thumbnail size

winnjewett

I love the 160 pixel thumbnails that pbase users have. Any chance we could choose what size thumbnails to use?

-w

winnjewett

For that matter, I would also like to be able to choose the medium and large sizes as well. I often find that the large is too small, but original is WAY too big.

Would anyone else like to see this feature?

-w

{JT}

This won't happen ... ever

The reasons we won't do that are many, but maybe I could figure out a way to have style sheets resize the image sizes for you (unlikely, unless you want to only upload images that are the same dimensions).

winnjewett wrote:

For that matter, I would also like to be able to choose the medium and large sizes as well. I often find that the large is too small, but original is WAY too big.

Would anyone else like to see this feature?

-w

devbobo

winnjewett wrote:

I love the 160 pixel thumbnails that pbase users have. Any chance we could choose what size thumbnails to use?

-w

To size the thumbnails, add this code to your stylesheet settings...

img.smborderoff[width="150"]
{
width: 160px;
height: 120px;
}

img.smborder[width="150"]
{
width: 160px;
height: 120px;
}

img.smborderoff[height="150"]
{
width: 120px;
height: 160px;
}

img.smborder[height="150"]
{
width: 120px;
height: 160px;
}


Cheers,

David

winnjewett

Thanks for both of your suggestions. However, I don't feel that it is professional to allow the web browser to resize images. This usually ends up either looking horrible (images that are upsized) or taking up an excess of bandwidth (images that are downsized) or both.

No, I feel that the only solution is to use the decent resizing algorithm that smugmug's tools use to create small images. Otherwise, I will live with the images as they are.

On the other hand, if you have examples of an image that is resized by way of CSS that you think looks good, I would love to see it.

-w

winnjewett

{JT} wrote:

This won't happen ... ever

The reasons we won't do that are many...

Wow, those are some strong words. I'd like to hear some of the main reasons why smugmug will never allow its customers to choose image sizes.

-w

devbobo

winnjewett wrote:

On the other hand, if you have examples of an image that is resized by way of CSS that you think looks good, I would love to see it.

-w

my above example is the image being resized via the css, give it a try it looks fine.

winnjewett

devbobo wrote:

my above example is the image being resized via the css, give it a try it looks fine.

I ran into several problems trying to implement your code. The first is that all of my thumbnails are 100 pixels on the longest side. So, the code had no effect on my site.

To fix this, I changed the conditional [width/height="150"] to 100. This gave me some odd results. In firefox, it expanded the border without resizing the image. In IE, it had no effect. Do you have a working example for this code?

By the way, Thank you very much for taking the time to work through this with me.
-w

Nikolai

My $.0002

winnjewett wrote:

To fix this, I changed the conditional [width/height="150"] to 100. This gave me some odd results. In firefox, it expanded the border without resizing the image. In IE, it had no effect.

I might be wrong, but I think you need to change the contents of the { ... } block, not the "150" header.
You need to operate with those 160/120 thingies... me thinks
HTH

{JT}

winnjewett wrote:

I'd like to hear some of the main reasons why smugmug will never allow its customers to choose image sizes.

First off - we have over 15 million images now (maybe even more, only Don knows for sure) - so if we ever offered another size, we would have to go through the entire list of files and make a new size for each of them and that could take a month of CPU time.

Second, we also just can't swap out your definition of medium for our definition of medium. Gallery templates, tools, homepages - they are all designed with images being a certain width and height in mind. Once you make your thumbs a bit larger - certain pages like elegant small will gain horizontal scrolling, and that looks bad.

Third, we are not always going to take the time to explain our reasoning Not trying to be "strong", but I would rather work on shopping cart improvements right now than explain reasoning for something that won't change.

PS: Many thanks to devbobo for the quick css, that is exactly the solution I had in mind.

Nikolai

Please tell me

{JT} wrote:

... but I would rather work on shopping cart improvements right now ...

...we gonna have API for the shopping cart

winnjewett

{JT} wrote:

First off - we have over 15 million images now (maybe even more, only Don knows for sure) - so if we ever offered another size, we would have to go through the entire list of files and make a new size for each of them and that could take a month of CPU time.

Respectfully, I disagree. When a user sets the preference for thumbnail size, only that user's images would have to be reprocessed.

{JT} wrote:

Second, we also just can't swap out your definition of medium for our definition of medium. Gallery templates, tools, homepages - they are all designed with images being a certain width and height in mind. Once you make your thumbs a bit larger - certain pages like elegant small will gain horizontal scrolling, and that looks bad.

I think you are right about this one. It would be very confusing, to have multiple medium sizes.

I would like to see an Extra-Large image size, available by request (cp setting) only to avoid reprocessing all 15M photos.

{JT} wrote:

Third, we are not always going to take the time to explain our reasoning Not trying to be "strong", but I would rather work on shopping cart improvements right now than explain reasoning for something that won't change.

JT, I certainly appreciate the time you take out of your busy schedule to answer your user's questions. I realize that you and the rest of the team all play a critical role in the development and maintenance of smugmug. However, smugmug has always prided itself on its customer service. Trying to lay a guilt trip on one of your customers for trying to understand why a certain feature request "won't happen ... ever" - with a smiley face after it - is downright rude.

-Winn

devbobo

winn,

forgot to ask yesterday.....what style are u using for ur albums ?

Did you know if u use 'traditional' u will get a bigger thumbnail ?

David

winnjewett

devbobo wrote:

winn,

forgot to ask yesterday.....what style are u using for ur albums ?

Did you know if u use 'traditional' u will get a bigger thumbnail ?

David

Wow! Would'ya Look at That. I had no idea there was a bigger thumbnail size already. Is traditional the only style that works with? Is there any way to force that size on the home page?

-w

devbobo

winnjewett wrote:

I had no idea there was a bigger thumbnail size already

- Tiny (default for most styles...I think)
- Thumb
- Small
- Medium
- Large
- Original

winnjewett wrote:

Is traditional the only style that works with?

I think so

winnjewett wrote:

Is there any way to force that size on the home page?

Not that I can see.

Sorry,

David

winnjewett

David, thanks very much for all your help. One thing I have noticed is that in firefox, when you mouseover your thumbnails, they default back to the original size. If that size happens to put the photo so that it no longer is under the mouse, when you move slightly, the photo flips back to the big size, but then your mouse is over, so it flips back to the small size. I hope my description is clear enough to understand. I think that you might have simply forgotten to put in the swborderon tags.

You probably know this already, but the bigger thumbs don't show up in ie.

Again, thanks for your help,
-w

devbobo

winnjewett wrote:

David, thanks very much for all your help. One thing I have noticed is that in firefox, when you mouseover your thumbnails, they default back to the original size. If that size happens to put the photo so that it no longer is under the mouse, when you move slightly, the photo flips back to the big size, but then your mouse is over, so it flips back to the small size. I hope my description is clear enough to understand. I think that you might have simply forgotten to put in the swborderon tags.

You probably know this already, but the bigger thumbs don't show up in ie.

Again, thanks for your help,
-w

yeah I actually removed some code when I was testing it with IE and never put it back. It hsould work fine now in Firefox

winnjewett

devbobo wrote:

yeah I actually removed some code when I was testing it with IE and never put it back. It hsould work fine now in Firefox

Yes...Very nice. It seems wierd that it works in firefox, and not IE. Usually it's the other way around.
-w

devbobo

winnjewett wrote:

Yes...Very nice. It seems wierd that it works in firefox, and not IE. Usually it's the other way around.
-w

unfortunately when things fall under standards like CSS2 and CSS3, the implementation isn't always the same, so you get inconsistent behaviour like this.

IE isn't compatible with the attrib tag element (bolded below)...

img.smborderoff[width="150"]
{
width: 160px;
height: 120px;
}

so if it is removed it works, but there is no way to determine portrait or landscape thumbnails, so they all get resized the same.

{JT}

winnjewett wrote:

JT, I certainly appreciate the time you take out of your busy schedule to answer your user's questions. I realize that you and the rest of the team all play a critical role in the development and maintenance of smugmug. However, smugmug has always prided itself on its customer service. Trying to lay a guilt trip on one of your customers for trying to understand why a certain feature request "won't happen ... ever" - with a smiley face after it - is downright rude.

I am indeed sorry if I sounded rude, I certainly did not mean to come across that way. Keep the comments coming, and I will reply only when I have the time to do so properly.