The only issues I have is that as a pro user that shoots 70% or more in portrait my images are being unfairly compressed and compromised. The size you adjsut them to right now is equivalent to 16.7% of a 8.2 mp image. Not only is this small, but it's not a good size for the image. 25-50-75% versions are far greater quality than 16.7 or 67% for obvioius reasons.
SM Large
600 x900 image hosted on my server
I don't give a rats ass if the viewer has to scroll to read a caption. The thing that should have priority here is image quality and protraits should have parity with landscapes. It's all well and good that I cna adjust the mages size for a post or blog, but my SM gallery is where I sell from and that's the only place quality counts.
The only issues I have is that as a pro user that shoots 70% or more in portrait my images are being unfairly compressed and compromised. The size you adjsut them to right now is equivalent to 16.7% of a 8.2 mp image. Not only is this small, but it's not a good size for the image. 25-50-75% versions are far greater quality than 16.7 or 67% for obvioius reasons.
*snip*
I don't give a rats ass if the viewer has to scroll to read a caption. The thing that should have priority here is image quality and protraits should have parity with landscapes. It's all well and good that I cna adjust the mages size for a post or blog, but my SM gallery is where I sell from and that's the only place quality counts.
Hey truth,
I'm afraid the truth is, though, that most of your customers are allergic to scrolling. We've shipped millions of prints and done massive amounts of indirect and direct customer research and the data is crystal clear: if your customers have to scroll the page to view the photos because their monitor is too low-rez or whatever, they won't buy nearly as many prints. It's that simple.
So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.
I'm afraid the truth is, though, that most of your customers are allergic to scrolling. We've shipped millions of prints and done massive amounts of indirect and direct customer research and the data is crystal clear: if your customers have to scroll the page to view the photos because their monitor is too low-rez or whatever, they won't buy nearly as many prints. It's that simple.
So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.
Don
So digital artifacts and fringe caused by compression have less downside than scrolling? No wonder Americans are getting such fat fingers. I can see that being true for customers looking for a snapshot of junior hitting the winning home run at T-ball, or of the oh so amazing pic of them making the perfect apex in turn 4 at mid-ohio, but I doubt the same holds true for the marketing of fine art type prints.
Allright, so if you insist that the native size for a portrait must be scroll free, then why not at least offer an XL size for preview? I mean viewing an original is not really realistic when the original is 2336 x 3504.
So digital artifacts and fringe caused by compression have less downside than scrolling? No wonder Americans are getting such fat fingers. I can see that being true for customers looking for a snapshot of Junior hitting the winning home run at T-ball, or of the all so amazing pic of them making the perfect apex in turn 4 at mid-ohio, but I doubt the same holds true for the marketing of fine art type prints.
Allright, so if you insist that the native size for a portrait must be scroll free, then why not at least offer an XL size for preview? I mean viewing an original is not really realistic when the original is 2336 x 3504.
Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, if you wish, you can have a caption with a link to a larger L size that you make with a custom image url... No, it's not ideal but I just wanted to point out that you could do this now if you wished. Holler for help if you'd like me to explain further.
Thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, if you wish, you can have a caption with a link to a larger L size that you make with a custom image url... No, it's not ideal but I just wanted to point out that you could do this now if you wished. Holler for help if you'd like me to explain further.
It was my understanding (which could be totally false) that in order to create an image larger than the SM "L" originals would have to activated. To me that's like inviting theft of an image. If there is a way around this I'd love to hear it. I'm also a CSS n00b, but maybe it's time to change that.
So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.
Don
Why should this not be up to us? If we are willing to accept less sales for larger views (I highly doubt this is true, for my site at least), that should be my decision.
I'm afraid the truth is, though, that most of your customers are allergic to scrolling. We've shipped millions of prints and done massive amounts of indirect and direct customer research and the data is crystal clear: if your customers have to scroll the page to view the photos because their monitor is too low-rez or whatever, they won't buy nearly as many prints. It's that simple.
So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.
Don
I also have to agree with the recent posters that, for one, if we personally (optional of course) suffer sales from this, it really should be our choice. I realize Smugmug wants to set a high standard of excellence across the board for all users, but as Pro account holders this really should be our option. As to the fact whether this may or may not hurt sales, or even viewing of our photos... For one, this would be little different than the way the current "large" or "original" links function. If the user clicks that link, they expect a larger size and likewise, scrolling. I don't think any of us are petitioning for an "XL Size default Smugview". The thumbnail/medium size is fine for an overall gallery presentation. If an "XL" simply appears next to "Other sizes: S M L XL", people will know what to expect and take advantage, or not, by their choosing.
I think this begs the question: Which detours more sales? People potentially having to scroll an image, or people not being able to see the level of detail or quality of an image? Again I'd like to reinforce that even with our new and fabulous "proof delay", I still choose to meticulously retouch and correct my images, especially portraits, since if the general public views a "proof" they will simply not be "wow"'d and likely steer clear of ordering, unless a preorder/contractural arrangement is in place beforehand. However, if people are unable to discern the "catchlight" in the eyes, or the lovely complexion and glow made possible by soft focus filters, they are unlikely to be swayed to make a purchase and my hard work goes unappreciated and unrecognized. I'd again like to plead for a very simple functioning XL viewing option and ask that you reconsider the pros and cons that many of us feel are heavily leaning on the pro side.
Steve Mills
BizDev Account Manager
Image Specialist & Pro Concierge
No need
Do not see the need for it. I donot feel limited at all with the curren size offerings. Use the time and money on something else more substantial.
Regards
Carlos C.
To me Photography Sites are ALL about the Pictures. I would really like to be able for people to click on my thumbs in the defult smugmug "gallery" and have the image appear on the right to be 800px wide. Not everyone has to do this, however if the option was availible that would be awsome. It saves people to have to click on the image to see it larger.
To me Photography Sites are ALL about the Pictures. I would really like to be able for people to click on my thumbs in the defult smugmug "gallery" and have the image appear on the right to be 800px wide. Not everyone has to do this, however if the option was availible that would be awsome. It saves people to have to click on the image to see it larger.
I'd be very happy if images in portrait aspect could display to the full width available in the 'Smugmug' style (603 px?) rather than being constrained by the vertical maximum (452 px?) as I discussed back in October here, and followed up later here. This vertical limitation really has serious disadvantage for the display of images in portrait view, and for square images for that matter.
I thought I'd made a compelling case but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church! Was this such a dumb idea?
I'd be very happy if images in portrait aspect could display to the full width available in the 'Smugmug' style (603 px?) rather than being constrained by the vertical maximum (452 px?) as I discussed back in October here, and followed up later here. This vertical limitation really has serious disadvantage for the display of images in portrait view, and for square images for that matter.
I thought I'd made a compelling case but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church! Was this such a dumb idea?
Pixel dimensions of T, S, M, L need updating, as monitor resolutions have increased
My suggestion is:
I have to agree with the present postings, the pixel dimensions of T, S, M, L need updating, as monitor resolutions have increased dramatically since these sizes were decided years ago. And since there is an overhaul in process, may as well get on with this too.
For example:
Change Sm Thumbs from 100pix to 150pix
Change Thumbs from 150pix to 250pix
Change Small from 300pix to 500pix
Change Medium from 450pix to 650pix
Change Large from 600pix to 800pix
Create a new XLarge at 1200pix
If you don't want to change the pixel dimensions,
then add 3 new sizes:
Sm Thumbs : 100pix
Thumbs : 150pix (would prefer this be the Smugmug thumb) Lg Thumb : 225pix (would like this added as Smugmug-plus)
Small : 300pix
Medium : 450pix
Large : 600pix (would like this added as Journal-Plus) Xlarge : 800pix
XXLarge : 1200pix (would like this available in Slide-Show)
We love Smugmug, and look forward to it becomming even better.
Would really like to also see quality "Album Creation" as a choice added to photo products.
:ivar
I'd be very happy if images in portrait aspect could display to the full width available in the 'Smugmug' style (603 px?) rather than being constrained by the vertical maximum (452 px?) as I discussed back in October here, and followed up later here. This vertical limitation really has serious disadvantage for the display of images in portrait view, and for square images for that matter.
I thought I'd made a compelling case but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church! Was this such a dumb idea?
:lol :lol :lol :lol
No, not a dumb idea at all, I'd love to see it as well.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
It is also about allowing the user pick the mode and sizes either "they prefer" based on the display monitor the client is viewing with, or the sizes that I require.
The solution for me is as I describe in this threadseveral replys ago,,, add a few "styles" such as an addition to Smugmug,,, Smugmug small, add Smugmug Large, which would give the user a more dramatic choice of seeing the thumbs to the left in lets say 150x150 pix thumbs, three across, or 200x200 images displayed 2 across, with the larger image to right being user selectable from 400, 600, 800 pixel dimensions.
Also have a "Journal-XL" Style version, using 600 pixel squares, and more than 10 at a time...
Plus the "All Thumbs" style needs a face life using lets say 150x150 or 200x200 pixel thumbs. The 100px thumbs are like looking at pinky-finger-nails because of the high resolution monitors these days. Presently the entire SmugMug site fits in the middle 50% of our screens, with lots of real estate left and right blank...
Would like to see the zoom thumb menu, able to apply 1:1 square zoom on ALL the thumbs in a Gallery; getting tired of having to do this one-by-one.
And since I'm talking/pleading,,, add some important photo products like:
Photo Calendars, giving ability to format June-to-June or Jan-to-Jan so that this would be not just a year-end product. Also would like so see
Photo Albums, quality ones, available,,, these are great for follow-up to event photography, Weddings, and family gifts,,,
Its a shame when all the images are inventoried here, for us to go externally for this production of popuylar products...
To me Photography Sites are ALL about the Pictures. I would really like to be able for people to click on my thumbs in the defult smugmug "gallery" and have the image appear on the right to be 800px wide. Not everyone has to do this, however if the option was availible that would be awsome. It saves people to have to click on the image to see it larger.
I also agree with FAU4U above. Its all about the pictures and how they are viewed. The current sizes are ok, but being able to view in larger sizes would be fantastic. It somewhat defeats the purpose if we (Pro) accounts can load images as big as 16MGS, but yet the viewing sizes don't change. Adding an XL size for Slideshow would be ideal for better showing off some of our "favorite" galleries. SmugMug also states that its all about the viewing and having this issue addressed soon would keep may of us happy. thanks!
I'll echo the comments above that it's about the pictures. With my 1680x1050 monitor any of the available sizes look positively puny. 800, 1200 would all be great. Is there no way to dynamically size the pix based on screen real estate availability?
In the smugmug beta page I did not see this XL feature, will it come for standard users?
it's not there for any users yet but have patience. we just laid the groundwork for this feature. Go to Beta and then shrink your window from wide to really narrow
There is NO Dilemma !! I do not understand the point you are making above. STOP trying to make/force a one-size fits-all arrangement. Visitors/Clients that view the images have choices of sizes. Or the SmubMu/Pro can force sizes to suit their clientele. Why should you/youroperating system, decide whats best, when a bunch of us are screaming for L and XL image availability. We all know that if an image format/dimension is too large for a lo-res monitor scrolling will be needed; and if they have an IQ over 80 they can reset THEIR viewing Style to a smaller version of display to suit their monitor. Your software must keep up with the Hardware technologies. If not, some of the Pro and semi-Pro users, will be forced to migrate to their own systems, as has almost become economically viable. Gosh I certainly do not like this notion. We have appreciated, Smugmug's design for many years as one the earlier customers of yours.
Also you just gotta have an XL size to keep up with the high resolution monitors that MOST of the Pro users have had for several years.
AND, the thumbs are terribly small now,,, more like "pinkies" not Thumbs anymore.
I also agree with other posters that having a L or XL version of Journal and a M and L version of AllThumbs would be most helpful in screening an entire gallery,, the thumbs are just too small, almost useless.
DLS bandwith has also increased in recent years, and the number of viewers with high bandwith pipes has increased by many hundreds of percent in the last 5 years. In my circles of influence, I cannot think of anyone with dial-up, that's in the digital imaging. You know these things.
Perhaps the Pro level user could restrict the Viewer to several Styles, rather then the present choice of, ALL or ONE Style aviability.
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.
(Yes, we know the rumble volume for this is not as loud as for some other things in the queue, but it turns out to be an opportune time given engineering work we're doing on storage right now.)
The rumbles: "I don't get enough L when I click L."
We think XL should be 1024x768. Below the image where you currently see an L link, XL would appear beside it. Just like L, pros will be able to disable XL.
The good:
Two new gallery styles would be born, smugmug L and smugmug XL, which you can preview:
smugmug L style would use the Large image size, which can be up to 800 pixels wide or high. For landscape photos, 800 px wide looks great and fits a 1280 monitor beautifully. But at 800 px high, you wouldn't be able to read the caption without scrolling, or any of the other stuff below the photo. That's because monitors are wider than tall.
The solution with the medium size was to make them up to 600 px wide or 450 px tall.
We can think of 2 practical solutions to this dilemma. I'll also mention a third not-so-practical solution so someone else doesn't have to propose it:
1. Resize all Large images to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.
The downside is all portrait-mode images that are now posted on forums and blogs at 800 px high would become 600 px high. 99% of forum posts would just adjust, but a few would look distorted -- like the ones on ADVrider where I posted a L image and specified in HTML in the post that it was 800px high.
2. Only resize the Larges going forward to 800 px wide or 600 px tall.
The downside is legacy Large images would make you scroll when viewed in the new smugmug L style. The upside: they would look as they did when they were originally posted in forums and blogs.
3. This one's messy... When the image is requested externally, give it up in it's original 800 px-high glory; when it's requested inside for a smugmug L gallery, resize on the fly to 600 px.
Which of these is the least of evils? Can you think up a fourth, more elegant solution?
Jim, please stop it with the huge bold yellow text. Besides making your post huuuge, it makes it difficult for people using the white forum theme to read. Your opinions are coming across loud and clear as it is.
There is NO Dilemma !! I do not understand the point you are making above. STOP trying to make/force a one-size fits-all arrangement.
I've been experimenting with the Zenfolio service recently to see how it has been developing, and find the size of the displayed image expands automatically (in steps) to fit as the available size in the window expands.
Perhaps that's what you have in mind for SmugMug, FAU4U?
On my other hobby horse, I've also found they display non-landscape images in a lot larger image size. Take the following examples, SmugMug vs. Zenfolio, for a square image displayed in the SmugMug format (or equivalent) in identically-sized windows.
See what I mean? I'm not promoting Zenfolio per se, although they've come a long way and I'm enjoying the experience of mirroring a few galleries there while continuing to maintain my SmugMug location as my principal site. However, I think this example illustrates well the point I've been making in trying to draw attention to the serious disadvantage that square or portrait-oriented images suffer on SmugMug.
Can't something be done to level up the balance a bit? Isn't it just a matter of increasing the 450 pixel vertical size limit, or making it customisable? Seriously, why not? Can I rest my case?
Can't something be done to level up the balance a bit? Isn't it just a matter of increasing the 450 pixel vertical size limit, or making it customisable? Seriously, why not? Can I rest my case?
Comments
Malte
You'll know about it when we announce something like this
We haven't given up, nor should you...
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
SM Large
600 x900 image hosted on my server
I don't give a rats ass if the viewer has to scroll to read a caption. The thing that should have priority here is image quality and protraits should have parity with landscapes. It's all well and good that I cna adjust the mages size for a post or blog, but my SM gallery is where I sell from and that's the only place quality counts.
Hey truth,
I'm afraid the truth is, though, that most of your customers are allergic to scrolling. We've shipped millions of prints and done massive amounts of indirect and direct customer research and the data is crystal clear: if your customers have to scroll the page to view the photos because their monitor is too low-rez or whatever, they won't buy nearly as many prints. It's that simple.
So you may wish you could see a larger image and scroll to see the pics - but your customers, assuming they're like the other millions of people using the site and buying Pro prints, do not.
Don
So digital artifacts and fringe caused by compression have less downside than scrolling? No wonder Americans are getting such fat fingers. I can see that being true for customers looking for a snapshot of junior hitting the winning home run at T-ball, or of the oh so amazing pic of them making the perfect apex in turn 4 at mid-ohio, but I doubt the same holds true for the marketing of fine art type prints.
Allright, so if you insist that the native size for a portrait must be scroll free, then why not at least offer an XL size for preview? I mean viewing an original is not really realistic when the original is 2336 x 3504.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
It was my understanding (which could be totally false) that in order to create an image larger than the SM "L" originals would have to activated. To me that's like inviting theft of an image. If there is a way around this I'd love to hear it. I'm also a CSS n00b, but maybe it's time to change that.
I also have to agree with the recent posters that, for one, if we personally (optional of course) suffer sales from this, it really should be our choice. I realize Smugmug wants to set a high standard of excellence across the board for all users, but as Pro account holders this really should be our option. As to the fact whether this may or may not hurt sales, or even viewing of our photos... For one, this would be little different than the way the current "large" or "original" links function. If the user clicks that link, they expect a larger size and likewise, scrolling. I don't think any of us are petitioning for an "XL Size default Smugview". The thumbnail/medium size is fine for an overall gallery presentation. If an "XL" simply appears next to "Other sizes: S M L XL", people will know what to expect and take advantage, or not, by their choosing.
I think this begs the question: Which detours more sales? People potentially having to scroll an image, or people not being able to see the level of detail or quality of an image? Again I'd like to reinforce that even with our new and fabulous "proof delay", I still choose to meticulously retouch and correct my images, especially portraits, since if the general public views a "proof" they will simply not be "wow"'d and likely steer clear of ordering, unless a preorder/contractural arrangement is in place beforehand. However, if people are unable to discern the "catchlight" in the eyes, or the lovely complexion and glow made possible by soft focus filters, they are unlikely to be swayed to make a purchase and my hard work goes unappreciated and unrecognized. I'd again like to plead for a very simple functioning XL viewing option and ask that you reconsider the pros and cons that many of us feel are heavily leaning on the pro side.
BizDev Account Manager
Image Specialist & Pro Concierge
http://www.downriverphotography.com
Do not see the need for it. I donot feel limited at all with the curren size offerings. Use the time and money on something else more substantial.
Regards
Carlos C.
www.gjohnstone.com
I thought I'd made a compelling case but the silence was so deafening it was as though I had f*rted in church!
My suggestion is:
I have to agree with the present postings, the pixel dimensions of T, S, M, L need updating, as monitor resolutions have increased dramatically since these sizes were decided years ago. And since there is an overhaul in process, may as well get on with this too.
For example:
Change Sm Thumbs from 100pix to 150pix
Change Thumbs from 150pix to 250pix
Change Small from 300pix to 500pix
Change Medium from 450pix to 650pix
Change Large from 600pix to 800pix
Create a new XLarge at 1200pix
If you don't want to change the pixel dimensions,
then add 3 new sizes:
Sm Thumbs : 100pix
Thumbs : 150pix (would prefer this be the Smugmug thumb)
Lg Thumb : 225pix (would like this added as Smugmug-plus)
Small : 300pix
Medium : 450pix
Large : 600pix (would like this added as Journal-Plus)
Xlarge : 800pix
XXLarge : 1200pix (would like this available in Slide-Show)
We love Smugmug, and look forward to it becomming even better.
Would really like to also see quality "Album Creation" as a choice added to photo products.
:ivar
JimW, Boca Raton, FL, USA
www.416-1100.com
:lol4:lol4:lol4
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
:lol :lol :lol :lol
No, not a dumb idea at all, I'd love to see it as well.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
It is also about allowing the user pick the mode and sizes either "they prefer" based on the display monitor the client is viewing with, or the sizes that I require.
The solution for me is as I describe in this threadseveral replys ago,,, add a few "styles" such as an addition to Smugmug,,, Smugmug small, add Smugmug Large, which would give the user a more dramatic choice of seeing the thumbs to the left in lets say 150x150 pix thumbs, three across, or 200x200 images displayed 2 across, with the larger image to right being user selectable from 400, 600, 800 pixel dimensions.
Also have a "Journal-XL" Style version, using 600 pixel squares, and more than 10 at a time...
Plus the "All Thumbs" style needs a face life using lets say 150x150 or 200x200 pixel thumbs. The 100px thumbs are like looking at pinky-finger-nails because of the high resolution monitors these days. Presently the entire SmugMug site fits in the middle 50% of our screens, with lots of real estate left and right blank...
Would like to see the zoom thumb menu, able to apply 1:1 square zoom on ALL the thumbs in a Gallery; getting tired of having to do this one-by-one.
And since I'm talking/pleading,,, add some important photo products like:
Photo Calendars, giving ability to format June-to-June or Jan-to-Jan so that this would be not just a year-end product. Also would like so see
Photo Albums, quality ones, available,,, these are great for follow-up to event photography, Weddings, and family gifts,,,
Its a shame when all the images are inventoried here, for us to go externally for this production of popuylar products...
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Also you just gotta have an XL size to keep up with the high resolution monitors that MOST of the Pro users have had for several years.
AND, the thumbs are terribly small now,,, more like "pinkies" not Thumbs anymore.
I also agree with other posters that having a L or XL version of Journal and a M and L version of AllThumbs would be most helpful in screening an entire gallery,, the thumbs are just too small, almost useless.
DLS bandwith has also increased in recent years, and the number of viewers with high bandwith pipes has increased by many hundreds of percent in the last 5 years. In my circles of influence, I cannot think of anyone with dial-up, that's in the digital imaging. You know these things.
Perhaps the Pro level user could restrict the Viewer to several Styles, rather then the present choice of, ALL or ONE Style aviability.
Thanks.
Perhaps that's what you have in mind for SmugMug, FAU4U?
On my other hobby horse, I've also found they display non-landscape images in a lot larger image size. Take the following examples, SmugMug vs. Zenfolio, for a square image displayed in the SmugMug format (or equivalent) in identically-sized windows.
First, from my SmugMug gallery at http://rosscollins.smugmug.com/gallery/2401970 (including my modest banner and nav bar customisation) -
Now, a comparative gallery on Zenfolio at http://rosscollins.zenfolio.com/p855561915/?photo=h3B82A626#998417958 (using a standard template) -
See what I mean? I'm not promoting Zenfolio per se, although they've come a long way and I'm enjoying the experience of mirroring a few galleries there while continuing to maintain my SmugMug location as my principal site. However, I think this example illustrates well the point I've been making in trying to draw attention to the serious disadvantage that square or portrait-oriented images suffer on SmugMug.
Can't something be done to level up the balance a bit? Isn't it just a matter of increasing the 450 pixel vertical size limit, or making it customisable? Seriously, why not? Can I rest my case?
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=54157
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'm not a dentist but I recommend...
er... is there a way to have landscape format such and such a width and portrait such and such a height ( or is that what you just said)?
just realised it's only in the lightbox mode where I want bigger sizes
...pics..
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter