A wider space will natrually accomodate larger image size better.
Yes and they're working on it - here's an example on what is currently been worked on. There won't be just this huge size, but also intermediate sizes to accompany it. If you feel like reading more about the feature check this this thread, where I also pulled the example from.
The mantras we hope to adhere to are first, do no harm. We know that there will always be people who like it just the way it is.
On the other hand, we want to make it so people who do like the larger image sizes can enable them on older galleries and at a pace where we can actually do it when they ask us to—without messing with new image processing, which is going to get harder.
No one has the compute power and bandwidth to rework 130,000,000 originals across multiple data centers very quickly, especially when you're talking about display copies this big with watermarking. Ow. :cool
We do plan to make the larger display sizes when you upload new images to old galleries and when you replace photos.
If that was the only way in the beginning to generate large photos in old galleries while we made sure all sytems were bullet proof for the 30,000 images we receive an hour now, would the world end?
Would it cause people to delete old albums and re-upload the same photos to new ones? We want to avoid the issue we have now, that when we fall behind on image processing, some people keep uploading the same batch repeatedly, making it harder to catch up.
Your thoughts.
Thanks!
Chris
Chris, would a button for a gallery "Update images to XL" be out of the question?
I can see the problem with people going and clicking that for all of their galleries, maybe allow only one gallery per account per day?
I haven't visited in a couple months, but my shrinking pictures on ever-increasing monitor sizes (ever have an instructor try to critique a 400x600 image on a 2048 pixel screen) caused me to stop back.
Did I miss some anything on implementing larger image size. It's been over 15 months since the larger image size rumbles started.
Speaking of custom image sizes, I just posted a custom sizes feature request which may be relevant here. I'd like to be able to get custom sizes larger than large without having to enable originals. XL seems like one way to do it.
Sorry about screwing up your post / quote there - I uploaded that pic again (after processing it again), and it renamed itself - hence the broken IMG links.
Sorry about screwing up your post / quote there - I uploaded that pic again (after processing it again), and it renamed itself - hence the broken IMG links.
Hi Chet....I'm not sure, but thought you might have meant this explanation for ME (papajay)...which, if true, makes me feel better that there was a missing image link. (So, for a change it wasn't "operator error" on MY part, which is a huge relief!...I've managed to turn myself inside out more than once with those little red-x boxes!). Thanks. Time for a beer.
It seems one thing we need is a way for people go to to past galleries and generate these sizes. People with hundreds of galleries aren't going to want to do this one at a time, and it isn't clear right now what you'd do to trigger it.
this is something that would benefit quite few of the controls i.e. to be able to do them globally aswellas/insteadof locally per gallery
Forgot to mention: I am only interested in larger sizes in the lightbox mode
It's been over seven months since this thread was posted. I switched over to smugmug thinking XL size pictures were right around the corner. This is turning into a mighty long corner!
By my math, an image in my gallery takes up 13.9% of my screen, which has a fairly common resolution. I hoping the solution isn't still chasing 1280 monitors, as described in the initial message. IMHO, 1650 should be the minimum target for the largest size.
Slightly of topic, but out of curiosity, and not to be smart or anything, what do you think is a common resolution? what is yours? This is actually a general question, not so specific to you.
I'm surprised myself, by what I think is the most used resolution, and the second most, etc., and what they actually are.
Slightly of topic, but out of curiosity, and not to be smart or anything, what do you think is a common resolution? what is yours? This is actually a general question, not so specific to you.
I'm surprised myself, by what I think is the most used resolution, and the second most, etc., and what they actually are.
The easier solution here would be a design that let's the viewer use as much of their screen as they want, whether their monitor/graphics card is large or small. Some people will have gigantic monitors with lots of pixels, some will have compact laptops without such big screens.
I'm just hoping that Smugmug completes the flex-layout that started with the Javascript driven Smugmug style and fill it in with larger sizes so those viewers who do have large monitors can take advantage of them whether or not they are in the majority or minority. Designing to the most common denominator will still leave >50% unhappy. Making the design adapt to whatever window size you have active can make everyone happy because the viewer is in control rather than living by preset sizes.
With this philosophy, the question would be "what is the largest screen we should make it look good on?", not what is the most common screen size.
By my math, an image in my gallery takes up 13.9% of my screen, which has a fairly common resolution. I hoping the solution isn't still chasing 1280 monitors, as described in the initial message. IMHO, 1650 should be the minimum target for the largest size.
Yup. It's taking longer than we hope, but it's still just as important to us - and you.
Slightly of topic, but out of curiosity, and not to be smart or anything, what do you think is a common resolution? what is yours? This is actually a general question, not so specific to you.
I'm surprised myself, by what I think is the most used resolution, and the second most, etc., and what they actually are.
Mine is 1680x1050, fairly mainstream for 20-22" widescreen monitors nowadays. This may not be the most used currently, but I bet it's near the top for most purchased currently.
Obviously, a dynamic screen layout to maximize use of whatever resolution a viewer is using would be best. I'd be very happy with that as I need to hop back and forth with my 1280x1024 (iirc) work laptop, mom views it on her paleolithic 800x600, etc.
Slightly of topic, but out of curiosity, and not to be smart or anything, what do you think is a common resolution? what is yours? This is actually a general question, not so specific to you.
I'm surprised myself, by what I think is the most used resolution, and the second most, etc., and what they actually are.
I don't tink it really matters what is the most common, because you won't win by designing it for the most common; the most common monitors will not be owned most commonly by those that are passionate about their photography
Comments
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
A wider space will natrually accomodate larger image size better.
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
Chris, would a button for a gallery "Update images to XL" be out of the question?
I can see the problem with people going and clicking that for all of their galleries, maybe allow only one gallery per account per day?
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
Did I miss some anything on implementing larger image size. It's been over 15 months since the larger image size rumbles started.
Sebastian
SmugMug Support Hero
how we going here? dang i wish i could offer people something somewhere between 800px and 30000000000000000000000px
bump dittos
I also want an XL Size. I almost went with Zenfolio for this reason, but SmugMug kept me with the scaling slide show.
It would be nice if the slideshow had an option to only scale down.
I don't want my few small pictures to loose quality.
http://dennismullen.smugmug.com/
I find that portrait pictures just aren't big enough in L size. For example:
That's the point of the SmugMungous
Nothing new yet, sorry.
BTW, for forum posts and such, Don't forget custom image sizes
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Nothing new yet, sorry.
BTW, for forum posts and such, Don't forget custom image sizes
Seems like I go for months without seeing these obnoxious little red "x"'s inside a box, then all of a sudden they start showing up again.
I can never seem to figure out why. Can someone tell me why I'm not seeing whatever is obviously supposed to be there?
Sorry about screwing up your post / quote there - I uploaded that pic again (after processing it again), and it renamed itself - hence the broken IMG links.
Hi Chet....I'm not sure, but thought you might have meant this explanation for ME (papajay)...which, if true, makes me feel better that there was a missing image link. (So, for a change it wasn't "operator error" on MY part, which is a huge relief!...I've managed to turn myself inside out more than once with those little red-x boxes!). Thanks. Time for a beer.
Beer sounds great, can I have one too?
Forgot to mention: I am only interested in larger sizes in the lightbox mode
...pics..
By my math, an image in my gallery takes up 13.9% of my screen, which has a fairly common resolution. I hoping the solution isn't still chasing 1280 monitors, as described in the initial message. IMHO, 1650 should be the minimum target for the largest size.
I'm surprised myself, by what I think is the most used resolution, and the second most, etc., and what they actually are.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
The easier solution here would be a design that let's the viewer use as much of their screen as they want, whether their monitor/graphics card is large or small. Some people will have gigantic monitors with lots of pixels, some will have compact laptops without such big screens.
I'm just hoping that Smugmug completes the flex-layout that started with the Javascript driven Smugmug style and fill it in with larger sizes so those viewers who do have large monitors can take advantage of them whether or not they are in the majority or minority. Designing to the most common denominator will still leave >50% unhappy. Making the design adapt to whatever window size you have active can make everyone happy because the viewer is in control rather than living by preset sizes.
With this philosophy, the question would be "what is the largest screen we should make it look good on?", not what is the most common screen size.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Thanks for hanging in there!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Mine is 1680x1050, fairly mainstream for 20-22" widescreen monitors nowadays. This may not be the most used currently, but I bet it's near the top for most purchased currently.
Obviously, a dynamic screen layout to maximize use of whatever resolution a viewer is using would be best. I'd be very happy with that as I need to hop back and forth with my 1280x1024 (iirc) work laptop, mom views it on her paleolithic 800x600, etc.
I don't tink it really matters what is the most common, because you won't win by designing it for the most common; the most common monitors will not be owned most commonly by those that are passionate about their photography
(written on a 1680*1050 screen ;-))
...pics..