Something that makes Smug much better
This is a small feature, but it makes a big difference to me. I was uploading my third or forth gallery on each site before this one caught my attention.
I'm exporting from Aperture, so the options may be different depending upon how you upload your photos. When I select Smug I'm able to start a new gallery and give it a title then and there. In Zen, I must go into their site first and set up a new gallery so it appears in the drop down menu where I can select it. Needless to say, I've canceled out of the export a couple of times because I forgot to do this first.
Smug also allows me to make it a private gallery and set the password at the time I create and name the gallery from my export function. In Zen I have to go into each gallery after I make it to set the password (unless I want to do a default for all my galleries). I like Smug reminding me to take care of it on the spot.
***** Edit - After posting this and not getting into my "private gallery" easily, I realized I don't want a PRIVATE gallery right now. It took me a while to rediscover where to correct that classification. I only want a Password Protected gallery. It would be nice to be able to select that option and assign the password in this same prompter at the time I create the galleries. *****
***** Post Edit - Practice makes perfect and I'm a long way from perfection, but I'm getting better. Now that I've uploaded another gallery I see that you can Password Protect a gallery and not make it a "private gallery." All you have to do is leave the Public box checked AND insert the Password in the box. I just got confused on the options. *****
This is a feature that gives Smug a boost that could overrule the popular opinion I'm hearing about Zen being better to view. The easier it is for me to get my photos posted, the better.
Zen automatically picks up my keywords as well as my comments. It seems Smug should do this too. Each of my photos has its own set of keywords. I do not want to be retyping all of them.
Both services are taking hours to upload my photos (usually in batches of more than 100). I'm just wondering if this is normal and if there's anyway to speed it up. I had a Smug member tell me he uses drag and drop and it only takes minutes. Is it because I'm exporting from Aperture with the drop down menu there?
That's a really interesting comparison. Many thanks for making it and posting here. We're fascinated, as you can imagine.
The problem with not getting through...is that person from Arizona by chance?
Thanks again and keep the info coming!
Baldy
I'm glad to provide my impressions. It's helping think through all the pros and cons and try to keep it all straight. Zen's biggest deficit is not having a great forum like this! I appreciate your welcome and openness to information about your own site and your competitor's.
My friend that was argued with (I wish he'd given a better description) lives in British Columbia.
My husband just told me that he went into both sites again at work today and Smug displayed my oversaturated photos much better. I just did my own comparison of a particularly dark photo (still learning how to tweak in Aperture ) and Smug is much better. It's close to what I saw when I made the adjustments. It leads me to believe that Smug does a better job of getting Apple colors right, tricky as that is.
This is a small feature, but it makes a big difference to me. I was uploading my third or forth gallery on each site before this one caught my attention.
I'm exporting from Aperture, so the options may be different depending upon how you upload your photos. When I select Smug I'm able to start a new gallery and give it a title then and there. In Zen, I must go into their site first and set up a new gallery so it appears in the drop down menu where I can select it. Needless to say, I've canceled out of the export a couple of times because I forgot to do this first.
This is a feature that gives Smug a boost that could overrule the popular opinion I'm hearing about Zen being better to view. The easier it is for me to get my photos posted, the better.
Zen automatically picks up my keywords as well as my comments. It seems Smug should do this too. Each of my photos has its own set of keywords. I do not want to be retyping all of them.
Both services are taking hours to upload my photos (usually in batches of more than 100). I'm just wondering if this is normal and if there's anyway to speed it up. I had a Smug member tell me he uses drag and drop and it only takes minutes. Is it because I'm exporting from Aperture with the drop down menu there?
Also, uploading full-res photos usually takes a while nomatter what service you use, with maybe a bit of speed difference here & there per service/method used, but its not anything major.
It mostly depends on your internet provider's (upload) speed.
thanks
I have the plugin already, thanks. I'm on broadband with Comcast, which is pretty fast. I'm surprised at how long it's taking. I can't work in Aperture during the upload time, so I'm mostly trying to get my photos ready and then set it to upload and head for bed.
I have the plugin already, thanks. I'm on broadband with Comcast, which is pretty fast. I'm surprised at how long it's taking. I can't work in Aperture during the upload time, so I'm mostly trying to get my photos ready and then set it to upload and head for bed.
If it takes a really, really long time to upload them, then you might be picking too high a JPEG quality in Aperture (higher than is needed by any size print). I don't know how Aperture expressed JPEG quality, but in Photoshop you want to pick no higher than quality level 10 (on the 1-12 scale) or quality level 80 on the (0-100 scale) and many claim you can go lower than this and still see no difference in the prints. The difference in file size between a quality level like these and the highest quality level can be 3x with no print difference at all.
Also, if the Aperture plug-in won't let you work in Aperture during the upload, you may find it more convenient to export the desired files to a temporary directory and then use a separate uploader because this will free you to continue to use Aperture during the upload.
I hadn't thought about moving the photos (or copies of them) to a separate location to free up Aperture. Could I just put them into a folder? Is "directory" non-Apple speak for folder? I could even dump them back into iPhoto. I'd like to keep the steps as few and simple as possible, of course, as well as not bloating my hard drive with copies everywhere.
This is a good suggestion to alleviate some of my frustration. Thanks.
If it takes a really, really long time to upload them, then you might be picking too high a JPEG quality in Aperture (higher than is needed by any size print). I don't know how Aperture expressed JPEG quality, but in Photoshop you want to pick no higher than quality level 10 (on the 1-12 scale) or quality level 80 on the (0-100 scale) and many claim you can go lower than this and still see no difference in the prints. The difference in file size between a quality level like these and the highest quality level can be 3x with no print difference at all.
When exporting to jpeg, Aperture defaults to the "original size" preset. Its at quality 10, but can go all the way up to 12 if you edit the preset. But, it doesnt show you that info unless you go to the edit preset menu.
Im curious about this too. I wonder what the threshold is for maintaining quality. Maybe 8??
I hadn't thought about moving the photos (or copies of them) to a separate location to free up Aperture. Could I just put them into a folder? Is "directory" non-Apple speak for folder? I could even dump them back into iPhoto. I'd like to keep the steps as few and simple as possible, of course, as well as not bloating my hard drive with copies everywhere.
This is a good suggestion to alleviate some of my frustration. Thanks.
Yes, "folder" = "directory". Sorry for using a PC term, not a Mac term. You probably can't just move the files within aperture. You have to "export" (or some similar term that Aperture uses) to a set of JPEG files outside of Aperture in a temporary folder. This assures that Aperture applies all of it's settings to the files so when Smugmug gets them, they lookslike you want them to.
Someone who knows Aperture could probably advise you on exactly which menu commands to use to accomplish this.
Once you've exported them outside of Aperture, you can use any of the other Smugmug uploaders and then continue to use Aperture while they are uploading.
I'll look into this
I have an Apple lesson on Tuesday and I'll present this to my teacher so he can show me where to set that export quality.
I live in an Apple world so the PC code is foreign to me. Sometimes I can fake it. :
Where do I find other uploaders? I've only looked into Mac compatible stuff so far. This site did convince me to try out Firefox and I'm doing OK on it because it's pretty similar to Safari.
I appreciate the help as I muddle my way through a lot of unfamiliar territory. At least this forum format is familiar. I belong to a couple of vBulletin forums.
Might be the deal cincher - SmugMug is ahead
I've been merrily posting identical photos to SmugMug and Zen from a recent trip. It's been double the upload time, but I wanted to give myself the very best comparisons of each service. Here are some more observations that came to light the last couple of days:
~~~~~~~~
Smug allows the full title of my gallery to be visible. I have fairly long titles to help people know what leg of our trip the gallery covers.
Zen shortens the titles to the first few words rendering my description useless.
Smug is still letting me post photos.
I hit Zen's limit of 1 GB on the trial account. :
~~~~~~~~
I went back to the trial period sign up page and there is no notice on Zen that there is a limit to what you can upload. I sent photos unsuccessfully to the same gallery three times and then tried a new gallery with new photos. I found out about the 1 GB limit after filing two trouble reports about my photos not appearing in my galleries.
The response from Zen was that they will notify the plugin builder for Aperture. I guess they think it should have let me know I'm met this unexpected limit. I suggested they should add it to the paragraph where you sign up to the trial account.
SmugMug's fully functional trial period makes much better marketing sense. The more effort and amount of photos that I put into Smug's galleries, the more likely I am to want to preserve my work and join up. I've already got almost double the amount of photos posted here. That plainly leaves me more invested in SmugMug than I can be in Zenfolio.
SmugMug's fully functional trial period makes much better marketing sense. The more effort and amount of photos that I put into Smug's galleries, the more likely I am to want to preserve my work and join up. I've already got almost double the amount of photos posted here. That plainly leaves me more invested in SmugMug than I can be in Zenfolio.
Great feedback, and we appreciate it so much! Do you have unanswered questions at this point? I'll be around and will be happy to help
I'm back!
Thanks for your offer to help get me straightened out. That's a tall order, but we can work in increments.
I've installed and started using Firefox. I also saw the thread on SmugBrowser and downloaded it. I'm not sure what to do with it from that point. I left a question in that thread and perhaps it's even been answered by now. I looked at the PictureSync site and it might be a better answer for me, but it seemed too much for me to deal with tonight.
I do have a question I'll throw your way. There's a comment in your help section about keywords that I need explained:
"Gotcha: Keywords have no effect on private or password-protected galleries, even if you enter them."
I've been reading about privacy, google searches and such. I'm guessing that keywords are only good for searching public galleries because you wouldn't have the password to get into someone else's gallery. What I'm curious about is why this is phrased as having "no effect" on private/password galleries. Do my keywords still go into this big pool of keywords? Is there any way that keywords can be used within one's own galleries? It would be nice to have a search mechanism for my own photos. Are they still attached to my photos, but just not visible?
The way this is stated leaves me wondering what "effect" keywords have on galleries. I tried searching a couple of phrases, but didn't go down that path very far.
Thanks for your offer to help get me straightened out. That's a tall order, but we can work in increments.
I've installed and started using Firefox. I also saw the thread on SmugBrowser and downloaded it. I'm not sure what to do with it from that point. I left a question in that thread and perhaps it's even been answered by now. I looked at the PictureSync site and it might be a better answer for me, but it seemed too much for me to deal with tonight.
I do have a question I'll throw your way. There's a comment in your help section about keywords that I need explained:
"Gotcha: Keywords have no effect on private or password-protected galleries, even if you enter them."
I've been reading about privacy, google searches and such. I'm guessing that keywords are only good for searching public galleries because you wouldn't have the password to get into someone else's gallery. What I'm curious about is why this is phrased as having "no effect" on private/password galleries. Do my keywords still go into this big pool of keywords? Is there any way that keywords can be used within one's own galleries? It would be nice to have a search mechanism for my own photos. Are they still attached to my photos, but just not visible?
The way this is stated leaves me wondering what "effect" keywords have on galleries. I tried searching a couple of phrases, but didn't go down that path very far.
We're actually in the midst of providing a ton more flexibility with Keywords, and search options.
Right now, you can't search keywords unless the gallery is public. They are there, but not indexed and not searchable.
Long thread here, explaining the new stuff, read particularly the posts by Baldy, on the last couple of pages....
The response from Zen was that they will notify the plugin builder for Aperture. I guess they think it should have let me know I'm met this unexpected limit.
They did indeed notify me of your issue. Letting the user know how much of their disk quota is being used was already on the list of features to add. Let me know if you need help with anything or have any other issues.
Also, hopefully Aperture will gain background exporting in the next version and you will be able to continue working in Aperture while it exports.
I'm impressed to get this direct response from the developer!
I see that Zen is prompt. What puzzles me still is the thought that having a usage counter would matter since I had no clue there was a limit I was approaching. If I were to join Zen, I would certainly not be their 1 GB limit customer. Nor would anyone who can exceed that limit in the first few days of trying out their service. By stopping me in my tracks like this, they have doused the enthusiasm I had for their method of displaying my photos.
On SmugMug I can continue to learn by doing for a few more days before I sign up. THAT makes a lot more sense in getting new customers for your product.
Long thread here, explaining the new stuff, read particularly the posts by Baldy, on the last couple of pages....
Andy, are you talking about going back through this very thread? I swear I've read this thread in my manic research phase. I just went back several pages (though I probably don't have many posts per page configured) and I saw nothing from Baldy.
I went into my user panel and maxed out my posts per page. It shortened this thread from 26 pages to 7. I did not find all that many posts by Baldy scrolling through the pages. I read what I found. What are you wanting me to see?
I came up with another question, but do you want me to put them in another thread or category, or keep asking them here?
I'm going to ask this one now before I forget it.
Is there any way to make comments visible on the slideshow by default? I've spent a lot of time adding comments. I like that they display automatically on the gallery page. I'm afraid most people won't discover that toolbar at the top and know to check it to display captions. Especially on the big screen show that moves slowly, I'd like people to have the story that goes along with my photos. I'd rather have them check it to turn the comments off.
I see that Zen is prompt. What puzzles me still is the thought that having a usage counter would matter since I had no clue there was a limit I was approaching. If I were to join Zen, I would certainly not be their 1 GB limit customer. Nor would anyone who can exceed that limit in the first few days of trying out their service. By stopping me in my tracks like this, they have doused the enthusiasm I had for their method of displaying my photos.
On SmugMug I can continue to learn by doing for a few more days before I sign up. THAT makes a lot more sense in getting new customers for your product.
I dont see the problem. 1GB (on either site) is plenty of space to test out & see which site will work for you. Why do you feel the need to upload every single piece of content you have to both sites over the coarse of a few days? Especially when you know you will be deleting one of the accounts??
Seems like a waste of time, computer resources & bandwidth to me. Wouldnt a couple of albums on each site do the trick in the meantime??
I dont see the problem. 1GB (on either site) is plenty of space to test out & see which site will work for you. Why do you feel the need to upload every single piece of content you have to both sites over the coarse of a few days? Especially when you know you will be deleting one of the accounts??
Seems like a waste of time, computer resources & bandwidth to me. Wouldnt a couple of albums on each site do the trick in the meantime??
That's the difference then I reckon, i.e. that SM and some users can see the problem:D I know it would have got to me as well.
Any service that attempts to mould itself to the user rather than the user having to mould itself to the service will win IMO (hey I thought you said you worked for Apple??? ;-) )
The only wastefrom a user's POV is frustration time lost trying to do what seems obvious to the user but not to the service provider - IMO
Andy, are you talking about going back through this very thread? I swear I've read this thread in my manic research phase. I just went back several pages (though I probably don't have many posts per page configured) and I saw nothing from Baldy.
I came up with another question, but do you want me to put them in another thread or category, or keep asking them here?
I'm going to ask this one now before I forget it.
Is there any way to make comments visible on the slideshow by default? I've spent a lot of time adding comments. I like that they display automatically on the gallery page. I'm afraid most people won't discover that toolbar at the top and know to check it to display captions. Especially on the big screen show that moves slowly, I'd like people to have the story that goes along with my photos. I'd rather have them check it to turn the comments off.
Comments, or captions? If the latter, - no but it will be better, more configurable in the new version that's being worked on right now.
On SmugMug I can continue to learn by doing for a few more days before I sign up. THAT makes a lot more sense in getting new customers for your product.
Yes, but hitting that limit during a trial seems unlikely for most users. Either way, you can't go wrong. They are both great services. I use one, but develop plugins for both.
I dont see the problem. 1GB (on either site) is plenty of space to test out & see which site will work for you.
My "problem" with it lies in the surprise factor. It would be easy to state that the trial version is a standard account or come right out and say that it has a 1 GB limit. That would have relieved me of a couple of days of frustration as I continued to upload to no avail.
Why do you feel the need to upload every single piece of content you have to both sites over the coarse of a few days?
Believe me, this is a mere fraction of my content. I am an avid and prolific shutterbug. Indeed, thus far I've only posted a fraction of my most recent trip.
I also do things with gusto. I am working feverishly to get my photos in order and any effort I make to that end is a step in the right direction.
I have people clamoring to see this set of photos, my primary motivation for taking the step of joining a photo sharing site in the first place. I'm doing my best to get all the photos posted for their perusal.
Especially when you know you will be deleting one of the accounts??
I expect that it will take no effort on my part for the site I don't choose to dump me if I don't sign up. I'm willing to have all my effort for naught if neither site meets my needs and expectations. I have my originals on my computer and on a ex hard drive, so it's not that drastic.
Seems like a waste of time, computer resources & bandwidth to me. Wouldnt a couple of albums on each site do the trick in the meantime??
I would worry if a company saw this courtesy trial period as a waste of their resources and bandwidth. It's only for two weeks if I don't sign up.
As far as my time is concerned, once I have them adjusted, cropped and captioned, there's not much more I have to do for them to go to each service. I'm doing most of my uploading after I go to bed. It uses electricity and requires me to keep my computer on, but that part takes the least amount of my time. That is unless I have to duplicate my efforts the next day because the photos didn't show up in my gallery.
My methods seem to perturb you.
It's seems like a grand experiment to me. I'm posting identical photos so that the people who will be looking at my photos have a fair comparison. I've solicited their opinions about which site they like the best as viewers.
Yes, more galleries provides more chances for people to compare and give me their opinions. One batch I know I oversaturated. The next batch I think I lightened too much. Even so, people were comparing apples to apples. Now I've let people know that they can continue to look a new galleries on SmugMug, but I'm not making any more additions to Zen.
I'm on a roll, I have momentum and enthusiasm. Why should I limit myself to 1 GB if I'm allowed to put more on? There is no way I would be a candidate for Zen's standard option. I wouldn't even consider joining Zen at the $25 rate. Holding me to that restriction during my trial period threw cold water on a potential customer who would consider upgrading from their $40 tier when they add more features.
SmugMug, on the other hand, allows me to keep playing around. Each day I'm able to do that, I'm discovering more features and getting better at making my galleries have the look that pleases me most. One aspect of that is posting my multiple galleries with different themes. I think it's fun to try them all. (I do miss the thumbnails that Zen has to give you a quick vision without actually applying it)
It's actually very clever for SmugMug to let me keep posting. Each gallery invests me more in this site. The more familiar I get with the processes here, the less likely I am to leave. I'm the type that will probably be around for a lifetime once I settle in. I'm going to look at the $60 membership to see if that would suit me better. Who knows, maybe I'll even get a Pro account someday. Good business sense for SmugMug to indulge me during these two weeks. . . Get me good and addicted. Provide a warm welcome and a great forum. It sounds like there's some psychology at work here.
Have you any other questions? I'm glad to answer. :curtsey
Comments, or captions? If the latter, - no but it will be better, more configurable in the new version that's being worked on right now.
I meant captions. I don't think that many people realize that checking that box (if they even discover it) turns the captions on. Could you even just add the words "Turn captions on" in the new version?
Wouldnt a couple of albums on each site do the trick in the meantime??
I thought of a specific example to show that posting more galleries benefitts me in making an informed judgement about which site suits me the best. I am a deliberate, cautious consumer. I do my research, often compulsively. Learning by doing is serving me well.
In the gallery I just put up on Smug, I realized that there were a few photos where it would make better sense to group them together. Prior to this, I've been content with my photos being in simple chronicalogical order. I'd thought about what it takes to rearrange photos in each site, but I hadn't been confronted with a need to try it out until last night. It didn't occur during my Zen uploading, so I didn't learn how it's done over there.
Yes, I could go there and just fool around to see how to do it, but my interest in Zen wanes everyday that I continue to work over here.
I'm delighted to see there is a drag and drop mode on this site! That suits my Apple roots just fine. :ivar
Difference in nudity policy?
I was browsing Zenfolio's 'recently added' and came across a gallery of nude photos and wondered, would this be acceptable on Smugmug?
I know the 'museum' description of the policy but I feel it could use a real world example.
These photos would NOT be allowed in a public SmugMug gallery. In particular, we try to keep searching and browsing as family-friendly as possible.
I hope that helps!
-Anne
Hu, so the policy is not the same for private and protected galleries? I thought it was.
For me the line is where the content is sexual, not necessarily being nude at all. To me the photos in the link are non-sexual, and I have seen plenty of photos on Smugmug that are dressed but sexual.
For me the line is where the content is sexual, not necessarily being nude at all. To me the photos in the link are non-sexual, and I have seen plenty of photos on Smugmug that are dressed but sexual.
I'm not saying this type of content should be forbidden, I just find it odd that this can be fine when non-sexual nudity is not.
Malte
Yeah, Go figure. I had nude images banned that were taken during a public parade in front of police officers with people of all ages, genders and ethnicities present. I guess rules are rules though. Thankfully PBase is not as restrictive .
My Pictures : My Gear
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
Comments
This is a small feature, but it makes a big difference to me. I was uploading my third or forth gallery on each site before this one caught my attention.
I'm exporting from Aperture, so the options may be different depending upon how you upload your photos. When I select Smug I'm able to start a new gallery and give it a title then and there. In Zen, I must go into their site first and set up a new gallery so it appears in the drop down menu where I can select it. Needless to say, I've canceled out of the export a couple of times because I forgot to do this first.
Smug also allows me to make it a private gallery and set the password at the time I create and name the gallery from my export function. In Zen I have to go into each gallery after I make it to set the password (unless I want to do a default for all my galleries). I like Smug reminding me to take care of it on the spot.
***** Edit - After posting this and not getting into my "private gallery" easily, I realized I don't want a PRIVATE gallery right now. It took me a while to rediscover where to correct that classification. I only want a Password Protected gallery. It would be nice to be able to select that option and assign the password in this same prompter at the time I create the galleries. *****
***** Post Edit - Practice makes perfect and I'm a long way from perfection, but I'm getting better. Now that I've uploaded another gallery I see that you can Password Protect a gallery and not make it a "private gallery." All you have to do is leave the Public box checked AND insert the Password in the box. I just got confused on the options. *****
This is a feature that gives Smug a boost that could overrule the popular opinion I'm hearing about Zen being better to view. The easier it is for me to get my photos posted, the better.
Zen automatically picks up my keywords as well as my comments. It seems Smug should do this too. Each of my photos has its own set of keywords. I do not want to be retyping all of them.
Both services are taking hours to upload my photos (usually in batches of more than 100). I'm just wondering if this is normal and if there's anyway to speed it up. I had a Smug member tell me he uses drag and drop and it only takes minutes. Is it because I'm exporting from Aperture with the drop down menu there?
I'm glad to provide my impressions. It's helping think through all the pros and cons and try to keep it all straight. Zen's biggest deficit is not having a great forum like this! I appreciate your welcome and openness to information about your own site and your competitor's.
My friend that was argued with (I wish he'd given a better description) lives in British Columbia.
My husband just told me that he went into both sites again at work today and Smug displayed my oversaturated photos much better. I just did my own comparison of a particularly dark photo (still learning how to tweak in Aperture
Also, uploading full-res photos usually takes a while nomatter what service you use, with maybe a bit of speed difference here & there per service/method used, but its not anything major.
It mostly depends on your internet provider's (upload) speed.
I have the plugin already, thanks. I'm on broadband with Comcast, which is pretty fast. I'm surprised at how long it's taking. I can't work in Aperture during the upload time, so I'm mostly trying to get my photos ready and then set it to upload and head for bed.
If it takes a really, really long time to upload them, then you might be picking too high a JPEG quality in Aperture (higher than is needed by any size print). I don't know how Aperture expressed JPEG quality, but in Photoshop you want to pick no higher than quality level 10 (on the 1-12 scale) or quality level 80 on the (0-100 scale) and many claim you can go lower than this and still see no difference in the prints. The difference in file size between a quality level like these and the highest quality level can be 3x with no print difference at all.
Also, if the Aperture plug-in won't let you work in Aperture during the upload, you may find it more convenient to export the desired files to a temporary directory and then use a separate uploader because this will free you to continue to use Aperture during the upload.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
This is a good suggestion to alleviate some of my frustration. Thanks.
Im curious about this too. I wonder what the threshold is for maintaining quality. Maybe 8??
Someone who knows Aperture could probably advise you on exactly which menu commands to use to accomplish this.
Once you've exported them outside of Aperture, you can use any of the other Smugmug uploaders and then continue to use Aperture while they are uploading.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I have an Apple lesson on Tuesday and I'll present this to my teacher so he can show me where to set that export quality.
I live in an Apple world so the PC code is foreign to me. Sometimes I can fake it.
Where do I find other uploaders? I've only looked into Mac compatible stuff so far. This site did convince me to try out Firefox and I'm doing OK on it because it's pretty similar to Safari.
I appreciate the help as I muddle my way through a lot of unfamiliar territory. At least this forum format is familiar. I belong to a couple of vBulletin forums.
I've been merrily posting identical photos to SmugMug and Zen from a recent trip. It's been double the upload time, but I wanted to give myself the very best comparisons of each service. Here are some more observations that came to light the last couple of days:
~~~~~~~~
Smug allows the full title of my gallery to be visible. I have fairly long titles to help people know what leg of our trip the gallery covers.
Zen shortens the titles to the first few words rendering my description useless.
Smug is still letting me post photos.
I hit Zen's limit of 1 GB on the trial account.
~~~~~~~~
I went back to the trial period sign up page and there is no notice on Zen that there is a limit to what you can upload. I sent photos unsuccessfully to the same gallery three times and then tried a new gallery with new photos. I found out about the 1 GB limit after filing two trouble reports about my photos not appearing in my galleries.
The response from Zen was that they will notify the plugin builder for Aperture.
SmugMug's fully functional trial period makes much better marketing sense. The more effort and amount of photos that I put into Smug's galleries, the more likely I am to want to preserve my work and join up. I've already got almost double the amount of photos posted here. That plainly leaves me more invested in SmugMug than I can be in Zenfolio.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
We love Apple, and our Macs
http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/SmugMugHacksAndApps
Try PictureSync, (fee) and Also SmugBrowser (FF plugin, no fee).
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Thanks for your offer to help get me straightened out. That's a tall order, but we can work in increments.
I've installed and started using Firefox. I also saw the thread on SmugBrowser and downloaded it. I'm not sure what to do with it from that point. I left a question in that thread and perhaps it's even been answered by now. I looked at the PictureSync site and it might be a better answer for me, but it seemed too much for me to deal with tonight.
I do have a question I'll throw your way. There's a comment in your help section about keywords that I need explained:
"Gotcha: Keywords have no effect on private or password-protected galleries, even if you enter them."
I've been reading about privacy, google searches and such. I'm guessing that keywords are only good for searching public galleries because you wouldn't have the password to get into someone else's gallery. What I'm curious about is why this is phrased as having "no effect" on private/password galleries. Do my keywords still go into this big pool of keywords? Is there any way that keywords can be used within one's own galleries? It would be nice to have a search mechanism for my own photos. Are they still attached to my photos, but just not visible?
The way this is stated leaves me wondering what "effect" keywords have on galleries. I tried searching a couple of phrases, but didn't go down that path very far.
Right now, you can't search keywords unless the gallery is public. They are there, but not indexed and not searchable.
Long thread here, explaining the new stuff, read particularly the posts by Baldy, on the last couple of pages....
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
They did indeed notify me of your issue. Letting the user know how much of their disk quota is being used was already on the list of features to add. Let me know if you need help with anything or have any other issues.
Also, hopefully Aperture will gain background exporting in the next version and you will be able to continue working in Aperture while it exports.
Thanks,
David
I see that Zen is prompt. What puzzles me still is the thought that having a usage counter would matter since I had no clue there was a limit I was approaching. If I were to join Zen, I would certainly not be their 1 GB limit customer. Nor would anyone who can exceed that limit in the first few days of trying out their service. By stopping me in my tracks like this, they have doused the enthusiasm I had for their method of displaying my photos.
On SmugMug I can continue to learn by doing for a few more days before I sign up. THAT makes a lot more sense in getting new customers for your product.
I went into my user panel and maxed out my posts per page. It shortened this thread from 26 pages to 7. I did not find all that many posts by Baldy scrolling through the pages. I read what I found. What are you wanting me to see?
I came up with another question, but do you want me to put them in another thread or category, or keep asking them here?
I'm going to ask this one now before I forget it.
Is there any way to make comments visible on the slideshow by default? I've spent a lot of time adding comments. I like that they display automatically on the gallery page. I'm afraid most people won't discover that toolbar at the top and know to check it to display captions. Especially on the big screen show that moves slowly, I'd like people to have the story that goes along with my photos. I'd rather have them check it to turn the comments off.
Seems like a waste of time, computer resources & bandwidth to me. Wouldnt a couple of albums on each site do the trick in the meantime??
That's the difference then I reckon, i.e. that SM and some users can see the problem:D I know it would have got to me as well.
Any service that attempts to mould itself to the user rather than the user having to mould itself to the service will win IMO (hey I thought you said you worked for Apple??? ;-) )
The only waste from a user's POV is frustration time lost trying to do what seems obvious to the user but not to the service provider - IMO
...pics..
I am REALLY sorry! Forgot to paste the link
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=6021
My bad.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Believe me, this is a mere fraction of my content. I am an avid and prolific shutterbug. Indeed, thus far I've only posted a fraction of my most recent trip.
I also do things with gusto. I am working feverishly to get my photos in order and any effort I make to that end is a step in the right direction.
I have people clamoring to see this set of photos, my primary motivation for taking the step of joining a photo sharing site in the first place. I'm doing my best to get all the photos posted for their perusal.
I expect that it will take no effort on my part for the site I don't choose to dump me if I don't sign up. I'm willing to have all my effort for naught if neither site meets my needs and expectations. I have my originals on my computer and on a ex hard drive, so it's not that drastic.
I would worry if a company saw this courtesy trial period as a waste of their resources and bandwidth. It's only for two weeks if I don't sign up.
As far as my time is concerned, once I have them adjusted, cropped and captioned, there's not much more I have to do for them to go to each service. I'm doing most of my uploading after I go to bed. It uses electricity and requires me to keep my computer on, but that part takes the least amount of my time. That is unless I have to duplicate my efforts the next day because the photos didn't show up in my gallery.
My methods seem to perturb you.
It's seems like a grand experiment to me. I'm posting identical photos so that the people who will be looking at my photos have a fair comparison. I've solicited their opinions about which site they like the best as viewers.
Yes, more galleries provides more chances for people to compare and give me their opinions. One batch I know I oversaturated. The next batch I think I lightened too much. Even so, people were comparing apples to apples. Now I've let people know that they can continue to look a new galleries on SmugMug, but I'm not making any more additions to Zen.
I'm on a roll, I have momentum and enthusiasm. Why should I limit myself to 1 GB if I'm allowed to put more on? There is no way I would be a candidate for Zen's standard option. I wouldn't even consider joining Zen at the $25 rate. Holding me to that restriction during my trial period threw cold water on a potential customer who would consider upgrading from their $40 tier when they add more features.
SmugMug, on the other hand, allows me to keep playing around. Each day I'm able to do that, I'm discovering more features and getting better at making my galleries have the look that pleases me most. One aspect of that is posting my multiple galleries with different themes. I think it's fun to try them all. (I do miss the thumbnails that Zen has to give you a quick vision without actually applying it)
It's actually very clever for SmugMug to let me keep posting. Each gallery invests me more in this site. The more familiar I get with the processes here, the less likely I am to leave. I'm the type that will probably be around for a lifetime once I settle in. I'm going to look at the $60 membership to see if that would suit me better. Who knows, maybe I'll even get a Pro account someday. Good business sense for SmugMug to indulge me during these two weeks. . . Get me good and addicted. Provide a warm welcome and a great forum. It sounds like there's some psychology at work here.
Have you any other questions? I'm glad to answer. :curtsey
I meant captions. I don't think that many people realize that checking that box (if they even discover it) turns the captions on. Could you even just add the words "Turn captions on" in the new version?
I thought of a specific example to show that posting more galleries benefitts me in making an informed judgement about which site suits me the best. I am a deliberate, cautious consumer. I do my research, often compulsively. Learning by doing is serving me well.
In the gallery I just put up on Smug, I realized that there were a few photos where it would make better sense to group them together. Prior to this, I've been content with my photos being in simple chronicalogical order. I'd thought about what it takes to rearrange photos in each site, but I hadn't been confronted with a need to try it out until last night. It didn't occur during my Zen uploading, so I didn't learn how it's done over there.
Yes, I could go there and just fool around to see how to do it, but my interest in Zen wanes everyday that I continue to work over here.
I'm delighted to see there is a drag and drop mode on this site! That suits my Apple roots just fine. :ivar
I was browsing Zenfolio's 'recently added' and came across a gallery of nude photos and wondered, would this be acceptable on Smugmug?
I know the 'museum' description of the policy but I feel it could use a real world example.
Warning, people with no clothes on!
http://gusto.zenfolio.com/p532886288/
Malte
Hi Malte,
These photos would NOT be allowed in a public SmugMug gallery. In particular, we try to keep searching and browsing as family-friendly as possible.
I hope that helps!
-Anne
Hu, so the policy is not the same for private and protected galleries? I thought it was.
For me the line is where the content is sexual, not necessarily being nude at all. To me the photos in the link are non-sexual, and I have seen plenty of photos on Smugmug that are dressed but sexual.
Here's a quick example:
http://bikeartmark.smugmug.com/gallery/857150/1/38603333/Medium
I'm not saying this type of content should be forbidden, I just find it odd that this can be fine when non-sexual nudity is not.
Malte
Yeah, Go figure. I had nude images banned that were taken during a public parade in front of police officers with people of all ages, genders and ethnicities present. I guess rules are rules though. Thankfully PBase is not as restrictive
I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own - Adam Savage
Hi,
Does this mean posting nudes is ok if you set the SmugIsland feature to an appropriate setting?