Fyi- Image quality for Photrio uploads (Gallery, Attachments) improved to 100% level.

[Sean]

Hi All,

It was pointed out that there were some quality issues with gallery uploads since the upgrade. The system was using the image system "GD" set to 85% quality. I have moved this to a different system "ImageMagick" known for higher quality, and I have set this tool to 100% quality level. Things should be improved from this point onward.

Thanks,
Sean

 

[macfred]

Thank you, Sean !

 

[Sean]

Was a good catch by @Eric Rose

 

[jay moussy]

Isn't that going to make the lousy photographers like me look bad...?

Seriously, a lot of nice work behind the scene, thank you!

 

[DWThomas]

Thank you! I thought the pinhole shot I recently posted didn't look as impressive as I expected, but just assumed, "enh, pinhole."

 

[Eric Rose]

Thanks Sean, you're the BEST. When I get a chance this evening I will upload another image.

 

[Sean]

It looks like the gallery was resizing images to max 850px, I have set this to max 3,000 x 3,000 but don't have time to test @Eric Rose feel free to try it now. I have to shoot to the 'day job' now. thnx

 

[Eric Rose]

10-4 Captain

 

[Sean]

here is what I see now:



Hopefully, most will 'save for web', not much point for images that huge in the gallery really.

 

[McDiesel]

Why not turn off image processing completely and let the people decide on compression settings? I understand that huge images may have cost/performance implications, but this can be solved with a simple file size limit which already is present.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why not turn off image processing completely and let the people decide on compression settings? I understand that huge images may have cost/performance implications, but this can be solved with a simple file size limit which already is present.

Sean, the website owner has set up a standard he can live with. Just accept it.

 

[MattKing]

Past experience indicates that the level of knowledge respecting gallery uploading here is somewhat uneven. Many of those uploading to the galleries have more darkroom experience than they have digital file experience. In the past, the system uploader meant that the galleries were more accessible to them.
I'm half sort of in and sort of outside of that group.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Folks will tend to upload the largest file possible... megapickles and all that. A subscriber-only 'contact sheet' / hi-resolution gallery upload option could be a thing.

 

[Sean]

Ok, have done some tweaking on the permission sets, which can get pretty convoluted between applications. I have now set no restriction on dimensions and a straight 5mb limit on the file. 5mb should be plenty to get a 'for web' image looking ok (overkill really). We'll revisit if disk space becomes too difficult to manage. Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

Looks like the tweaks may have caused some issues with the thumbnails in the sidebar.

 

[Sean]

Looks like the tweaks may have caused some issues with the thumbnails in the sidebar.
View attachment 308285

that was a huge 8,000 x 8,000px image so I wonder if the thumbnail failed to generate. I tested a 1600px image at 1.3mb and the thumbnail was fine. I manually updated the broken thumbnail, so will see if it happens again

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

that was a huge 8,000 x 8,000px image so I wonder if the thumbnail failed to generate. I tested a 1600px image at 1.3mb and the thumbnail was fine. I manually updated the broken thumbnail, so will see if it happens again

That was the largest image I had on hand I could squeeze under 5mb. I think I had to dial down the JPG quality to about 42%. Probably not an approach most people will choose... but I wanted to try out the new upload criteria.

The new 5mb limit really changes for the better how you can present images in the gallery section. I'm expecting lots of fancy watermarks on the hi-res submissions

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I started out with whatever was generated from a 400 dpi scan of an 8x10. Then, because of issues with other people's views of the image being too large on screen, and the limit on storage size, I down sized to 1000 pixels on the long size.

Now, I am doing 2000 pixels at 80 or 90 jpg quality. It seems to be working OK.

1. Is this a good size - 2000 on the long side (both viewing and storage)?
2. Since it appears that storage limits are no longer an issue, should I repost images I erased to make storage room?

I notice you can no longer click on an image (gallery) to get a larger image. Am I missing anything?

I speak as one who lives more on the gallery than the discussions...

 

[Sean]

I started out with whatever was generated from a 400 dpi scan of an 8x10. Then, because of issues with other people's views of the image being too large on screen, and the limit on storage size, I down sized to 1000 pixels on the long size.

Now, I am doing 2000 pixels at 80 or 90 jpg quality. It seems to be working OK.

1. Is this a good size - 2000 on the long side (both viewing and storage)?
2. Since it appears that storage limits are no longer an issue, should I repost images I erased to make storage room?

I notice you can no longer click on an image (gallery) to get a larger image. Am I missing anything?

I speak as one who lives more on the gallery than the discussions...

That size is fine. It might need some work to get a larger size on click. To get the full size would be clicking the image, then right clicking it and "open image in new tab" from there maybe another click to reach full size. I'll see if I can make it so 1 image click = fullsize