Smugmug

[MarkBarbieri]

That seems surprisingly large. I was under the impression that Fine JPG's from the D300 were around 4-5 meg and that 14-bit lossless RAW files were only 14 meg.

Are you shooting RAW and then saving as 100% quality JPGs in Photoshop? Unless you're perfectly happy deal with enormous files, you might consider knocking down your JPEG compression level just a tad. The first few bumps down will cut the file size significantly (~50% easily) with know perceivable loss in image quality. On the other hand, if you're an absolute purist for maximum quality, then you shouldn't be using JPG at all. Obviously, it's your call however you'd like to do it, but if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend trying different compression levels and checking to see if you're at the optimum level.

 

[MICKEY88]

When taking pictures with my 8 megapixel camera, I usually get JPG's in the 0.5 to 2.25 megabyte range, well short of the 12 megabyte limit.

The only time these limits should impact someone is if they are stitching together large panoramas.

really, that surprises me... My jpegs are usually 3.5-6 meg with my 6.1 MP Minolta

 

[Alztybrn]

Can anybody tell me how to embed the exif data into my pics when using smugmug as the hosting site? Thanks!

 

[mabas9395]

When you take a picture with your digital camera, the EXIF data is there. And smugmug should be able to show it if its there. Which makes it sound like that somewhere in your process the EXIF got stripped out.

So if you explain to us your workflow of how you download your pictures from your camera to computer, what you do with them on your computer, and how you upload them to Smugmug, we might be able to figure out what is going on.

 

[NostalgicDad]

Smugmug does retain the EXIF data on the pictures you upload, assuming you are uploading images that have not already been stripped by your processing. However, you will not see it on a posted image unless you are linking to the original. The other (smaller) sizes that Smugmug creates will not display the EXIF data in your posts.

 

[Alztybrn]

Smugmug does retain the EXIF data on the pictures you upload, assuming you are uploading images that have not already been stripped by your processing. However, you will not see it on a posted image unless you are linking to the original. The other (smaller) sizes that Smugmug creates will not display the EXIF data in your posts.

Thanks for that. I do have all the exif data while in smugmug, but when I link using smaller sizes that is when all exif is lost. Is there anyway to still embed the data?

 

[Todd_H]

Hi everyone,
I'm getting ready to pay for a Smugmug account. Anyone care to offer their referral code?

Thanks in advance!


-Todd

 

[gruZ]

In case you still need one - here it is!

ERL3sXeBwNopQ

Thanks,

Scott

 

[MICKEY88]

Zenfolio is cheaper...

 

[Todd_H]

In case you still need one - here it is!

ERL3sXeBwNopQ

Thanks,

Scott

Many thanks, Scott

-Todd

 

[handicap18]

Thanks for that. I do have all the exif data while in smugmug, but when I link using smaller sizes that is when all exif is lost. Is there anyway to still embed the data?

That might be something to ask the guys at smugmug. I'm sure there is a reason it is done that way, but it probably is a good idea to give them some feedback.

I think I may do that myself. They advertise everywhere that they are always looking for feedback good, bad and otherwise. If enough people request it then they may be able to change it, or if its already changed they can tell how to get it done.

 

[Alztybrn]

That might be something to ask the guys at smugmug. I'm sure there is a reason it is done that way, but it probably is a good idea to give them some feedback.

I think I may do that myself. They advertise everywhere that they are always looking for feedback good, bad and otherwise. If enough people request it then they may be able to change it, or if its already changed they can tell how to get it done.

Thanks! I forgot about the forum over at smugmug!

 

[Gdad]

Smugmugs stripping of EXIF data on resized shots is really irritating.

 

[LivingtheWDWdream]

I am trying to upload my photos to my smugmug account. I started last night about 8pm. It is now 24 hours later and except for 8 hours of sleep I have been uploading photos non stop. The problem I am having is the uploading is taking forever. I have DSL and when I upload to photobucket it moves lightnening fast.

Smugmug is taking a while. So far about 700 photos in about 16 hours. Is this normal speeds or should I try a different uploader?

Thanks

 

[GreenJimmy]

Hey there fellow Smugmugger Your upload speed really depends on several things; but comes down to the size of the photos you are uploading and the quality of the internet connection that you are on. 700 photos in 16 hours is not bad for DSL and full size photos.

I am willing to be that the Photobucket uploader you are using is resizing your images BEFORE they are uploaded before they send them out - where as most (if not all) SmugMug uploaders send your original file for archival purposes.

You can always email help @ smugmug for more help!

JT

 

[LivingtheWDWdream]

Thanks so much for explaining it to me this is all sorta new to me! I am loving Smugmug though for many reasons so the uploading time is worth it!

Thanks so much for the help!

 

[DVC Jen]

I have a pro account - and recently the hubster helped me (he is my brain when it comes to this stuff - and I readily admit that) get a slideshow on my home page there.

It seems like after he did that I have been having issues. I have a default/main setting that I always use when I create a gallery. When I go to customize gallery and click on the default or main setting I have programed in - it doesn't always do what it is supposed to do.

Just yesterday I noticed that NONE of my galleries were right click protected. They ALL should have been. No matter how many times I reset my default or customized settings and applied it to all of the galleries - it didn't work.

Then today I noticed that the watermark I have set to be on ALL of my galleries - and even though it showed the setting as being checked for the gallery - the watermark was not showing up. I had to go back and reset it manually under photo tools.

I am going to contact smugmug about it and see what is up - but I was just wondering if anyone else was noticing things like this.

 

[NostalgicDad]

Jen......I haven't experienced the issues you mentioned but I might can shed some light on the right-click protection issue. About a week or 2 ago, they implemented a new feature that allows you to "Save Photo" if you are logged in, regardless of it being protected or not. That prevents you from having to go and unprotect your gallery if you need to download your original. So, it may seem that the photos are not protected when you hover over the main image when in fact it still is to visitors. You can click on "Visitor View" to test it or simply log out.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[DVC Jen]

Jen......I haven't experienced the issues you mentioned but I might can shed some light on the right-click protection issue. About a week or 2 ago, they implemented a new feature that allows you to "Save Photo" if you are logged in, regardless of it being protected or not. That prevents you from having to go and unprotect your gallery if you need to download your original. So, it may seem that the photos are not protected when you hover over the main image when in fact it still is to visitors. You can click on "Visitor View" to test it or simply log out.

Hope this helps a bit.

Well that explains a lot. Thanks.

 

[DVC Jen]

I just went and checked it out - the right click protection is still there even for the "owner" - but now the owners can click on an icon that comes up with the exif/size window to save the photo - and it is not there for visitors.

So I guess it doesn't solve my issue - nor would it solve why I have had to go back and manually choose to watermark all of the photos in certain galleries via photo tools, even though when I view on the customize gallery options - it shows it as already being watermarked.

Just kinda strange - ya know?