Upload question

rogersteen

hey guys,
I'm new to smugmug and just uploaded my first wedding, about 600 shots. It took about 8 hours. I figure I can always start the next upload at bedtime and let it work overnight, but wanted to check with you guys as far as specific suggestions about re-sizing my 3000 x 2000, 300 dpi originals for faster uploading...
I read the help suggestions, but wanted to ask: If you were me, and wanted customers to be able to buy 4x6 to 8x12 without me uploading a replacement shot, what pixel size/resolution would you resample to in Photoshop? That is, what would you batch process all the pix to for the speediest upload? BTW, my workflow is usually: shoot in fine jpeg, process and export to psd in Lightroom, open psd's in Photoshop and zap blemishes, etc., then batch sharpen and save to 10 quality jpeg at 300 dpi for uploading/printing. Would you suggest resampling to a smaller pixel size and a smaller dpi? (I know the help section said that saving at jpeg 7 was adequate).
Thanks,
Roger

Andy

rogersteen wrote:

hey guys,
I'm new to smugmug and just uploaded my first wedding, about 600 shots. It took about 8 hours. I figure I can always start the next upload at bedtime and let it work overnight, but wanted to check with you guys as far as specific suggestions about re-sizing my 3000 x 2000, 300 dpi originals for faster uploading...
I read the help suggestions, but wanted to ask: If you were me, and wanted customers to be able to buy 4x6 to 8x12 without me uploading a replacement shot, what pixel size/resolution would you resample to in Photoshop? That is, what would you batch process all the pix to for the speediest upload? BTW, my workflow is usually: shoot in fine jpeg, process and export to psd in Lightroom, open psd's in Photoshop and zap blemishes, etc., then batch sharpen and save to 10 quality jpeg at 300 dpi for uploading/printing. Would you suggest resampling to a smaller pixel size and a smaller dpi? (I know the help section said that saving at jpeg 7 was adequate).
Thanks,
Roger

I don't like to resize or otherwise lower the quality.
If you aren't using proof delay (you should, at the very least, so you can verify, change any crops!)
http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/ProofDelaySolveCroppingWoes
you should look into StarExplorer www.starexplorer.com and just set it at night and forget it

dogwood

Andy wrote:

I
you should look into StarExplorer www.starexplorer.com and just set it at night and forget it

And... I know I've become a bit of a star*explorer groupie, but I held off and held off on buying it because, well, I figured why did I need it? SM already has an uploader, right?

Well, in short, SE is great. And it does upload faster than the standard SM uploaders too. Best $50 I've spent in a long time. There's a slight learning curve, but once you get it down how it works, you'll wonder how you ever managed without it (kind of like going from dialup to broadband... well, not quite but you get the point).

Ben Benvie

I keep getting a "broken pipe" message while uploading. Renaming the file usually fixing the problem, but I shouldn't have to do that. Will StarExplorer solve my problems??

Andy

Ben Benvie wrote:

I keep getting a "broken pipe" message while uploading. Renaming the file usually fixing the problem, but I shouldn't have to do that. Will StarExplorer solve my problems??

That's usually a line issue between you and us. Can you run a line quality test? www.dslreports.com/linequality

Let us know?

Ben Benvie

Andy wrote:

That's usually a line issue between you and us. Can you run a line quality test? www.dslreports.com/linequality

Let us know?

I did the test and passed. Here's the link, I'm not sure if you'll be able to view it. http://www.dslreports.com/linequality/aac69ab3365c/2215577

Andy

Ben Benvie wrote:

I did the test and passed. Here's the link, I'm not sure if you'll be able to view it. http://www.dslreports.com/linequality/aac69ab3365c/2215577

I see. Can you try plugging your computer directly into your cable or dsl modem and see if you get the same error?

Ben Benvie

Andy wrote:

I see. Can you try plugging your computer directly into your cable or dsl modem and see if you get the same error?

I guess there will be no more downloading from where ever I please. Thanks, that was one headache I did not need! I plan on doing a lot of bigger gigs (ie weddings), should I still check out StarExplorer??

Ben Benvie

Ben Benvie wrote:

I guess there will be no more downloading from where ever I please. Thanks, that was one headache I did not need! I plan on doing a lot of bigger gigs (ie weddings), should I still check out StarExplorer??

ahhhhhh....I was sadly mistaken.....it happened again

here's the latest test
http://www.dslreports.com/linequality/8c824c934a6b/2215679
I failed the test from the west coast

I don't have a clue what that stuff means??

Andy

Ben Benvie wrote:

ahhhhhh....I was sadly mistaken.....it happened again

here's the latest test
http://www.dslreports.com/linequality/8c824c934a6b/2215679
I failed the test from the west coast

I don't have a clue what that stuff means??

I think it's temporary connectivity - try again?

photogmomma

Another Star Explorer fan. Definitely check it out. I use it on all my large uploads so I can set it to go to different galleries - portraits, wedding, reception, whatever - and it makes everythign easier for me and the wedding guests.....

Hockey is Life

Andy wrote:

I don't like to resize or otherwise lower the quality.
If you aren't using proof delay (you should, at the very least, so you can verify, change any crops!)
http://smugmug.jot.com/WikiHome/ProofDelaySolveCroppingWoes
you should look into StarExplorer www.starexplorer.com and just set it at night and forget it

Andy and team you guys are awesome. I tried Star*Explorer tonight and you are right it is well worth the money. I had 2.2GB to upload from a school event I did this afternoon / evening and it is set and will run overnight and be done when I get up in the morning.

Thank you for your suggestion and all the information you provide.

Nikolai

Ben Benvie wrote:

I keep getting a "broken pipe" message while uploading. Renaming the file usually fixing the problem, but I shouldn't have to do that. Will StarExplorer solve my problems??

Let me pitch in, too (and thank for the referrals, guys!).

Yes, Star*Explorer will definitely help you in this case. Apart from *many* other features, it's the only app on the market that has a persistent queue. Which means - no matter what happens, it will keep the file list you wanted to upload, and it will try times and times again (you can configure how many times it will try, default being 10, IIRC). And even if this does not work, it will keep the list intact, so you can later simply press the button again later when connection is back and go about your own business. S*E will quietly use its multiple threads to best utilize your bandwidth and upload as much as it possibly can.
Yet again, even if a disaster strikes, you can lose your connection or even your AC power - but you will never lose your upload queue (caveat: as long as your HDD is OK).

HTH

dogwood

Nikolai wrote:

Yet again, even if a disaster strikes, you can lose your connection or even your AC power - but you will never lose your upload queue (caveat: as long as your HDD is OK).

HTH

Yeah, I can attest to this. I've frozen my machine during an upload, rebooted, and star*explorer was still ready to continue the upload.

One thing though-- I find I get a couple of duplicates uploaded on big uploads (100+) and they're not always in the exact order they were uploaded... small price to pay for a great program though. No offense, SM, but S*E sure beats the pants off the default SM uploaders!

Nikolai

dogwood wrote:

Yeah, I can attest to this. I've frozen my machine during an upload, rebooted, and star*explorer was still ready to continue the upload.

Thanks, Pete! :-)

dogwood wrote:

One thing though-- I find I get a couple of duplicates uploaded on big uploads (100+) and they're not always in the exact order they were uploaded... small price to pay for a great program though.

Yeah, I know.... for some reason sometimes file's uploaded but it takes server a long time to return the ID, then timeout kicks in and S*E thinks an attempt failed, so it tries to re-upload... As to the order - with multiple threads and multiple attempts it's not humanely possible to keep the order straight. Imagine several uploaders working in parallel, with an unstable connection and intermittent failures. Second one can be on image #5 while first one still trying to deal with image #1... The only way to guarantee the order is to switch to a single threaded mode - but it's 20% slower...

Thank you for using Star*Explorer!

bham

dogwood wrote:

No offense, SM, but S*E sure beats the pants off the default SM uploaders!

I second, third and fourth that. In the last couple months I have uploaded a good 15,000 photos probably more, and I would have pulled all my hair out from all the times interuptions in the internet service between me and smugmug would have stopped the upload. I was getting that way before I got Star Explorer, but thank God I did. I don't have to worry now.

bham

Question Nik, you have the limit on file size to 8 MB (I believe, because in certain folders it won't load the larger file into the que), is that still what SM has it at? I am pretty sure they don't have that any more.

Nikolai

bham wrote:

Question Nik, you have the limit on file size to 8 MB (I believe, because in certain folders it won't load the larger file into the que), is that still what SM has it at? I am pretty sure they don't have that any more.

First of all, thank you for your kind words!

Size limit: IIFC, it's 16 for SM PRo account. In any case, S*E has its own setting which you can adjust to your liking. I don't recommend to set it over the actual SM account specific limit, though, since it would just try to upload huge files that will be eventually rejected by the server.

HTH

dogwood

Nikolai wrote:

Yeah, I know.... for some reason sometimes file's uploaded but it takes server a long time to return the ID, then timeout kicks in and S*E thinks an attempt failed, so it tries to re-upload... As to the order - with multiple threads and multiple attempts it's not humanely possible to keep the order straight. Imagine several uploaders working in parallel, with an unstable connection and intermittent failures. Second one can be on image #5 while first one still trying to deal with image #1... The only way to guarantee the order is to switch to a single threaded mode - but it's 20% slower...

Nikolai:

Ahhh-- that makes perfect sense now. Thanks for the explanation. Like I say, it's a very minor thing for me. The upload timeouts and all from the default SM uploaders though... that was more than minor! Glad to know S*E is working as intended (fast and making sure everything gets uploaded). I'll take duplicates over failure to upload anyday!

Nikolai

dogwood wrote:

I'll take duplicates over failure to upload anyday!

That was my line of thoughts, too:-)