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
    Member
    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.
    https://forkandfoot.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
    16,846
    Mentioned
    12 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
    Member
    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
    16,846
    Mentioned
    12 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
    Member
    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
    16,846
    Mentioned
    12 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
    Member
    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)?

  8. #8
    Member
    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.

  9. #9
    Member
    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.

  10. #10
    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
  •