Gallery Update - Temporary Site Issues

While we look at some site issues that we are currently experiencing at the moment, we have had to place a temporary restriction to the amount of daily uploads while investigations continue which will limit the amount of daily uploads to two images.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this temporary restriction may cause and hope to resume normal service as soon as possible.

As always, thank you for your support.

__________________
Paul

Paul states: This is exactly the same thing that the Braces said to the Suspender Belt *salute*

Have you also added a 256KB file size as well, or did that happen another time.

Regards,

Steve

__________________
High Orbit: The Photographic Galleries of Steve Milner

The 256k limit has been there for what I believe to be the last three months, maybe a little longer back in January.

__________________
Paul

Strange.

Yesterday was the first time I've uploaded anything and had it complain about the size.

Regards,

Steve

__________________
High Orbit: The Photographic Galleries of Steve Milner

I did refresh the settings, maybe something happened when I did that. I'll check it out anyway. Cheers Steve.

__________________
Paul

I've modified the upload size to 1mb now to get around this. Also, if an image is greater than 800 pixels on the longest length, the gallery with auto resize it and the image will loose quality so it's best to resize and sharpen for web etc before posting.

I'll put some details on the upload page about this too to make things more clearer.

__________________
Paul

Hi Paul,

As a relative newbie this is an area which has puzzled me. Why would anyone want to upload an image that is 1Mb in size to simply display on a web site? I regularly see images that are several 100s of Kbs in size and it takes forever if you are on dial-up (which I sometimes am during the working day).

I see that you now have a statement at the ‘upload-to-gallery’ stage that images should be 800 pix max and optimised for web viewing (is this new? perhaps I’ve missed it before?). 800 pix is good, can’t see anyone being unhappy with that. But I would have thought a file size limit of around 250Kb would have been sufficient (at 72ppi that’s all anyone should ever need).

It means that you will be able to maintain the unlimited uploads in terms of space & number of image we enjoy at the mo for as long as possible ….. not many sites offer ‘unlimited’ and its something I certainly appreciate.

Good stuff, Dave.

__________________
Hmmmmm, sometimes I just wonder if it isn't my life which is slightly out of focus
(C&C always gratefully & graciously received - be critical, I'm a Scot, we have thick skins)
My Web site
My Smugmug Galleries

I don't think altering the resolution changes anything except print size does it?

Some of us have migrated from a place where only files over 5MB caused a problem, which is good for anybody without any software or idea how to resize a photo (this was me 12-18 months ago).

Now I much prefer the way it is here, 800px makes you look at the picture not go hunting for noise or minute imperfections that don't matter in 99% of the cases.

I usually aim for 100-200k in save for web, but I don't like getting rid of the EXIF data and when using "save as..." the quality seems to suffer at that filesize.

__________________
http://picasaweb.google.com/cyclone.photography
Spelling by Mac, if it's wrong, blame that lol.

Thanks for the feedback guys. These are things I'll be looking at during this phases of analysing the server performance etc. One thing for sure is that due to the current sizes of images it IS having a performance hit not on the server but with the data pipe from the server which is indicating reduced site load times depending on how many people are using the site at the same time and viewing images.

I've now had more chance to examine logs etc. and I have found we are wasting a great deal of bandwidth with in turn is affecting the site speed at certain times.

I have made some tests on large images and enforcing the 256Kb limit will help the site greatly, numbers do not lie and here are my findings:

All the following images are random full size images with different amount of detail etc. in them, firstly the resolution is changed to 72ppi then the image is resized to 800px. I have indicated the file sizes based on 80% jpg compression and 90% compression:

portrait_1 1279x1621 465Kb | 80% - 70.79K | 90% - 131.93k
portrait_2 1977x1526 1.91MB | 80% - 46.57k | 90% - 76.99k
portrait_3 2592x3458 2.74MB | 80% - 133.01k | 90% - 232.80k

You can see from the above, a 256KB limit will allow a lot of scope for members to resize images their images effectively for the site and we will also save a lot of wasted bandwidth, it will improve members site experience in terms of speed and save us heaps of HDD space too.

The 256KB max image size will take immediate affect again and the notification will be updated in the upload page to include.

__________________
Paul