats are skewed towards the bilk of "history", as it were. I'd use just the last years-worth and see what that says. 49% for 1024 x 768 sounds much more likely.
Per an FR I put in, wouldn't just having a "detail view" of the image be good enough? This way you don't have to worry about scrolling around, or Google Map-type panning around. The viewer just gets to see what a (carefully selected by you, the photographer), 100% crop of the best resolution looks like. I think most people have a big enough imagination to figure out what the rest looks like.
That feature, plus offering custom matting, would make selling a smooth-er process and likely result in more sales.
I've actaully just changed the layout to use the regular smugmug style instead of the smugmug small.
I checked another tracker report for another site that was tracked since end of 2004, and it was like 61% 1024x768 and abot 8-9 % 800x600.
This was with over 300,000 visitors too.
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
also, Photographers want public smugmug search, google, etc to bring strangers to their sites, photo sharers don't, etc. hmmm
Are most of smugmug's customers photographers? I doubt it.
Well, I think there is currently options only available to "pro" accounts. Some features, like a "detail view", or panning within an image frame of a larger image than can fit in the frame, might be other options just for pro accounts.
I think, as a budding "pro", what I'm looking for is almost what SmugMug offers right now - a fantastic interface to showcase my work and help "manage" my sales - if I ever actually get any, and I just started, so I'm not complainin'. I'd imagine most pro's are either using SmugMug as a portfolio manager to sell to magazines and what-not, or are, more likely, selling art prints to the general public, and SmugMug is just one sales channel, as it were.
What would make it much more conveinent and valuable for the art-print type guys, like me, is to offer matting and, to a lesser degree, framing. I can see where framing online can be limiting, but matting should be quite straightforward - especially with art prints, where you typically just use white.
I would think that a small "detail view" option would satisfy the need for a true, full res representation of what the customer is buying, as well as squelch any concern over someone doing a screen grab of your print.
Also, I never want my work cropped, and all mattes and frames would be custom sizes, most likely.
I'm no pro. But I am a photographer.
I personally tried to set things up to look the best to the majority of my visitors (people using 800x600 screens). So, *I* am not trying to limit the viewing experience. I'm not trying to sell anything (nor am I trying to keep people from "lifting' my images).
I actually don't want public search. But I like seeing traffic comming to my site. The reason my site was created was for family only (out of town family). But the site has grown along with my now 4 year old son.
I occasionally get emails from people wanting to purchase prints, sure. But I'm no pro.
Are most of smugmugs customers photographers? I don't know. I would assume so, since this is a photo gallery site. Key word being photo.
If you use a camera, you're a photographer. Iether a amature, or a pro.
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."
if it helps to get back to my point, please imagine the word "pro" everywhere I wrote "photographer". sorry about the confusion.
Maybe I used the word incorrectly, but to me, a photographer is someone who takes pictures for money.... has a pro account... watermarks their pictures... does not allow originals, or even Large pics to be viewed (without watermark)... has pricing set on their photos to make profit... advertises and or displays their website url... wants google/smugmug search to show their site, etc.
otherwise, it sounds like you and I are here for the same reason. we like sharing pics with friends and family and whoever we invite to the site. I do have some galleries as part of communities for sharing with the dslr club I shoot with and it is fun to get feedback on pics.
...I was just trying to point out how different the needs were between pro's and non-pro's??? ...and that "non-pro's" are not well represented here and .... well... who cares... i'll just go back under my rock...
That will be hell on your camera - lots of sand, mud, dust....bugs...
I enjoy photography - have since I was very young (I'm betting since I was around 7ish). Until the net came around, the vast majority of my images where only seen by the film processor - and my immediate family.
So, imagine my glee when I get an e-mail from someone who may live on the other side of the planet commenting on my photos! Or wanting to purchase one.
I hope this doesn't turn into a digital vs film debate, but for ME personally, digital is the way to go. I'm taking more photos now then I ever did because of the lack of cost (no film to buy/process). Plus starting as a digital photo, it sure makes it easy to get it into the computer, 'process' it, and get it on the web!
I visit about 7 different forums - only about 2 are non photo related. A great way to learn. You can meet interesting people from all over the world. You can also pass on your own experiences so that others may learn from you. Dgrin is a great example for that.
My sites have always being a learning experience for me. Learning to code. Learning how to set up a site that is visually pleasing to a visitor. Learning how to do a better job with my photos from when I get e-mails about certain photos (wether they think photos A or B is in need of work). Plus wanting to post the good stuff, not just a quick snapshot - altho most of my photos of my kid are snapshots but those photos are meant for my family to view so they can watch him grow up.
Pro. Amature. Snapshooter. I don't care what a person is - I enjoy seeing photos from people from around the world - seeing photos taken around the world. Sometimes I see photos I want to attempt to duplicate (example, macro shots of water/milk drops to try and capture a crown shot). Another great way to learn. Another way to increase my skills and knowledge that I may be able to pass on to others. (havent attempted the water/milk drops yet)
The net was a boon for a lot of things good and bad. But for me it's being a great way to keep in touch with friends and family. To allow others (family) to watch my son grow up (he's 4 now). But due to me having interests in other subjects (trains, planes, scenic images), I have other images that others might also find of interest.
I recently got into IR images. I've learned a lot from trial and error, and from the forums. And I've passed on what I learned to others who want to attempt IR.
The net is a excellent tool.
I just realised, that I never addressed your comment at all in any way did I!
I'm rambling. Ignore me.
What did Cinderella say when she left the photo shop? "One day my prints will come."