User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Smugmug sizing - I don't get it:::

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    23 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    569
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smugmug sizing - I don't get it:::

    Hi all,

    I've recently signed up on Smugmug and have noticed something odd. The photo below is about 2.2MB on my hard drive. When uploading to Smugmug (using the windows plugin) it clearly states 2.2MB is being uploaded. But then when doing a link to the image in AP (using extra large size so that it is 1024 wide) it compresses the picture down to only 90kB.

    Am I doing something wrong?? Is there something I should be doing differently in Smugmug??



    Cheers!
    Andrew.
    http://twoclownstripping.com

    Nikon D7000
    Sigma 10-20mm ~ Nikon 18-55mm ~ Nikon 55-200mm ~ Manfrotto 190XProB ~ Manfrotto 488RC2
    ~ LowePro Top Load Zoom 1


  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,131
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    We have seen this on Photobucket too! We think they resize them for linking as a means of controlling their bandwidth usage. I asked PB in an email and they advised me in a roundabout sort of way that they do not resize them but optimise them for web loading... so I ended up thinking it was semantics and that they do compress the photos. PB also said they were working on providing links for the 'high quality' versions, again making me think they are doing something to them now.

    So my view is that they do something to them to ensure bandwidth is kept to a minimum, whether you call that resizing or optimising ?!?!?
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    569
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess in principle that's fair enough, but to shrink by that much is just nuts!! Comparing the original to what ends up on AP there's quite a lot of lost detail.

    I guess with the new comp rules I won't have to worry about it though!

  4. #4
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,131
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stoogest View Post
    I guess in principle that's fair enough, but to shrink by that much is just nuts!! Comparing the original to what ends up on AP there's quite a lot of lost detail.

    I guess with the new comp rules I won't have to worry about it though!
    Nope, and neither will we. At present every entry is checked manually for size. Cat (Miaow) has taken on this role (thanks Cat)

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    569
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    '...has taken on...'

    Is that code for, "Cat drew the short straw"?

  6. #6
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,131
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stoogest View Post
    '...has taken on...'

    Is that code for, "Cat drew the short straw"?
    Nah, meant she just started doing it off her own volition. Wasn't assigned to her at all.

  7. #7
    Bird Nerd Richard Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    5,107
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Easiest way is to create a separate hidden gallery, resize your images to whatever size you wish, say 1024px on the widest size and 350k or thereabouts and then upload them to the new gallery. Link to them using the original size link and they won't be resized nor will they lose their EXIF data either.

    Even though the gallery is hidden from view on your Smugmug site, you'll still be able to link to your images within it for placing on forums, with the bonus that should you wish to remove images from a forum you can do so by deleting the image from this gallery. This way if you're still uploading a full-size image to your proper galleries, they're unaffected. I like to think of it as a temporary gallery and treat it purely for this purpose.
    www.richardhallphotography.com


    Atheism is Myth-understood

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    569
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Link to them using the original size link
    Which type of link in particular are you referring to Richard (it's just that there are a number of ways of doing it in SmugMug)?

  9. #9
    Bird Nerd Richard Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    5,107
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was going from memory, sorry, it should be the X3 Large link. So if you upload at 1024px on the largest size then use the X3 Large link, your image won't be resized in anyway whatsoever. It will also still contain all the EXIF data.

    X3 Large will act as if it were using the original image (because it is) in this instance.

  10. #10
    Bird Nerd Richard Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    5,107
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess really Smugmug isn't doing anything particularly wrong. You've uploaded a 2.2MB image and sure, you can link to that full-size image if you wish and use as much bandwidth as you desire (there's no limits at the Smugmug end)...but you're then asking for a resized image that's more suited for forum use, naturally enough the file size is going to be smaller.

    How much smaller? Well, that's the question. You might want a 100% quality JPEG at 1024, to extract as much quality as possible, whereas Smugmug's resize algorithm may be set to 80%. It seems pretty logical to me what they've done. You're not going to be able to satisfy everyone's requirements. I mean, I might want a 1024 resized image but one that's got to be under 50k to fit on a particular forum. How would Smugmug know this? The solution is simple enough, if you have VERY specific file size requirements, do a one-off and resize it and upload it yourself. Too easy!

  11. #11
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    569
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree darksome, the thing is, all my previous uploads of similar size were downscaled to somewhere around the 200-250kB mark. this is the first time it's gone as low as 90kB. i'll have a go at the X3 size when I get home tonight (the photo above was X2 which I thought was as large as I could go without breaching the pixel limit...but it sounds like I assumed incorrectly).

    Thanks!
    Andrew.

  12. #12
    Bird Nerd Richard Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    5,107
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stoogest View Post
    I agree darksome, the thing is, all my previous uploads of similar size were downscaled to somewhere around the 200-250kB mark. this is the first time it's gone as low as 90kB. i'll have a go at the X3 size when I get home tonight (the photo above was X2 which I thought was as large as I could go without breaching the pixel limit...but it sounds like I assumed incorrectly).

    Thanks!
    Andrew.
    It would also depend on the complexity of the image as to the final file size reached. A more complex image at a given quality preset would be larger (in MB) than a more simple image at the same resolution. I'm guessing the image you've used here is fairly simple, lots of quite large areas of very similar tones next to one another that could be more easily compressed than a more complex image.

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Jan 2009
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    569
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good point. It's the first time I have done it for a black and white.

  14. #14
    Member awilliamsny's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Oct 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi, I'm from SmugMug. We make 8 display copies for you, so your visitors will get fast delivery of your photos no matter how huge your Originals are. Of course you can link to the -O if you wish, just replace -L, -XL etc with -O.

    http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-quality

    write our Support Heroes if you have any more questions, thanks!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •