I've noticed something strange about the new sizes: they don't seem to be remembered as they were before. Previously with Smugmug, if I clicked on an image from the Smugmug Gallery view it would take me to the "full image" view - and if I had last clicked size "M" it would remember that. Now if I go to an image:
...and shut down the browser tab (I'm not clearing out cookies or anything, just closing the tab), and head back to the gallery, I once again see the size large. It even happens when I click on the image to go back to the Smugmug gallery view...clicking on an image takes me to a size "L" preview, not the XL I had previously selected. This is in Firefox 2.0.0.8 on Windows Vista.
Internet Explorer 7 has it's own quirks - it ALWAYS presents size XL, even if I've previously selected size "M"...except the URL looks like it's size large:
I know I read in this forum that XL is the new size "L", but regardless, shouldn't Smugmug continue to remember the size that the user selected? XL is great, but maybe someone with a low-res monitor (or someone that isn't browsing full screen) would prever to have size "L". I always liked that feature about Smugmug...
Lightbox now auto-selects the largest size that will fit on the screen. Someone with a high-res display may get XL size where a lo-res display may get Large or Medium. You can manually select different sizes once in lightbox but closing and reopening lightbox will enable auto-sizing again. -A on the url indicates auto-sizing.
Please preserve copyright info in the large size EXIF
I've mentioned this before, but now with the new sizes I feel like this matters even more with the new larger viewing sizes.
I would like a few important fields of IPTC/XMP data (like copyright info) to be preserved in the M, L, XL, XL2, XL3 sizes. Right now, everything is stripped from all generated sizes. This is about clarifying the legal ownership for these larger sized images, even in cases where someone borrows them. If we're just talking about a few ownership-related fields, this shouldn't be impactful on the size of the images.
Yes, I know that this info could be stripped by a knowledgable thief, but in cases where it isn't stripped, it would be nice to have that info in the images.
I've mentioned this before, but now with the new sizes I feel like this matters even more with the new larger viewing sizes.
I would like a few important fields of IPTC/XMP data (like copyright info) to be preserved in the M, L, XL, XL2, XL3 sizes. Right now, everything is stripped from all generated sizes. This is about clarifying the legal ownership for these larger sized images, even in cases where someone borrows them. If we're just talking about a few ownership-related fields, this shouldn't be impactful on the size of the images.
Yes, I know that this info could be stripped by a knowledgable thief, but in cases where it isn't stripped, it would be nice to have that info in the images.
Along the same lines, I was thinking that instead of today's binary choice of "watermarking: yes/no" I would like to see the ability to watermark only above a chosen size. That way, the smaller, hard-to-pirate sizes would not need to be significantly obstructed by a watermark, while the high-res, tempting-to-pirate versions would have a watermark.
I've mentioned this before, but now with the new sizes I feel like this matters even more with the new larger viewing sizes.
I would like a few important fields of IPTC/XMP data (like copyright info) to be preserved in the M, L, XL, XL2, XL3 sizes. Right now, everything is stripped from all generated sizes. This is about clarifying the legal ownership for these larger sized images, even in cases where someone borrows them. If we're just talking about a few ownership-related fields, this shouldn't be impactful on the size of the images.
Yes, I know that this info could be stripped by a knowledgable thief, but in cases where it isn't stripped, it would be nice to have that info in the images.
One could even argue that once you get to the XL+ sizes, all the EXIF/IPTC/XMP data can be retained. Because, at those sizes, metadata becomes a less significant percentage of overall file size and therefore has a less perceptable impact on download speed. By extension, I'm also assuming the additional storage capacity needed on SmugMug's side would be insignificant as well.
I'm a Standard user, and I'd also like to have the option to hide originals as we had before. I was really annoyed to find out after I made one of my most recent galleries public, that users could view my photos in sizes that I really didn't want them to see.
One thing, on the customize gallery page, I can only select "Original" or "X3Large" in the Largest Size select box. Can you add more sizes in the box, such as Large or XL, please? Also, please restore the "Show/Block Originals" radio button.
One of the main reasons I joined Smugmug over 2 years ago was because I could block originals without having to resize all my photos. If this feature is permanently removed, I'll be forced rethink my membership.
I read a few posts up that the management will be restoring some of these features. When can we expect this to be completed?
Thanks for listening!
Ditto -- why not go all the way down to simple Large? I definitely resent the limit on maximum size choices. Hell for my little 6 megapix camera triple X is almost original What is the point of having just the two choices -- Original or triple X????
One could even argue that once you get to the XL+ sizes, all the EXIF/IPTC/XMP data can be retained. Because, at those sizes, metadata becomes a less significant percentage of overall file size and therefore has a less perceptable impact on download speed. By extension, I'm also assuming the additional storage capacity needed on SmugMug's side would be insignificant as well.
Ditto -- why not go all the way down to simple Large? I definitely resent the limit on maximum size choices. Hell for my little 6 megapix camera triple X is almost original What is the point of having just the two choices -- Original or triple X????
Anicca - the Theory of Impermanence: camera changes, photos stay (in Smugmug). About me - one of the the junior siblings in Dgrin family (DOB May 2006).
In the odd case that you're a Pro account holder that doesn't use watermarks, and you *want* the new sizes generated, I discovered that if you "unwatermark" a photo that doesn't actually have a watermark, it generates the new sizes for you. Pretty damn quickly, it would seem.
I've mentioned this before, but now with the new sizes I feel like this matters even more with the new larger viewing sizes.
I would like a few important fields of IPTC/XMP data (like copyright info) to be preserved in the M, L, XL, XL2, XL3 sizes. Right now, everything is stripped from all generated sizes. This is about clarifying the legal ownership for these larger sized images, even in cases where someone borrows them. If we're just talking about a few ownership-related fields, this shouldn't be impactful on the size of the images.
Yes, I know that this info could be stripped by a knowledgable thief, but in cases where it isn't stripped, it would be nice to have that info in the images.
I've been looking into this. So one big "IF" is if we can selectively parse out metadata without impacting image processing time. Coupla data points, based on my analysis this morning. We gen 8 display sizes, but even if we just were able to keep full metadata on the XL, XL2 and XL3 copies, that could be around 300Kb per image you upload to SmugMug. We took in 100,000,000 images in our first four years in business, and then 100,000,000 more in just the last one year So there are some costs to consider, not only storage, bandwidth, but then page-weight. What is the impact of ~100Kb to the on-page viewing experience in a SmugMug gallery in smugmug style? Keep in mind, SmugMungous part II is to have the gallery be fluid, stretch, to fill your giant monitors with many thumbnails and a XL, or perhaps even larger, main image We want SmugMug to be really fast, for everyone. So we have to consider that, very high on the list of decision points. In fact, the on-page, in-gallery experience is probably the most important factor, moreso than the cost of storage and bandwidth (which we do probably better than ANYone out there in this business).
The above is mitigated, if we could do what you suggest, keeping ONLY say the copyright notice, copyright status, and author fields, for example. But I have no idea how do-able that is, given our image processing tools/steps/workflow, or if it's even a reasonable interim step to add, without causing processing delay, cost and overhead. Over the past year and a half, overall, we've improved image processing dramatically, and yes, there have been bumps in the road from time to time, but we no longer have those nasty Sunday night backlogs in the queue. SmugMug customers today are accustomed to rapid image processing, and we want to keep it that way.
- Is this important to you?
- Do you have a Standard or Power level account (or if you're thinking about signing up, what level you're eyeing)?
Thanks!
1. Yes, I just signed up for a trial membership and i don't like the idea of not being able to block images greater than large size. I'm not a pro, but I am not pleased with the idea of people using my images without my consent. Because of this I won't be uploading any more large images.
2. Trial account, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.
I think you should be able to block images greater than large size, even with a standard account.
1. Yes, I just signed up for a trial membership and i don't like the idea of not being able to block images greater than large size. I'm not a pro, but I am not pleased with the idea of people using my images without my consent. Because of this I won't be uploading any more large images.
This IS coming to some degree, although you'll only be able to block images larger than the new XL size, see this post by Baldy on page 10 of this thread. While not yet implemented it is testing and coming "soon" according to andy in this post
The above is mitigated, if we could do what you suggest, keeping ONLY say the copyright notice, copyright status, and author fields, for example. But I have no idea how do-able that is, given our image processing tools/steps/workflow, or if it's even a reasonable interim step to add, without causing processing delay, cost and overhead. Over the past year and a half, overall, we've improved image processing dramatically, and yes, there have been bumps in the road from time to time, but we no longer have those nasty Sunday night backlogs in the queue. SmugMug customers today are accustomed to rapid image processing, and we want to keep it that way.
Why couldn't it be setup like watermarking? Instead of adding a watermark to the images, you add the above exif/iptc data?
Coupla data points, based on my analysis this morning. We gen 8 display sizes, but even if we just were able to keep full metadata on the XL, XL2 and XL3 copies, that could be around 300Kb per image you upload to SmugMug.
Hmm. I threw out the idea of preserving all metadata down to XL under the impression it was on the order of 20K per image. At 100K, I can see how that's a bigger deal. I checked a little data myself and found the following sizes for an example image: XL: 217K, X2: 320K, & X3: 477K. If you added 100K of metadata to each of those, you'd be allocating an additional 30% in memory to store it. That's a pretty big hit; whereas, it would only be a 6% increase at 20K. Of course, if you calculate that as a percentage of total storage, factoring in the originals, that mitigates the impact a bit more. But, even if the total storage impact is something like 5%, that's still a lot of disk space SmugMug's got to pay for.
I do still like John's idea. But, I can see how it would have to be a stripped down set of data to be reasonable.
We gen 8 display sizes, but even if we just were able to keep full metadata on the XL, XL2 and XL3 copies, that could be around 300Kb per image you upload to SmugMug.
I've just done a quick test with lightroom and the size difference between ticking the "minimise embedded metadata" and not during export. For images from the Canon 5D, it is 6,218 bytes difference in filesize.
Looking at the files with exiftool shows that that that 6kb difference between files includes all the camera settings, copyright and raw conversion settings.
In the odd case that you're a Pro account holder that doesn't use watermarks, and you *want* the new sizes generated, I discovered that if you "unwatermark" a photo that doesn't actually have a watermark, it generates the new sizes for you. Pretty damn quickly, it would seem.
In the odd case that you're a Pro account holder that doesn't use watermarks, and you *want* the new sizes generated, I discovered that if you "unwatermark" a photo that doesn't actually have a watermark, it generates the new sizes for you. Pretty damn quickly, it would seem.
Bah, just use the SmugMungous photo tool. That's what it is for!
(under the photo, photo tools, SmugMungous! (bulk))
Many thanks for taking the time to pour your hearts out regarding this issue. The honest answer is none of us at SmugMug ever imagined this could happen. Nothing would be worse than not knowing we disappointed some of you, so we're glad you spoke up.
As far as sneaking it out goes, trust me when I say we would have LOVED to spam you with "The extra-large photo sizes you've all been wanting are here!" (We now know that not all were wanting them.)
If we'd had a clue that there would be consternation instead of the dancing in the streets we had envisioned, we would have figured out how to make more noise in advance of it.
There's no way we want these larger sizes to be a reason for you to upgrade to a Pro subscription. So we're changing the customize gallery tool for standard and power users to enable you to restrict X2Large and X3Large. It isn't live at the moment, but we're working on it and hope to have it done quickly.
Why not enable blocking of XL? The answer is XL is the new L. It's a standard feature of photo sharing sites now because L looks so archaic on modern monitors, as our customers tell us all day long. We've tried to provide private islands, plus private and password-protected albums for sensitive photos.
I hope this helps and wish I had an answer that would please everyone.
All the best,
Baldy
We've made this live, folks. Standard and Power customers can now restrict X2 and X3 sizes, it's in your gallery customizing page
Thanks so much again for everyone's patience, and for sticking with us. We truly do have the greatest customers
Okay, we are now apparently down as far as XLarge as the maximum option for large sizes (there must be a better way to say that!) -- but why not back to where we were, ie Large as a choice for maximum size??? Just one more button...
Okay, we are now apparently down as far as XLarge as the maximum option for large sizes (there must be a better way to say that!) -- but why not back to where we were, ie Large as a choice for maximum size??? Just one more button...
Hello, our reasons are stated in Baldy's post above (quoted in my last post).
I'm sorry I don't have a better or different answer for you
Hah! Then my suggestion to use unwatermark (for non-watermarkering Pro users like me) to get the Smugmungous rendering was good for a full 16 or so hours before the Smugmungous Tool appeared under Photo Tools.
(Based on Andy and Sheaf's postings, it rolled around 5:30pm PDT)
Comments
I love your customization BTW.
I've mentioned this before, but now with the new sizes I feel like this matters even more with the new larger viewing sizes.
I would like a few important fields of IPTC/XMP data (like copyright info) to be preserved in the M, L, XL, XL2, XL3 sizes. Right now, everything is stripped from all generated sizes. This is about clarifying the legal ownership for these larger sized images, even in cases where someone borrows them. If we're just talking about a few ownership-related fields, this shouldn't be impactful on the size of the images.
Yes, I know that this info could be stripped by a knowledgable thief, but in cases where it isn't stripped, it would be nice to have that info in the images.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Seconded.
www.ackersphotography.com
www.steveboothphotography.com
Pool/Billiards specific...
www.poolinaction.com
Good idea.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
About me - one of the the junior siblings in Dgrin family (DOB May 2006).
The above is mitigated, if we could do what you suggest, keeping ONLY say the copyright notice, copyright status, and author fields, for example. But I have no idea how do-able that is, given our image processing tools/steps/workflow, or if it's even a reasonable interim step to add, without causing processing delay, cost and overhead. Over the past year and a half, overall, we've improved image processing dramatically, and yes, there have been bumps in the road from time to time, but we no longer have those nasty Sunday night backlogs in the queue. SmugMug customers today are accustomed to rapid image processing, and we want to keep it that way.
:jfriend
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
1. Yes, I just signed up for a trial membership and i don't like the idea of not being able to block images greater than large size. I'm not a pro, but I am not pleased with the idea of people using my images without my consent. Because of this I won't be uploading any more large images.
2. Trial account, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter.
I think you should be able to block images greater than large size, even with a standard account.
This IS coming to some degree, although you'll only be able to block images larger than the new XL size, see this post by Baldy on page 10 of this thread. While not yet implemented it is testing and coming "soon" according to andy in this post
Why couldn't it be setup like watermarking? Instead of adding a watermark to the images, you add the above exif/iptc data?
I do still like John's idea. But, I can see how it would have to be a stripped down set of data to be reasonable.
www.ackersphotography.com
I'm confused. Some of my galleries show the new sizes as an option, some do not. Am I missing something obvious here?
For example, photos uploaded same day, same camera, same sub cat:
http://dugmar.smugmug.com/Travel/396865
This gallery allows for the XL and new sizes:
http://dugmar.smugmug.com/gallery/3665751
However, this one does not:
http://dugmar.smugmug.com/gallery/3665614
Rotate left, wait till they are rotated, then rotate right.
http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2007/10/15/smugmungous-october-15th-2007/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I've just done a quick test with lightroom and the size difference between ticking the "minimise embedded metadata" and not during export. For images from the Canon 5D, it is 6,218 bytes difference in filesize.
Looking at the files with exiftool shows that that that 6kb difference between files includes all the camera settings, copyright and raw conversion settings.
We're not talking hundreds of Kilobytes of data.
There can be geodata, keywords, caption, and much more in the metadata, and it can add up
Thanks!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My Website index | My Blog
Bah, just use the SmugMungous photo tool. That's what it is for!
(under the photo, photo tools, SmugMungous! (bulk))
We've made this live, folks. Standard and Power customers can now restrict X2 and X3 sizes, it's in your gallery customizing page
Thanks so much again for everyone's patience, and for sticking with us. We truly do have the greatest customers
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Nice! Thanks.
www.steveboothphotography.com
Pool/Billiards specific...
www.poolinaction.com
Hello, our reasons are stated in Baldy's post above (quoted in my last post).
I'm sorry I don't have a better or different answer for you
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
You all make it easy to be great customers when you offer great service. Thanks again to everyone at Smugmug HQ for listening.
Gallery of mine...caution, it's under CONSTANT construction! | Photo Journal
In the right light, at the right time, everything is extraordinary. ~Aaron Rose
Bah -- when did you sneak that in there? :-}
....
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
Hah! Then my suggestion to use unwatermark (for non-watermarkering Pro users like me) to get the Smugmungous rendering was good for a full 16 or so hours before the Smugmungous Tool appeared under Photo Tools.
(Based on Andy and Sheaf's postings, it rolled around 5:30pm PDT)
:-}