Where "FR" is "Feature Request". I'm pulling this question/suggestion out of the long "increasing interest in NPN" thread, in the hopes of getting a little more focused discussion on it, and not losing it among all the other posts.
Several posters on that thread mentioned that they felt restricted in various ways by the current image size posting restrictions, which are also more restrictive than many other photo sites. Both that the max 1200 px size is too small to showcase their work well, and even if 1200 px is okay, sometimes their very detailed shots don't come out as they'd like because of the file size restriction. Another comment was that all the different restrictions of pixel width and file size in galleries, including PhotoPortfolios, was annoying to deal with.
So some feature requests to discuss would be:
- can the site allow a larger large size, both in pixel dimension and file size
- can the site allow a larger size in the post itself
- could you use the same image in both places
- could the site resize a posted large image to the smaller post image, just as it does currently with thumbnails, so users only need to generate and post the large one
It'd be interesting to both hear user pros and cons on these as well as from Jim about what his restrictions are on paying for storage, extra bandwidth and/or programming effort to make changes.
I've been with NPN for a few months now and I have to say that, at the outset, I found it a hassle to create 2 seperate jpg files for posting. Now I just do it and will use one of those 2 images if I want to post files elsewhere.
What i do find irritating is the file size restriction.
For my website I use files that are 720 x 480 pixels. This size is perfect for the NPN galleries but on my site I will post with quality at 100%, no matter how large the file - to post the same file on NPN I then have to create a new version of the same sized file which is under 200kb. It is a pain, especially as other sites will let me post the bigger file.
As far as the larger file is concerned, I think 1200 pixels is fine. Even at that size I have to scroll for some vertical format photos and that is not an ideal way to view an image.
I don't understand why the max 1200 pixel should cause problems because you can still link to a much larger external file if you feel you need to show your photo even bigger.
If we are going to play around with the file size rules, wouldn't it be simpler to just say that the max pixels on longest side is 1200 and specify a max file size (in KB) - ie, do away with the smaller file size. That way each person would post just 1 file and could choose how big they think their image needs to be, up to the maximum.
Martin, we could do that. In other words, upload the 1200 pixel version and have the software down-size it to fit in the 720 pixel spot. The issue we will have is that the down-sized file may not look as good as one you do yourself in Photoshop.
I think we could set it up that you could either upload the single large file and have the software generate the 720 version (just like it does the thumbnails) or you could upload both, just as you do now.
Would you need to downsize a 1200 pixel version to 720 Jim?
Surely if everyone uploaded their file at a size of their choosing, up to a max of 1200 pixels, and whatever file size you set, the 720 version becomes redundant. Why look at a smaller version if you can view the larger one?
That would then save space because everyone would only need to upload 1 file instead of 2.
Anyone who preferred to only upload a smaller file - for whatever reason - could still do so because 1200 would be a maximum size not a mandatory size.
Posted by Carol Nichols on June 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM
What Martin is suggesting makes a lot of sense. Allow people to post just a large version or just a small version, whichever they prefer. There are many of us who always post a small and large version - double the work. If we could just post the large version that would save us time and make sure that people are looking at the large version when viewing. Great idea Martin!
Posted by Lorna Taylor on June 16, 2013 at 9:30 PM
I know I struggle with getting files small enough so many times I just give up and don't post shots I wanted to share. So I would love just a slightly larger file size.
I favor the option to post only the larger version, then slightly boost, once again, the thumbnail size for quick scanning. I love seeing large versions... and a 1600 pixel would suit me just fine. Jim E...thanks for listening... what a great site you have.
It would be great if we could process and then upload a single image. My preference would be 1200px max, with a file size of 750 KB. A person could choose to upload a smaller image if they wanted to.
An image this size would scale down to 720px for the 'gallery' post with good results if the algorithm is carefully chosen through testing of several that are in current use.
"...the 720 version becomes redundant. Why look at a smaller version if you can view the larger one? "
Martin, the style sheet for the site sets the width of each gallery page. Therefore, an image larger than the current 720px in width would necessitate rewriting the style sheet and thus changing the format of the entire site. I believe this is why Jim wants to retain the 720px size with the larger version available for those who want to view it.
*******
I would also like to see the maximum file size for PhotoPortfolios increased to 300 KB. The current 200KB limit results in images that suffer greatly from jpeg compression. In my opinion, the images in a 'portfolio' need to be of the highest quality possible. We would still have to create separate images for NPN and PP.net because they are different domains with a database that's separate from NPN.
--P
Posted by Brian Gatlin on June 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Believe it or not, there are still folks out there on dialup. It's all that's available (besides very expensive and not much better satellite) where I live. As things currently stand, the 1200pix/500k larger files already take a long time for me to view. I'd be unlikely to view them at all if they got even bigger.
Therefore, an image larger than the current 720px in width would necessitate rewriting the style sheet and thus changing the format of the entire site
------------------------------------
Yes, I worked that out after I had posted my bright idea.
Anything larger than 720 needs to appear on a new screen, just like the current 1200 version does.
Jim, I'm curious which "needs to" you mean - editorially from your site design choices, or technically for some reason? Technically it looks pretty straightforward - using Chrome's "inspect element" feature, which allows you to make local changes to a page to see how it would look, I'm looking at Brad Hill's 1200 pixel version of his "the King is BACK" image in place of the 720 pixel version, and it only slightly messes with the page. There would be multiple, fairly straightforward, low effort, ways to make it work if you wanted to, without changing the format of the entire site.
Believe it or not, there are still folks out there on dialup. It's all that's available (besides very expensive and not much better satellite) where I live. As things currently stand, the 1200pix/500k larger files already take a long time for me to view. I'd be unlikely to view them at all if they got even bigger.
That's really interesting about the dialup - do you have a feel for what an acceptable image size/file size would be to maximize your use of the site? Does the 720px version work well? And I'm curious - how long exactly does it take to load the 720px and 1200px images typically?
Jim - do you have access to your server logs, and/or the ability to modify what they record? You can actually get page load times recorded in there so you could get an idea about how many regular users are on slow links, it would be interesting to know. Or just put a survey out there so users can let you know directly. Also, since your pages are generated programmatically already it should be easy to let users tell you which size they want to see as the main gallery size for them. They could pick 720 or largest available, or perhaps even smaller if they just don't have the bandwidth, and you can spare some server disk space to generate some smaller ones to make available.
I have to put a word in here for the people on dialup. Slow loading of the images has significantly changed my interaction with this site. People who have fast internet cannot imagine how painful it is to wait for even a 720 pix/ 200 k image to appear. Depending on your dialup, you can walk to the kitchen and get a glass of water while you wait. Hank used to say that he could go make a cup of coffee. It's a longgggg time. I'll measure it sometime after I get back home.
The thing to remember here is that if you have members upload only one (bigger) image, the people with slow internet will be the ones affected every time they try to look at an image. I kind of thought that's why we ended up with 2 sizes in the past.
Genny - that's very interesting, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on an ideal site construction for a low bandwidth user. Not that it's my job, I'm just curious Would larger or smaller thumbnails help? A smaller size default gallery size? Something else?
Posted by Carol Nichols on June 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM
"I really wish this site would come up with the times though and allow image sizes bigger than 300kb. Having to deal with that here and no where else becomes a pain."
I just read this comment by someone who posted an image in the M&N Gallery. I have read many such comments over the years on NPN. It's very likely that NPN is losing participants because of the image size limitations. Yet there are still people like Brian and Genny who can only get a dial-up connection. Is it possible to please both of these groups? Will NPN have to make a choice of which group they please and therefore lose the other group?
Posted by Lorna Taylor on June 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM
I would also like to see the maximum file size for Photo Portfolios increased to 300 KB. comment by Preston
I would like it to be 300kb as well as even this would greatly improve my ability to post . I do feel for the people on slow dial up ,I am on digital screen and connection and find my images lose sharpness when I try to size them to fit the 200kb format. Now I am not technically inclined and struggle with my resizing under 300kb.
I don't know anything about computers and we would not want to lose our dial up members, but would this impact the site to much to just bump it a little ?
Genny, Brian or Hank (or any other dial up/slow connection user), another question - do you have unlimited dial up time, or are you paying per hour? The reason I ask is there are various website mirroring programs that you could use to pre-download content, including images, from various galleries, while you're not there, so they're available immediately when you sit down to spend time on the site. They'd be useful for any site you like to keep up-to-date with.
Sorry, Jeff, I've been off-line for awhile. My dial-up time is unlimited, but during that time that computer is online, that's my home phone line it's using, so I don't leave it on for long periods of time. I don't know if the same applies to others.
As far as designing a site for dial-up users, I suppose it would be way too much trouble to have a special, parallel portion of the site that is designed for slow connection users. That part of the site could have images that were automatically generated to be smaller than the regular ones, but with a link so if you really wanted to see (and wait for) the 1200 pixel version, you could do so. Sorry, I know that's getting kind of complex. Could you have a link to the smaller image next to the thumbnail? I'm not sure how you deal with all the comments in the thread, though.
I don't always have the time to make comments on lots of images, but I do like to preview them, (and I generally check to see what their comment-to-post ratio is before I comment) and that takes lots of time on dialup. I have recently been doing my NPN browsing when I am traveling for work and have my laptop while waiting for hours at an airport, or after work. The laptop doesn't have the best screen for colors, though.
As far as designing a site for dial-up users, I suppose it would be way too much trouble to have a special, parallel portion of the site that is designed for slow connection users. That part of the site could have images that were automatically generated to be smaller than the regular ones, but with a link so if you really wanted to see (and wait for) the 1200 pixel version, you could do so.
This should be pretty straightforward actually. Give users a preference to set for which size image they'd like to see as the main one, with the comments, in a gallery posting, either larger or smaller. Pick a smaller size to offer that you dialup users think is the best trade off for you, and then generate them on the fly and cache them for other users in case requested again. And of course provide links to the other sizes in case you want a different look.
For example I'm attaching a 480px version of the treefrog I recently posted, that's in my gallery, generated on the command line on a low end Linux server of mine, that took 0.2 secs to convert, so wouldn't factor into your download time. I used the 1200 pixel version and it went from 376 kb down to 57 kb. And this is just one version of many different options for downsizing and sharpening that I found recommended on one imaging forum.
"I really wish this site would come up with the times though and allow image sizes bigger than 300kb. Having to deal with that here and no where else becomes a pain."
Donna, I can only guess that the person who wrote that statement and others who have expressed similar opinions, is that in order to post the 1200 pixel/500kb version, you first have to post the small version. That's twice the work and in many cases the small version doesn't come out looking very good so it seems like a waste of time.
I'll add, also, that some folks don't post a 1200px/500KB image for whatever reason and must rely on the 720px image.
In an ideal world, I think the initial image posted in a critique gallery shoud be large enough so that having to create the large version is no longer necessary. If this could be done, it would save time and effort on the part of the poster, and also reduce server storage space that is now needed for the large versions.
This topic has come up often during my membership. Just for the record, I am among the people out there who thinks things are OK the way they are.
The small file size of the normal post loads fast for those with slower connections and the option for a larger size is there for anyone who wants to use it. I often only view the larger sizes for photo I especially like. And I figure if the image is a good one it took quite some time to travel to the site, take the photo, and process it. It is well worth the small among of extra time to process in two sizes. For me I think we're probably talking a couple of minutes, which is minuscule on the larger scale of the photo taking process.
It is actually a mystery to me why this comes up so frequently, but we are all different.
Here is the simple change we will pursue; if you want to upload only the larger (up to 1200 pixel/500kb) file and do not browse/upload the 720 version, the software will automatically generate the 720 version from the 1200 file. Right now, you cannot post a large file without the 720 version, so this change will take care of that.
Even with this added feature, you will also still be able to upload the 720 only if you want, or both your own 720 and the 1200.
Jim, that sounds like a really elegant solution. In effect we just need to upload 1 image of whichever size we prefer. Thank you.
Posted by Carol Nichols on June 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM
That sounds like an excellent solution Jim. There will still be small files to view for the slow connection people, but those members who always post both a large and small photo will now only have to post a large one. My only caveat would be that the small version generated by the software would have to look good since viewers will still always be looking at the small version first and may not look at the large version.
Carol, that has always been the bug-a-boo with using software to downsize a photo. In most cases, the one prepared in PS will always look better. I will get this moving forward with a special emphasis on the quality of the reduced file.
Discussion
28 repliesSeveral posters on that thread mentioned that they felt restricted in various ways by the current image size posting restrictions, which are also more restrictive than many other photo sites. Both that the max 1200 px size is too small to showcase their work well, and even if 1200 px is okay, sometimes their very detailed shots don't come out as they'd like because of the file size restriction. Another comment was that all the different restrictions of pixel width and file size in galleries, including PhotoPortfolios, was annoying to deal with.
So some feature requests to discuss would be:
- can the site allow a larger large size, both in pixel dimension and file size
- can the site allow a larger size in the post itself
- could you use the same image in both places
- could the site resize a posted large image to the smaller post image, just as it does currently with thumbnails, so users only need to generate and post the large one
It'd be interesting to both hear user pros and cons on these as well as from Jim about what his restrictions are on paying for storage, extra bandwidth and/or programming effort to make changes.
What i do find irritating is the file size restriction.
For my website I use files that are 720 x 480 pixels. This size is perfect for the NPN galleries but on my site I will post with quality at 100%, no matter how large the file - to post the same file on NPN I then have to create a new version of the same sized file which is under 200kb. It is a pain, especially as other sites will let me post the bigger file.
As far as the larger file is concerned, I think 1200 pixels is fine. Even at that size I have to scroll for some vertical format photos and that is not an ideal way to view an image.
I don't understand why the max 1200 pixel should cause problems because you can still link to a much larger external file if you feel you need to show your photo even bigger.
If we are going to play around with the file size rules, wouldn't it be simpler to just say that the max pixels on longest side is 1200 and specify a max file size (in KB) - ie, do away with the smaller file size. That way each person would post just 1 file and could choose how big they think their image needs to be, up to the maximum.
Martin, we could do that. In other words, upload the 1200 pixel version and have the software down-size it to fit in the 720 pixel spot. The issue we will have is that the down-sized file may not look as good as one you do yourself in Photoshop.
I think we could set it up that you could either upload the single large file and have the software generate the 720 version (just like it does the thumbnails) or you could upload both, just as you do now.
Surely if everyone uploaded their file at a size of their choosing, up to a max of 1200 pixels, and whatever file size you set, the 720 version becomes redundant. Why look at a smaller version if you can view the larger one?
That would then save space because everyone would only need to upload 1 file instead of 2.
Anyone who preferred to only upload a smaller file - for whatever reason - could still do so because 1200 would be a maximum size not a mandatory size.
An image this size would scale down to 720px for the 'gallery' post with good results if the algorithm is carefully chosen through testing of several that are in current use.
Martin, the style sheet for the site sets the width of each gallery page. Therefore, an image larger than the current 720px in width would necessitate rewriting the style sheet and thus changing the format of the entire site. I believe this is why Jim wants to retain the 720px size with the larger version available for those who want to view it.
*******
I would also like to see the maximum file size for PhotoPortfolios increased to 300 KB. The current 200KB limit results in images that suffer greatly from jpeg compression. In my opinion, the images in a 'portfolio' need to be of the highest quality possible. We would still have to create separate images for NPN and PP.net because they are different domains with a database that's separate from NPN.
--P
------------------------------------
Yes, I worked that out after I had posted my bright idea.
Jim, I'm curious which "needs to" you mean - editorially from your site design choices, or technically for some reason? Technically it looks pretty straightforward - using Chrome's "inspect element" feature, which allows you to make local changes to a page to see how it would look, I'm looking at Brad Hill's 1200 pixel version of his "the King is BACK" image in place of the 720 pixel version, and it only slightly messes with the page. There would be multiple, fairly straightforward, low effort, ways to make it work if you wanted to, without changing the format of the entire site.
That's really interesting about the dialup - do you have a feel for what an acceptable image size/file size would be to maximize your use of the site? Does the 720px version work well? And I'm curious - how long exactly does it take to load the 720px and 1200px images typically?
Jim - do you have access to your server logs, and/or the ability to modify what they record? You can actually get page load times recorded in there so you could get an idea about how many regular users are on slow links, it would be interesting to know. Or just put a survey out there so users can let you know directly. Also, since your pages are generated programmatically already it should be easy to let users tell you which size they want to see as the main gallery size for them. They could pick 720 or largest available, or perhaps even smaller if they just don't have the bandwidth, and you can spare some server disk space to generate some smaller ones to make available.
The thing to remember here is that if you have members upload only one (bigger) image, the people with slow internet will be the ones affected every time they try to look at an image. I kind of thought that's why we ended up with 2 sizes in the past.
I just read this comment by someone who posted an image in the M&N Gallery. I have read many such comments over the years on NPN. It's very likely that NPN is losing participants because of the image size limitations. Yet there are still people like Brian and Genny who can only get a dial-up connection. Is it possible to please both of these groups? Will NPN have to make a choice of which group they please and therefore lose the other group?
I would like it to be 300kb as well as even this would greatly improve my ability to post . I do feel for the people on slow dial up ,I am on digital screen and connection and find my images lose sharpness when I try to size them to fit the 200kb format. Now I am not technically inclined and struggle with my resizing under 300kb.
I don't know anything about computers and we would not want to lose our dial up members, but would this impact the site to much to just bump it a little ?
As far as designing a site for dial-up users, I suppose it would be way too much trouble to have a special, parallel portion of the site that is designed for slow connection users. That part of the site could have images that were automatically generated to be smaller than the regular ones, but with a link so if you really wanted to see (and wait for) the 1200 pixel version, you could do so. Sorry, I know that's getting kind of complex. Could you have a link to the smaller image next to the thumbnail? I'm not sure how you deal with all the comments in the thread, though.
I don't always have the time to make comments on lots of images, but I do like to preview them, (and I generally check to see what their comment-to-post ratio is before I comment) and that takes lots of time on dialup. I have recently been doing my NPN browsing when I am traveling for work and have my laptop while waiting for hours at an airport, or after work. The laptop doesn't have the best screen for colors, though.
This should be pretty straightforward actually. Give users a preference to set for which size image they'd like to see as the main one, with the comments, in a gallery posting, either larger or smaller. Pick a smaller size to offer that you dialup users think is the best trade off for you, and then generate them on the fly and cache them for other users in case requested again. And of course provide links to the other sizes in case you want a different look.
For example I'm attaching a 480px version of the treefrog I recently posted, that's in my gallery, generated on the command line on a low end Linux server of mine, that took 0.2 secs to convert, so wouldn't factor into your download time. I used the 1200 pixel version and it went from 376 kb down to 57 kb. And this is just one version of many different options for downsizing and sharpening that I found recommended on one imaging forum.
I'll add, also, that some folks don't post a 1200px/500KB image for whatever reason and must rely on the 720px image.
In an ideal world, I think the initial image posted in a critique gallery shoud be large enough so that having to create the large version is no longer necessary. If this could be done, it would save time and effort on the part of the poster, and also reduce server storage space that is now needed for the large versions.
--P
The small file size of the normal post loads fast for those with slower connections and the option for a larger size is there for anyone who wants to use it. I often only view the larger sizes for photo I especially like. And I figure if the image is a good one it took quite some time to travel to the site, take the photo, and process it. It is well worth the small among of extra time to process in two sizes. For me I think we're probably talking a couple of minutes, which is minuscule on the larger scale of the photo taking process.
It is actually a mystery to me why this comes up so frequently, but we are all different.
Even with this added feature, you will also still be able to upload the 720 only if you want, or both your own 720 and the 1200.
Does this sound like it will solve the issue?