 Colleen Farrell |
Photo shrunk on upload I suddenly have a problem when uploading a photo to my gallery. I've contacted BP and am waiting to hear back, but it would be helpful to know if others are having the same issue. My photo is exactly the same size as a previous photo (in fact, it's the same one, re-worked) I entered a week ago or so. It falls within the recommended size for uploading. The problem is, this one winds up a full 1-inch shorter (on the wide side) than the first version! It's not my browser (I use Firefox and Safari). When I first contacted BP, they said they'd upgraded their photo uploader, and I needed to install the latest version, but I'm sure I've already done that--I think I remember some changes a couple weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
First thing to note is that the maximum photo size is 480px on the short size. Second thing is that maybe you should try the single image uploader.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
Hi Ariel, yeah, my photos are always 480 on the short side. I also use the single image uploader if the other doesn't work. But I've since found out what the issue is--here's the response I received from Jay at BP: "There has indeed be an adjustment to the sizing logic. We are restricting file size based on the long side now rather than the short side. The reason for this is that panoramic images or very skinny images cause all kinds of trouble for members' screens. For example, if someone has a 2000 wide x 200 high image and we resize based on the small side only, only about half the image will appear on a member's screen at a time and our page formatting is not able to handle it gracefully. Squarish images will appear slightly larger now and skinny images slightly smaller."
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
OY! I am glad you brought this up, Colleen! The last three long horizontal format images that I entered (in December) had been "squashed" by BP--after upload--and do not look near as good on the site as the originals did on my monitor; now I know why. My "long" vertical format ones look about the same, thank heavens. Did BP inform you what the longest dimension can be NOW, with them "resizing" the image?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
They didn't say, so I'm assuming it's just 750 pixels on the long side (what they recommend for a normal image). I don't think you can go up to 1250 or whatever their recommendation used to be for panoramas. The longest I used to load would be in the 900 range on the long side, and that doesn't work anymore.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
Thanx Colleen, I think I'll upload a few "test" images and see how long I can go, without the resizing taking place. I think its a shame, myself: no more long panos to look at, just so BP members don't have to "scroll"(?). I wish they would mention this on the upload pages.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
Also, I have noticed this shrinkage doesn't appear to affect vertical photos, as you mentioned, Cary, as much as horizontal ones. Why that is, I don't know--maybe in the future they'll also shrink! ;)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
Pretty soon they will all be large thumbnails! ;-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
Well, I just uploaded a vertical format image at 480 by 880(?)....and IT has been RESIZED and does not look near as good---clarity and detail wise---as the unresized original does on MY monitor. SuSana Pindiyath has said she will post no more photos because of this automatic "resizing"---and how it makes her images "look." (see her thread under: The Act of Disagreement) And THAT is sad.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
I know, I tried to convince her not to get too discouraged by it (if my photos looked like hers, I'd be thrilled with the small size, lol). I think she'll be back after the New Year. Personally, I don't think it's reason enough to leave the site for good--but everybody has their own level of tolerance, for sure. Well, I guess I'm not surprised that your vertical image shrank, too! :( Maybe if a lot of BPers write them and request a change back, they'll reconsider it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
Highly doubtful. I think the reasons they gave you for the new "resizing" software were only superficial....but I could be wrong: I think it was more about creating more banner space on each image view page. From trial and error, I found that an uploaded image of 480 high by 700 long will NOT be resized by BP(at least it wasn't YESTERDAY). But apparently, there is ALSO a new vertical dimension "limit" that I now have to determine---to keep BP from altering (resizing) my vertical format images.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Susan Fox |
I've found that 720 on the long end works best
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kay Beausoleil |
After no one answered my post on New BP Upload Sizing, I e-mailed BP, and received this answer from Jay (which I hope he doesn't mind if I post): If you want to presize your images exactly to what the large size will be on Betterphoto you will want to size them to 720 pixels on the long side. If the long side is at least 720 pixels your images will appear as large as possible on the BP site. Hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
Thanks Kay, that is helpful. My photos straight from the camera, when resized to 72 ppi and 480 on the short side, always go to 722 on the long side. From now on, I'll be sure to deduct those 2 pixels on the long side to ensure the highest quality possible. ;)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
Thanks for your input, Kay. These new BP dimensions---to prevent any "resizing"---will put a crimp in creative cropping options for certain visual "effects." So, I doubt we will see some of the really cool "pano-type" landscapes---and other images--that we used to see here on BP. I never minded the "scrolling"....and I doubt anybody else did, either.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Marianne Fortin |
I'm surprised BP hasn't advised everyone of this new requirement. The following is still being shown on the BP site as sizing guidelines: QUOTE
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
They should put a notice up somewhere. And actually, I didn't like having to scroll to see an image. I think if it's a strong image to begin with, a *little* smaller wouldn't hurt it. But I do wish we could still upload photos that are in the 800-900 range on the long side.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
Spoken like a true politician, Colleen. ;-) The main issue that "I" had with all of this WAS that there was no forewarning that any image uploaded with a dimension longer than 720(?) would be "resized"--and hence lose some of it's impact and "definition." Some of the most eye-catching and dramatic landscapes that I've seen here were panoramas with a very long horizontal length (1000+), and a short vertical dimension. One still CAN upload images in the 800-900 range, but they will "lose" a lot of their sharpness and definition in the auto "resizing" process. :-(
|
|
|
|
||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
I asked BP if they could compromise...rather than an infinity max length, make it no more than 1000. At least that way, the larger panos would still be OK. They replied and basically said they were going to 720 or 750. I replied back and still suggested they change to 1000.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
On the other hand, if all the pictures are smaller, then you don't get points off for uploading smaller, and that is safer for your copyright.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Colleen Farrell |
"Spoken like a true politician, Colleen. ;-)" LOL Cary, there's not an issue in the world on which I couldn't sincerely argue both sides. It's a blessing and a curse. (See, there I go again! lol)
|
|
|
|
||
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
Wow, this was interesting to read; I haven't been in the Forums in awhile, and I recently noticed that my first square upload in several weeks, got a relatively massive thumbnail in my gallery, compared to all my earlier square crops, but my usual rectangular uploads produced normal thumbnails. (I upload everything at 480 short side.) Fortunately my camera files, when shrunk down for BP to 480x, produce a natural 720 on the other side, which is a relief, after reading all this---sounds like I should be very happy I uploaded my 8-image, stitched-pano this summer---2700 pixels wide! Wonder what it would look like now...
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Chris, you should upload your pano again, for grins, and look at the size, then delete from your gallery. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.
|
|
|
|
||
|
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
Wow... you ain't kiddin'! That is itsy bitsy!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cary Rogers |
When you consider the outrageous amount of bandwidth needed to store and display the gazillions of uploaded photos here (over many years), the "pano" dimension gravy-train had to stop eventually... My only "beef" about it was that I had ALREADY cropped--and optimized--several images for the PREVIOUS maximum size limit (for the site). Now, I'll simply just crop and optimize to the NEW shorter "long" dimension; and life goes on... ;-) However, I WILL miss seeing some of those great, long, detailed panos that used to be posted here. HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Gary, I don't think the issue was bandwidth...cause BP has no problem if you load up huge MB files...other web sites do have a max filesize. It's something else....and I do wish they'd compromise and make the max size maybe 1000 pixels or less.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Husain Akhtar |
I always thought BP is living in the technological age of the last century! How stupid to go back on the size of upload while other promoters of the art of photography are adopting improvements all the time! I hardly use BP now and my message to any one who leaves BP is 'well done'!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||