<801 pixels watermark question

frostbytes

What's the reason for not applying watermarks to images that are less than 801 pixels on the longest side?

I just shot an event, generated 600 pixel-wide images (to save on upload time, knowing that the proof delay feature is available for print orders) and uploaded them.

It's only now that I find out that I have to reupload the images resized to at least 801 pixels for the watermarks to get applied.

For a few hundred images, this will take hours.

[L]

Andy

frostbytes wrote:

What's the reason for not applying watermarks to images that are less than 801 pixels on the longest side?

I just shot an event, generated 600 pixel-wide images (to save on upload time, knowing that the proof delay feature is available for print orders) and uploaded them.

600 is not enough You can see our resolution requirements here:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality#minprintres
If the photos don't have large enough resolution, the print sizes are removed from the shopping cart to guarantee the best quality.

It's only now that I find out that I have to reupload the images resized to at least 801 pixels for the watermarks to get applied.

For a few hundred images, this will take hours.

[L]

I'm very sorry We're up front about it in our watermarking help page:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/custom-watermark-protection

I wish I had a better answer for you, I really do!

frostbytes

Andy wrote:

If the photos don't have large enough resolution, the print sizes are removed from the shopping cart to guarantee the best quality.

But in this case, I'm using small images in conjunction with the proof delay feature. These 600 pixel-wide are _just_ web proofs that I'll swap out with high-res versions once an image is ordered. Isn't that the whole point of your proof delay feature?

Being forced to upload 800 pixel-wide images instead means that uploading the several hundred images will take 33% longer with no appreciable benefit. In cases like the one I'm dealing with right now, that extra upload time makes a difference.

[L]

Andy

frostbytes wrote:

But in this case, I'm using small images in conjunction with the proof delay feature. These 600 pixel-wide are _just_ web proofs that I'll swap out with high-res versions once an image is ordered. Isn't that the whole point of your proof delay feature?

Being forced to upload 800 pixel-wide images instead means that uploading the several hundred images will take 33% longer with no appreciable benefit. In cases like the one I'm dealing with right now, that extra upload time makes a difference.

[L]

Hi, you can't sell an image unless it's at least at the minimum size, pixel dimensions as linked above.

You can smash the files, here's how:
http://wiki.smugmug.com/display/SmugMug/Proof+Delay

frostbytes

Andy wrote:

Hi, you can't sell an image unless it's at least at the minimum size, pixel dimensions as linked above.

Thanks, I have seen that information.

Have you considered untieing the link between what print sizes your system makes available for sale and the size of the web proof in cases where the proof delay feature has been activated? That would accomplish the two goals that I have: speed and flexibility.

[L]

Andy

frostbytes wrote:

Thanks, I have seen that information.

Have you considered untieing the link between what print sizes your system makes available for sale and the size of the web proof in cases where the proof delay feature has been activated? That would accomplish the two goals that I have: speed and flexibility.

[L]

It's a great request and if our system would allow it, we'd do it. Unfortunately, it won't

frostbytes

(From my email:)

I don't see the idea that linking the available for-sale print sizes to the size of a web proof (in cases when your proof delay feature is enabled) makes much sense.

In cases like this shoot, where I have several hundred images that I need to make available to participants as soon as possible after the event, uploading very small web proofs for the sake of upload speed makes sense. But your system would need to accommodate listing of all the print sizes that I've chosen as well as watermarking of images that are <801 pixels wide.

I really hope you reconsider how this part of your system works.

Thanks.

[L]