Maximum shareable size

alaios · November 19, 2013

Hi all,
I would like to show to some friends shots but I would like to limit further the size of the gallery from XLArge that I also find quite big... Where are the options for reducing size even further?

Regards
Alex

mrneutron · November 19, 2013

The only options for reducing the display size are in the gallery settings. The lowest you can go is 'medium'. http://www.screencast.com/t/wjYFRnilh

alaios · November 20, 2013

Hi thanks
in the options I have I can only see sized up to XLarge.

Is there a global setting to change that?

Regards
Alex

rainforest1155 · November 20, 2013

I'm sorry for any confusion. The Medium and Large option are only available on our Portfolio and Business account level. Basic and Power users can only select XLarge as the smallest size.

Gallery settings are gallery specific and there is no global setting. However, you could use the bulk settings feature to change settings in multiple galleries within a folder.

beardedgit · November 20, 2013

rainforest1155 wrote: »

Basic and Power users can only select XLarge as the smallest size.

And yet all sizes, right down to Small, are available in the Lightbox. Seems like there's some sort of disparity there - why can't the max display size choice be the same for all accounts, and cover the full range of sizes?

rainforest1155 · November 20, 2013

beardedgit wrote: »

And yet all sizes, right down to Small, are available in the Lightbox. Seems like there's some sort of disparity there - why can't the max display size choice be the same for all accounts, and cover the full range of sizes?

I'm not sure what you mean by disparity. The maximum display size setting allows you to set what sizes are available for viewing and that setting should apply to lightbox the same way.
So if you set the largest size to XLarge, visitors can see all sizes up to the XLarge size, which includes small, medium and large.

The option to reduce the maximum display size down to medium is only available on Portfolio and Business level.

beardedgit · November 20, 2013

rainforest1155 wrote: »

The option to reduce the maximum display size down to medium is only available on Portfolio and Business level.

That's the disparity - why the difference? Why not have a full and common range, for all account levels, that the account-holder, not SM, manages? I can't see why there should be a difference, if someone could explain and justify it then I'd consider myself better-educated on the matter.

My comment about the smaller sizes being available in LB was to support the notion that the minimum "maximum size" could be extended downwards for ALL account levels.

I'm sorry, my previous post was ambiguous and I should have been worded it more carefully. I'll try harder next time!

thenickdude · November 20, 2013

I think the strategy from SmugMug is that the lower account levels are designed for people sharing their photos with family and friends, not making sales. In that case, you want them to be able to see a good size of the image (and I believe it even defaults to Original as the maximum size).

For business level accounts, the idea is that you're going to be selling prints of your work, so you don't want people to be able to access high resolution versions they could print out themselves.

They make a division in order to convince more businesses to pay the extra for the business account level...

rainforest1155 · November 20, 2013

Our different account levels come with different features. The Business level is the account that provides all features while the other account levels have fewer features. The Portfolio and Business level are intended for photographers displaying and selling their work which is why they get more control over what photo sizes can be displayed along with the additional watermarking feature that's not available on Basic or Power level either.

beardedgit · November 20, 2013

OK folks, I get all that. Lower account levels (Basic and Power) are for "people sharing their photos with family and friends, not making sales" and Higher account levels (Portfolio and Business) are for sellers. I appreciate that there more bangs associated with more bucks, and that "The option to reduce the maximum display size down to medium is only available on Portfolio and Business level" so that people won't be "able to access high resolution versions they could print out themselves". It all makes perfectly-good sense from a commercial viewpoint.

But we're not all commercial users, and there are other reasons for a user wanting to reduce the maximum display size. Not all "high resolution versions" are nicked for printing, some of them are nicked for upload elsewhere on the WWW regardless of copyright and watermarking.

Andy · November 20, 2013

beardedgit wrote: »

But we're not all commercial users,

Fine. But if you want to block down to Medium for whatever reason, you have to pony up the $ for the top level accounts.

beardedgit · November 20, 2013

Andy wrote: »

Fine. But if you want to block down to Medium for whatever reason, you have to pony up the $ for the top level accounts.

Why should blocking down to Medium be related only to $$$? Blocking down is a Security issue, rather than a Commercial issue. Apart from RCP and watermarks, for which the $$$ are justified, security is (or should be) common across the range.

Andy · November 20, 2013

beardedgit wrote: »

Why should blocking down to Medium be related only to $$$? Blocking down is a Security issue, rather than a Commercial issue. Apart from RCP and watermarks, for which the $$$ are justified, security is (or should be) common across the range.

:nah

If one is that concerned about security, to block image sizes down to Mediums, then one should pay for the upgraded account. Plain and simple.

beardedgit · November 20, 2013

Ah, the old "keep the status quo" ploy.

It's hardly what a forward-thinking progressive customer-focused company needs, but hey, anything to stifle the debate, eh?

alaios · November 20, 2013

beardedgit wrote: »

Ah, the old "keep the status quo" ploy.

It's hardly what a forward-thinking progressive customer-focused company needs, but hey, anything to stifle the debate, eh?

one more complain about smugmug... I just need to wait to become reviewer again. I have so nice stories to share of smugmug interface/limitations...

SamirD · November 21, 2013

beardedgit wrote: »

Why should blocking down to Medium be related only to $$$? Blocking down is a Security issue, rather than a Commercial issue. Apart from RCP and watermarks, for which the $$$ are justified, security is (or should be) common across the range.

It's just the business model that works for SM. There are other companies that have other offerings if this is a dealbreaker. I almost left SM a few years back, so it's no hard feelings. It's about finding the solution that works for you. If SM doesn't, find one that does.

mbonocore · November 22, 2013

Bearded, as others have said, different accounts have different features. I am sorry this doesn't work for you, but this will not be changing.

beardedgit · November 23, 2013

mbonocore wrote: »

I am sorry this doesn't work for you, but this will not be changing.

No worries from my end, Michael, it does work for me and it doesn't cause me any issues whatsoever, but I don't think the same can be said for the OP. This is a Support forum, and I was supporting the OP.

In fact, I'm happy to share my meagre fare (under a Creative Commons licence) right up to the max "original" size, and indeed I'm still waiting for the X4 and X5 display sizes to be introduced as per http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=233388 but I suspect that Hell will freeze over before that one (which was a feature declaration by the Boss, not a user request) gets implemented.

mordisco · January 19, 2014

Andy wrote: »

:nah

If one is that concerned about security, to block image sizes down to Mediums, then one should pay for the upgraded account. Plain and simple.

My solution is to upload resized images of 800x600 pixels to public galleries and for those people I trust I upload original size images to password protected, unlisted galleries.

I use smugmug not as a "safe storage" for my images, copies on multiple portable harddrives is cheaper and more convenient.

This new (to me) attitude of 'take it or leave it' is very disappointing.

Thanks...

chrisjohnson · January 19, 2014

Andy wrote: »

:nah

If one is that concerned about security, to block image sizes down to Mediums, then one should pay for the upgraded account. Plain and simple.

Not actually about security for me, at least not in the sense you mean - I think. It is about making life easier for people who want to download my photos for use on the web, while keeping a main advantage (to me) of having a secure place to keep originals.

When I have to create and manage multiple versions of photos myself then a major advantage of Smugmug is lost.

And, yes, I got the message loud and clear that this is the way things are so thanks for that. It seemed so illogical that I thought I was missing something obvious, again.

Maximum shareable size

Comments