 Steven W. Lepak |
White Border/drop shadow no longer added by BP? I just noticed this AM that beginning with my 07-24 upload, my gallery images do not include the white border/frame and drop shadow that has traditionally been added to all uploads by BP. Is this a recent change that has occurred? If so, does the unwritten rule of 480 pixels on the short side now revert back to 500? My understanding of why 480 worked better was that uploads were resized to add the border.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Nikki McDonald Contact Nikki McDonald Nikki McDonald's Gallery |
I don't know the answer to your question but I did notice this change. Sure don't like the way my gallery looks now :( I wonder what's next?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sarah G |
It is all for the sake of the new format they rolled out on 7/1. Those had the now old white/shadow frame flashing up and then going to no white frame. Now those won't do that and anyone with the old styled gallery won't like the look and they will be flocking to the new style. Don't know about the sizing for web. Guess we need to experiment.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
I think this has been done because the new "basic" gallery design doesn't have borders and there was a glitch where images in the new gallery would show a border before changing to borderless. Good point about the pixel size. Does this mean that all the images we uploaded at 480 because of the border have now been stretched and have therefore lost sharpness? I guess you can do a test by uploading the same image at 480 and 500 and see if there is a difference. I hope BP isn't doing this as a prelude to doing away with the old gallery design altogether.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
Sarah - I must have been typing at the same time as you! I just noticed that the images don't line up correctly and the square images are much larger than the other ones.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sam Britt |
I just noticed this, too. It does look better on the new version, but for those of us who have chosen to keep the classic version (at least for now), I think we should have an option as to whether we want borders to display in our galleries. I prefer having borders, myself.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sam Britt |
I just went through my gallery. It looks like BP resized rectangular images, both vertical & horizontal formats, so they would appear larger. My square images look OK, but some of my images just plain look like they were cropped poorly, with white lines appearing at the bottom or side. I know I didn't upload them that way. I also noticed that some of my images are not displaying - only the titles & EFP emblems appear. I switched to the new version temporarily. I hope BP takes care of some of these glitches - there have been so many of them lately!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
Sam, your new style gallery looks great! As I have mentioned in previous threads, the new gallery style looks better in some ways than a Deluxe gallery. That's great if you haven't paid for a Deluxe gallery!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Carol Teal |
I am still using the classic view and I really like the look of the images w/o borders. However, many of my photos still have a border, but when you click on the thumbnail to enlarge it, the border is no longer there. It does look sort of strange for half to have a border and half not to. I hope they get that fixed!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mick Burkey |
For me, the border and drop shadow helped to separate the image from the background. Therefore I do not like the new, non-border look. I truly wish BP would stop fixing that which is not broken and fix that which is.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
I sort of like the new look...but when somebody posts a shot with a white background, I may change my mind. I think we will have to try the 480/500 thing out to see what looks better.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Jenney |
I like the larger images and the new look without the borders. It has a nice crisp look. I don't like this look with a black background, so I changed mine back to white.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Julie Abston |
I don't mind the new look w/out the borders...however, some of my images still have the borders. Looks really tacky! I have looked at several other galleries to compare and so far, mine is the only one like this (some with and some without).
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
Mine has both.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Nikki McDonald Contact Nikki McDonald Nikki McDonald's Gallery |
Just responded to Julie off list and this worked: Go to the top of your browser and refresh the page. This should correct this "problem"
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
Magical. Still the question of how now to upload going forward - 480 or 500 pixels on the short side? Who is going to experiment?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
Do 750 on the long end.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Susan Fox |
I kind of miss the borders. I have several white background images that now don't look very good because they just blend in the white page.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sarah G |
If you do any high key work, you have an issue now.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Julie Abston |
Thanks again for that simple solution, Nikki!! One more thing...I like the new gallery look, but notice my badges don't show up, but others have their badges now displayed using the new format. How was this done?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Susan Fox |
Now for white background or high key photos we are going to have to add a border. I think it is just a bit hard to get used to the page without the borders :-) I am just so used to seeing them.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Jenney |
The badges only show up under the large version of the photos, not the thumnbnails.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
I thought this image of my great grandmother's needlepoint project would work well. sizes are: 480x620, 500x646, and 580x750. Dennis' suggestion of 750 on the long side looks to me to work the best here.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
For an experiment, I uploaded an image at 2000 pixel width, and BP resized to 800. This is a change...before, the max size was 750. A least I think that was the "recent" max...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve M. Harrington |
I always resize in PSE3 using Bicubic Sharper and use the Single Image Upload. For a long time the optimum size was 480 on the short side. Some months back that changed to 720 on the long side. Those settings guaranteed that your image would remain unchanged when uploaded. I agree with you, Steven, that 750 now seems to be the magic number. It beats me why we do not receive more than a ballpark guideline from BP. Somebody must have that information! Why do we have to guess and experiment?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Deb Koskovich |
I've tried refreshing, and I also deleted all temp internet files & cookies. I still have the two different kinds of images in my gallery, border and no border.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sam Britt |
Since switching to the new version, yesterday, I've decided I kind of like it! I had to go with the color scheme that used a white background, because of the problem I mentioned earlier in this thread.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
I can't see any difference.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
The first thing to note from Steven's examples is that the 480 sized images come up smaller and the ads show on the right side. Also the other two images do look a bit sharper. So, we know not to do 480 any more. What about all the images we have uploaded already at 480?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
I think the 800 long side image looks sharper than the large image resized by BP on upload (look closely at the lamb). Leads me to believe that there again is some maximum size at which images look best - and it is smaller than the max allowable. At this point, I think I'll be going with 800 long side.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
Did anybody notice the upload page?? Now they are recommending that you upload in JPEG no SMALLER than 1600 on the long side. Now I'm really confused! Before they liked Tiff's better and 1600 was way over what would fit.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
I also uploaded a 4x5 aspect image 800 pixels on the long side with similar results - this as a check because the 4x5 aspect, 800 pixels long side is 640 x800 - a larger file than 4x6 aspect, 800 pixels long side (533x800). Seems to me 800 long side is the way to go. The experiment lab is closed.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
Maybe the experiment lab is not closed, but I'm going on a coffee break.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
Carolyn, that suggestion to use 1600 has been there for a long time. If you look at all the sizing recommendations in the FAQs and elsewhere on BP you will find at least 4 different recommendations for sizing. I think I will try the 800 long side as suggested and see how that works out.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nobu Nagase |
Ken is right, a larger than 800 on the long side is resized to 800, and likely lose details in the resizing process. So, 800 is the way to go for now. 800 on the long side is still not good for a panoramic image.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
It happens that a 1600 long side jpeg image file is about the same size as a 480 short side TIFF (2,059 KB and 2,054 KB, respectively). Maybe that is why 480 short side worked well before, but it seems things have changed. It seems to me that some time ago if you tried to upload an image that was too large, you simply got an error message. But now (if you have some patience to wait) you can upload a very large image and it will be resized. Maybe these are interim allowances (with all the recent changes) and we will be back to 480 short side.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
I wrote in asking for a clarification and referred to this thread. If I get an answer I'll post it here.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
I opened up all four of Stevens images in different windows to compare the sizes and there was a huge difference. The 500 was larger than the 480, and the 800 was still larger than the 500. The image which BP resized automatically was the same size as the one uploaded as 800 on the long side, but the loss of detail was apparent at a glance. Thanks for doing this for us!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Colleen Farrell |
I don't really understand the sizing stuff. I thought Steven's 720-on-the-long-side image looked the sharpest, and that was the latest size recommendation I got from BP (I'd written them awhile back). As for the lack of a border/drop shadow, I like it for my gallery, as I think it makes images with a rough edge or different border look better. But I agree it can be a problem for white-background images, which now will look like they're floating on the page.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nobu Nagase |
Change the background color to black or dark color will work for the white background or high-key images, but then you would have the same problem for the black or dark background color photos. I have a couple of those in my gallery with really dark blue background. So, add your own frame when needed looks like the way to go. I am assuming that's why BP had the drop shadow for a long time up to now. But various enhancements are being made for display for performance and for the new Basic Gallery layout, etc.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
If your photo has a white background you could add a "stroke (outline)" from the edit menu in PS. If you just change the background in your gallery to make the photo stand out it will still be a white-out everywhere else on BP (contest entries, EPs, etc).
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sam Britt |
I thought I would let everyone know that emblems are now appearing under thumbnails in the New Basic Galleries. Favorite emblems appear also. This is really good!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Nobu Nagase |
Great news, Sam, thank you. Also, a very nice pretty heart symbol is added on photos that are marked favorite by others. This is really good for many people. More people may switch to the New layout. It really looks like BP tech staff is working hard to please you guys... :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Marianne Fortin |
The finalists and winners badges aren't showing yet from what I can see.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Jenney |
Maybe they could replace the EP buttons with the finalist or winner buttons, like in the classic gallery.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jessica Jenney |
Those hearts are a little too cutesy for me though!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Carol Teal |
My finalists/EFPs where showing under the thumbnails in the new version last night, so I left mine set in the new version. Just now I looked in my gallery and they are not showing under the thumbnails any longer, so I changed it back to classic view. I like the new version so I wish it would hurry and get fixed.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sam Britt |
Only the EFP emblems are showing underneath the thumbnails. The Finalist, Winner & POTD emblems still appear underneath the full-size images. I'm assuming this is just a glitch. I agree with Jessica, the Finalist & Winner emblems should replace the EFP emblems, like in the Classic version.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Sam, if you go to your Basic Gallery config tables, you'll see that BP has a "coming soon" option where you can turn on/off the Favorites, POTDs, finalists, EP buttons. It's grayed out right now, but looks very intuitive once they implement it. They were probably experimenting when you first saw them. Dennis Flanagan alerted me to this new feature!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sam Britt |
Thanks Ken! I didn't notice this. It's all the way down at the bottom of the page. It looks like BP is working hard to give everyone what they want!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Teresa Norris |
Does anyone think that the 1600 px size suggestion is so the photo shows up larger to the judging staff even though for the regular site, they are resized to 800?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steven W. Lepak |
"It happens that a 1600 long side jpeg image file is about the same size as a 480 short side TIFF (2,059 KB and 2,054 KB, respectively). Maybe that is why 480 short side worked well before . . ." A jpeg file is a compressed format.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||