Server side copy

GKP

I know there are hacks for making copies out there but I was wondering why smugmug has not added a mass copy under photo tools? Mass move is there so it should not be too hard to create the new function.

I want to make a new gallery and copy only a subset of maybe 10 or 20 photos into it. right now I can do this only though a painful make 2nd copy then find the image and move it... or download a hack and hope it does what i need.

Will a user friendly mass copy be in the future?

-Greg

corbosman

GKP wrote:

I know there are hacks for making copies out there but I was wondering why smugmug has not added a mass copy under photo tools? Mass move is there so it should not be too hard to create the new function.

I want to make a new gallery and copy only a subset of maybe 10 or 20 photos into it. right now I can do this only though a painful make 2nd copy then find the image and move it... or download a hack and hope it does what i need.

Will a user friendly mass copy be in the future?

-Greg

Smugmug is not a democracy, but i would vote against it. Instead I think they should put all their effort into virtual galleries. I would love to be able to make a centralized image store and then create virtual galleries from that pool of images.

Cor

BeachBill

Like Cor said, I've been previously told that a bulk copy feature would be useless once virtual galleries are around and they would rather spend time working on getting virtual galleries to us instead of working on a bandaid.

I wish they would hurry up as not having the virtual galleries feature also messes up popular photo ranking. If you have two copies of one photo in two different galleries with photo rank turned on in both galleries, you can potentially get two copies of the one photo listed in your popular photos. This has happened to me so I've had to turn off photorank in some galleries to try to prevent this and then waste time be telling people they need to "thumbs up" the photo in the other gallery to get it ranked properly.

GKP

I would be all for that too
Virtual galleries would be cool. As long as it supported multiple watermarks for the same image.


Here is what I want to do, when a client buys a print of any size I want to be able to send them a link to a gallery containing the images they bought at large resolution without the watermark. Basicly buy a print get a download free.

If your virtual galleries would let me do that then YAY

In the past I personally wrote a virtual file system inside a database so yes I know the advantages of having things virtual. for one thing you can hide the files true filename and location. In the system I wrote I would serve off an image in various quality levels based on a membership level. Non members would see low quality images if viewing a basic members image. If viewing a premium members image the non member would see the high quality version. saved alot on bandwidth. I had a whole caching system set up too so I didnt have to generate images on the fly all the time... This all ran under linux, and although funding on the project was cut I still have the code and knowledge although I am rusty on my PHP a little now


-Greg

Dna

There is this ...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=35684


But it costs for the unlimited version ... :nah

Andrew

GKP

Yeah I looked at this and wondered if it was all server side, for example does it just automate the http calls to make a second copy on the server and then do another http call to move it.. or does it download the gallery/photos you select and then re-upload them into the new gallery. I ask this because while my download is fast my upload is pretty slow

-G

iamback

corbosman wrote:

Smugmug is not a democracy, but i would vote against it. Instead I think they should put all their effort into virtual galleries. I would love to be able to make a centralized image store and then create virtual galleries from that pool of images.

But that would be only one way to implement it (though conceptually the nicest). Much simpler from a conversion point of view would be to keep the existing "physical" galleries and add virtual galleries which would have only links to images. You'd have two different types of containers but all the existing ones would stay exactly the same

liggitt

GKP wrote:

Yeah I looked at this and wondered if it was all server side, for example does it just automate the http calls to make a second copy on the server and then do another http call to move it.. or does it download the gallery/photos you select and then re-upload them into the new gallery.

Hey there... that utility copies files server-side... it automates the existing http requests to make a 2nd copy, then move that copy to the other gallery. That's how it's able to retain the server-side data, tags, etc. Hopefully, that is easier on your network connection.

GKP

liggitt wrote:

Hey there... that utility copies files server-side... it automates the existing http requests to make a 2nd copy, then move that copy to the other gallery. That's how it's able to retain the server-side data, tags, etc. Hopefully, that is easier on your network connection.

Cool good to know thanks!

Rhuarc

iamback wrote:

But that would be only one way to implement it (though conceptually the nicest). Much simpler from a conversion point of view would be to keep the existing "physical" galleries and add virtual galleries which would have only links to images. You'd have two different types of containers but all the existing ones would stay exactly the same

I agree!!! I have mentioned this before as well. Being able to put all the shots from my vacation in one REAL gallery, then create a virtual gallery of flowers and have the flower pictures from my vacation show up in that gallery would be perfect! Right now you have to hack things to do this using keyword galleries, and you can only do it as a Power user.

Virtual Galleries Please!