Optimum online photo display?

In your opinion, what would be the optimum way to display your photos online?

What would be the maximum size in pixels and file size?

Would you want to be able to set a background color or do you think the lightbox image viewer as used on Facebook is the best?

The reason I ask is that we are planning some gallery updates here on NPN. Here's what the current thinking is;

1. increase max image size from 1200 pixels/500kb to 1600/1mb
2. click intermediate 720 image to open 1600
3. allow either a user-selectable bg color (as we do for the 720) or use the lightbox script where the l600 appears over a darkened screen

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Jim

Jim,

1. The upgrade to 1600 px(or even bigger) sounds great. Although since my monitor is limited to 1440 px vertical, viewing a full size vertical would mean having to scroll and that reduces the value of the larger size. Is "autoscaling" to fit the viewer's monitor reasonable? What about a larger file size on the 720 px version? Would that provide improved retention of the darker details? I'm asking since it seems that quite a few 720 px images showing limited details in the darker tones open up nicely as 1200 px versions.

2. Seems reasonable, although I do wonder about having a single size (say 1600 px) that scales to the viewer's monitor. What's the trade-off between more storage vs more programming and how does that scale into the future? A related question is, "In terms of best quality display, what's more important, pixels or file size?" If the answer is file size, I'd be glad to live with a single scaled display size if a larger file let the details show better.

3. I regularly use the "lightbox" approach as I evaluate images in Lightroom and like that very well.

The upgrades sound promising.
Mark

Jim, I understand Mark's point about the verticals, but that is even an item almost at any size it seems the way the monitors are built. Kind of brings to mind as to why they're not square. Anyway, I'm sure most would love to see size increase to a point. 1600 sounds pretty large to me. I'll need to build one off line just to see as I'm curious.

I do think the background color has been brought up in the past as a proposed change a few times. I'm one that finds the images look much better with the existing "portfolio" area gray. Black or White does work well, but the Gray always seems to make for a better compromise across the board in that area.

As always, just my 2 cents.

Mark and Paul, thanks for the feedback!

I view the 720 version as more of a "large thumbnail" than the file to use for critical evaluation. Right now the "large file" is offered as optional - I would like to make that the one that is used for evaluation. The page the 720 is placed on will remain the place for photo details, comments, etc. I want to make the large photos look as good as possible, so hopefully doubling the allowable file size to 1MB file size will help accomplish that.

Another idea for the background display color is to offer a 5-section gray scale graphic on the upload page to set the background color. That color would then be used on the 1600 version as well.

One change for certain is only one file would be uploaded (the larger one) and the software would generate the thumbnail and 720 version from that.

Since we can't compete with the mega photo sites in terms of traffic, there's no reason we can't be at the top of the heap in terms of image display. That's what I would like (within reason) to accomplish!

I view the 720 version as more of a "large thumbnail" than the file to use for critical evaluation. Right now the "large file" is offered as optional - I would like to make that the one that is used for evaluation.

.....Exactly.

Another idea for the background display color is to offer a 5-section gray scale graphic on the upload page to set the background color. That color would then be used on the 1600 version as well.

....An interesting idea. The darker gray in the "portfolio" area has always looked good to me when viewing images. Maybe just me or my monitor calibration, but it has always looked better then a white background from my perspective.

Jim,
Do your plans also include making the 1 mb evaluation image exempt from being copied by anyone viewing the image as can be done with the 500 mb Large version now. This is a real problem IMO that needs consideration with the lack of respect for Copy Righted work on the web.

Mike, that would stay in place.

What would stay in place, the signage not to copy ?
Now you can copy and paste any one's large version posted on NPN.

Mike, check your email.

On another note, we will be updating the photo upload screen so that only the large file has to be uploaded. Does anyone see any further use for the ability to post a photo by URL link? I have to think that is a rarely used feature nowadays...

I never feel comfortable posting larger images online. As a result, the most common critique I get is "post a larger version!"

I will occasionally share a 1200px version if the subject details are smaller in the frame, but unless I start covering up large portions of my photos with a huge watermark, you won't be seeing me sharing huge images. A file size increase doesn't mean much to me.

I do occasionally still use the "photo by URL" function, because I still prefer to save Jpegs out normally at higher quality, rather than using Save for Web. But it doesn't happen too often.

Max

I think the 1600/1 mb size with the 720 initial thumbnail is great! I also think a 5 point gray scale going from white to black would also be excellent. My preference for that would be to choose on upload and it would use the same background for both sizes. Even better would be a small background around the 720 image of the selected shade and the whole page background would be that shade for the large version.

I have suggested a gallery for panoramas with significantly larger horizontal size allowances a number of times. While I think a minimum for a decent display of a panorama would be 1800, 1600 would be a reasonable compromise and could satisfy that desire.

I'm very happy that you're considering these changes

Jim,

Here's my nickel's worth in terms of suggestions...

1. Keep the large image at 1200px, but have the file size increased to 1MB

2. I prefer the neutral grey background for the large version.

3. Keep the "Enter URL address of .jpg photo" available. I always upload my 720 px images to my website and reference the URL in the Enter URL address of .jpg box. The reason for this is that I sharpen the large version and 720px version separately, and I use both versions on my site.

With regard to copy protection: Since I my 720px versions are referenced from a URL, there is no transparent GIF to prevent "Copy" or "Save Picture as...". When I open a large version, I get the warning text box, but when I click 'OK', the context menu with "Copy" and "Save Picture as..." pops right up. This may be what Mike was referring to. In my opinion, this needs to be fixed.

Thanks for asking for our input, Jim!

--P

Jim,

Larger images would be welcomed (especially the larger sized files) as compression does a lot of damage and it kills any attempt at a "pano". Can't wait to see what else is in store!

Preston,
You are absolutely correct.

Jim,
I got your e-mail and I would appreciate talking with you further on this matter later on next week.

Thanks to you both,
Mike

Hi Jim,

I would like posting bigger images too. Some of the pano shots upload as tiny slivers and you really can't get really good looks at some of those landscapes. I also like the lightbox method for displaying the images. Thank you for letting us review these proposed changes .............Jim

Thanks to all for your input!

A few things that are 99% nailed-down at this point;

1. The new larger file size will be 1600/1MB. You still have the option of uploading something smaller than 1600 pixels and it will appear that size. For example, if you upload a 1200 pixel-wide photo, that is how it will render.

2. The transparent gif overlay used for uploaded 720 files will be used on the larger file as well.

3. Though I personally very much like the lightbox effect to display the larger photos, the current game plan is to greatly expand the choice of backgrounds for the photos;

A. There will be at least five shades of gray from black to white to choose from on the upload screen.
B. There will be an option to upload custom backgrounds of your own making. These will be 100 pixel by 100 pixel files that you create and will tile in back of the photo, so any color/texture combination will be possible.

4. The photo upload page will be cleaned-up aesthetically and presented in a clearer, step-by-step fashion

5. As is currently the case, only the large file will need to be uploaded. The option to upload of a separate 720 file (or only the 720 file) and URL link will remain. All of this will be more clear on the updated upload screen!

6. The 720 photo will be the link to the 1600, and we'll make it clear that is the case.

Another goal is to greatly improve the Personal Gallery (PG) feature so that members will want to make full use of them. Here's what we're thinking;

1. Increase posting limit from one photo per day/gallery to five.

2. Allow a member to delete their own photo at any time.

The two changes above will facilitate the creation/management of PGs.

3. Have a bio/photo appear in the header section of your PG, uploaded from the User Control Panel (Preferences) screen.

4. Enable custom URLs to your PG; members.naturephotographers.net/user name

5. On the Members Links page, replace the current PhotoPortfolios link/icon with the PG link/icon. This will serve as a member index with links to your PG, website, blogs, etc.

Again, the overall goal is to make NPN a great place to display your work, for both sharing and marketing purposes.

1. Increase posting limit from one photo per day/gallery to five.

Jim, not clear on this item. Is this to allow an individual the ability to post 5 images in one gallery in a day? I work on an all analog site that has that approach and found it pushes the images threw so fast you may miss many before even seeing them. Many posters there will post sequence shots of 5 and basically 4 or 5 people can dominate one page quickly. Just thinking out loud on this one item.
I guess on the other hand if some one had 5 exposures of one scene they were not too sure about it could help narrow them faster possibly by the positive or negative reviews.

Paul, that is correct. In the past, a "slow day" on NPN was at least 60 photos site wide, now the average is around 17. So not only will this allow easier management of the PGs, but will get more photos posted on the site.

It's one of those changes that we'll give a try and make adjustments as needed.

I agree 100% with Paul's comment. I think it would be counter productive because, as Paul indicates, the busier galleries would be over saturated. If someone wants to post (say) a series of similar images, that can be done as a 'comment' to the original post.

My suggestion for the posting limit would be two images per day per gallery. These could be different images, or an alternate version of one already posted. Not only would this prevent over saturation, it would also save storage space on the server(s).

Edit: Jim, you posted about the images/day just before I did. A trial period to see what limit will work best is fine with me.

Thanks for keeping the option to refer to the URL of the 720 px image. The other ideas you posted above look great to me.

--P

Preston, two-a-day seems a reasonable place to start. The posting speed limit is an easy adjustment, so we'll try two and see how it goes.

The technical issue is that the PGs are simply another way of sorting photos in the IC database. Right now, any photo uploaded goes into a single database and has to appear in one of the IC galleries, so the posting speed limit applies. Due to this structure, there is no way to upload many photos in one session to one's PG - something that may or may not be an issue.

Though a large gallery cannot be created in one session, I believe there is value to having an image critiqued and then deciding whether it stays in your gallery. The ability to delete any photo at any time will facilitate the process of optimizing one's PG.

Hi all - a little late to the discussion but would just like to add a vote for not jumping to more than 2 images per gallery per day.

The main reason I'm commenting here is to bring up the fact that the 720px "preview" often has a significant colour shift from the 1200px main file when only the larger file is uploaded. I'm wondering if this could be looked and addressed while you're in "under the hood?" I've noticed this on numerous photographers' images, not only mine...and while sometimes it's barely noticeable at other times it's quite extreme. Perhaps several of us are preparing our files the same way and that isn't conducive to the process in place for converting the 1200px file to the 720px "preview?"

Thanks for your ongoing efforts to improve the site, Jim!

The main reason I'm commenting here is to bring up the fact that the 720px "preview" often has a significant colour shift from the 1200px main file when only the larger file is uploaded. I'm wondering if this could be looked [at] and addressed while you're in "under the hood?"

I have noticed this, as well when looking at images. It's also been commented upon in the Landscape Gallery. Not only color shifts, but tonal shifts, too; especially in B&W images.

On a related side note: I think it's important for the image poster to embed a color profile in their images: sRGB seems to work the best cross-platform. If they embed a profile in the large version, the resize to the 720px version should retain the embedded color profile. At this time, it appears that the resize does not do this. and as John indicated, this needs to be looked at.

--P

sRGB seems to work the best cross-platform.

Preston makes a key point here. This is a must especially for the viewers not using a color manged browser. As I recall having used Firefox for years the default is set if it detects an image not showing a profile it will automatically show the image as an sRGB. I think you can also set Firefox to view ALL images as sRGB in the optional settings too even if another profile is embedded.

Regardless, to minimize confusion it is best to embed the profile as mentioned by Preston.

John, Preston and Paul - I do not believe that the forum software will ever reduce the 1600 to 720 with complete satisfaction. Hence, the optional 720 upload.

Here's another idea - eliminate the 720 screen all together. We could have the 1600 screen open in a new window directly from the thumbnail and place all the photo info and comments on that screen, below the photo. As much as I'm not a fan of opening new windows, the advantage is we can eliminate all of the header graphics, navigations, etc. and only have to use a close-window icon, keeping the presentation of the photo as clean as possible. It might be a worthwhile trade off.

I think this idea deserves some serious consideration....

Hence, the optional 720 upload.

Jim, I think this has worked fine in the past, at least I've never had any significant drop in quality that I ever saw between my own from 1200 to 720. I always uploaded both sized slightly under the allowable 500k and 300k respectably. Also, I've never considered the 720 the target image to review unless the poster left off the 1200 optional image.

Paul, good point. I think there are some who never look at the 1200 version, so I'm trying to come up with a way that they more likely will.

Perhaps a way to do this is to (1) make the 720 photo the actual link and (2) when they mouse over the 720, they get the "View Full Size Photo" message. That may be more obvious than the current text link under the 720.

Perhaps a way to do this is to (1) make the 720 photo the actual link and (2) when they mouse over the 720, they get the "View Full Size Photo" message. That may be more obvious than the current text link under the 720.

These are excellent alternatives to the text approach I would think.

Perhaps a way to do this is to (1) make the 720 photo the actual link and (2) when they mouse over the 720, they get the "View Full Size Photo" message. That may be more obvious than the current text link under the 720.

.

I think this is an excellent idea.

Personally, when I view the large version, I like the fact that the tab (window) is uncluttered. A lot of text, etc. would diminish the viewing experience, at least to me.

As to as those who view only the 720 px image goes, there are still , regrettably, those who are on slow internet connections, so viewing a large image, especially if it's close to 1MB in size would take a long time.

--P

Part of the challenge is making the improvements discussed without having to rewrite a lot of code, which is costly.

Here is yet another way to improve the viewing experience;

1. Take a look at this lightbox script - http://lokeshdhakar.com/projects/lightbox2/

2. The script would be employed on the thumbnails, so that the full size photo can be viewed directly.

3. A "Post/View Comments" link would be provided under the thumbnail to go to the 720/comments screen.

4. The same lightbox script would be used on the 720 photo

For those photos already posted that have not had a large file uploaded, the lightbox would simply open the 720.

What I also like about the lightbox script is that a right-click does not open a "copy" or "save-as" dialog as it does on a photo.

This approach would have several advantages;

1. It would allow full size photos to be viewed on a "clean screen" much more easily, directly from the thumbnail page

2. Integrates well with photos already posted

3. Gives improved copy protection vs. the current 1200 screen

4. Should be easy to implement

Keep that feedback coming!

Here's another idea - eliminate the 720 screen all together. We could have the 1600 screen open in a new window directly from the thumbnail and place all the photo info and comments on that screen, below the photo. As much as I'm not a fan of opening new windows, the advantage is we can eliminate all of the header graphics, navigations, etc. and only have to use a close-window icon, keeping the presentation of the photo as clean as possible. It might be a worthwhile trade off.

I think this idea deserves some serious consideration....

Finally chiming in... YES, I agree. I remember when the 1200 pixel version started that it was made optional because some people had problems with slow dial-up connections. Is that still true? If that is not a significant problem, why to we need both large and small versions?

I think that anything that decreases complexity -- both in uploading and in viewing/commenting -- would make the site more attractive, especially for new users. I bet that making people resize an image is a hurdle that turns off many potential users, and even something as simple as clicking on multiple versions of an image to view and/or comment is just one more hoop to jump through. Anything you can do to make site use as simple as possible without losing quality will be a big step in attracting and keeping members.

Wayne, thanks for your thoughts!

The way the it works right now, you can actually upload ONLY the 1200 pixel version and the 720 and thumbnail is generated from it. It's just not clear on the upload page that you can do that, but that will be addressed. For those who want the 720 to look as good as possible, it can be uploaded separately as an option. So the functionality is already there.

If the large photo is upsized to 1600/1MB max, I think the 720 needs to remain for those who have slow connections.

After researching this tweak over the last 3 days and having this discussion, I am going to investigate making the following changes;

1. The use of a "light box" viewer script to view the large photo (see my previous post)

2. On the thumbnail page, clicking the thumbnail will open the large photo using the script, giving immediate access to it

3. A "View/Post Comments" link will be added under the thumbnail that leads to the screen with the 720 and the comments

4. The 720 photo will also be a link to the larger photo using the script. If no larger file was uploaded, the viewer will open another 720 (and the 720 from the thumbnail).

The screen with the 720 and comments will also be cleaned up.

With these changes, I think viewing photos will be easier and more enjoyable.

Jim,

I think the items listed above will work nicely, and will be welcomed.

Thanks for your efforts on this!

--P

Jim, all sounds like excellent ideas. Once implemented it will be nice to see how it does actually work overall.

If the extra security the "light-box" feature is suppose to provide to the 1600 prevents any right click copy and such it should help slow or minimize image harvesting to a point. No doubt it will be tested by the image grazers of the world out there.

Paul, right-clicking on the photo in the viewer will give the same menu as right-clicking a HTML page - there is no "copy" or "save as" selections.

Jim, the way it presently is working I can right click on the 720 & 1200. The 1200 does give a banner stating do not copy, but then the banner drops and it shows the drop down menu normally provided by right clicking. I just tried it now and tested with an image.
That may have been this way the whole time and I just did not try before.

Thanks Jim. These are exciting changes, and I do think they will simplify using NPN while at the same time improving the visual experience, making our images look even better (for those who choose to upload larger files). In addition to that, and to the big thing that makes NPN shine -- the best, most helpful in-depth image critiques on the Web -- two other points should help make many people appreciate NPN: (1) Fast downloads, and (2) an easy, practically automatic personal online photo gallery for each NPN member.

(1) Fast downloads: When I responded to your suggestion to "eliminate the 720 screen all together" I liked the simplicity of that for viewing and commenting. If slow connections are still a problem, however, the changes you are discussing will still make using the site simpler. Plus, the 720 pixel images will continue to make NPN the site for people who appreciate faster downloads. That versatility to enjoy fast downloads, and opt for larger images on demand could be touted as a selling point.

(2) an easy, practically automatic personal online photo gallery:

Another goal is to greatly improve the Personal Gallery (PG) feature so that members will want to make full use of them.

I believe that this is another great selling point that should be exploited. I think there are a lot of photographers out there who would like a personal photo Web site, but are not ready to invest their time and money in one. Simplifying the personal URL to the PG, and making the other improvements will make it easier for these people to share their PG just as they would any personal Web site. (Personal Online Gallery -- "POG" ?)

Hi again, Jim et al! Wow, getting more exciting by the post!

Not to beat on this drum unnecessarily and ad nauseum, especially as these imminent changes may address this, but Jim, my comment re a colour shift on the 720px image when uploading only the larger image isn't simply degradation caused by downsizing as your response seems to imply. There is definitely a strong shift in colour (usually warmer/redder and a bit more saturated) even when embedding sRGB (or, incidentally, Adobe 98). Normally on these auto-scaling scripts you lose a bit of quality especially in fidelity in sharpness and tonal range in shadows, but I've never seen it shift warmer like it does since adding this feature. Yes, taking the time to prepare a 720px file and uploading it does address this, but what you are proposing seems to keep the wonderfully convenient option open of uploading only a larger (now 1600px) file and having the site automatically downsize a 720px version for the critique page, so I thought I would mention this again.

Also, another thought re reversing the default to now opening the larger file...a lot of people, myself and my daughter included, visit NPN on our smartphones throughout the day. The default to 720px certainly means less data flow. Just a thought.

Finally, while we're on the topic of making the NPN interface as user-friendly as possible, the critique gallery pages are quite frustrating to read on smartphones and smaller tablets, most often requiring zooming in and then scrolling back and forth to read each line of copy. Choosing Reader view results in CRAZY inconsistencies, with only some posts showing in a thread or image critique. In other words, the site text isn't very responsive to the device accessing it, which is becoming one of the most important features for websites in this crazy era where they are being viewed on iPhones, Android phones, iPad minis, "regular" iPads, Android tablets of various sizes and aspect ratios, laptops, desktops, and who knows what else! There are responsive platforms out there now, but I have no idea whether that's an option for you in this infrastructure.

Thanks again for all you're doing!

John, I will investigate the script we're using for down sizing photos and see if there are any adjustments to be made. NPN's programmer informed me today that adding the lightbox viewer should be straight forward.

So now for more of your input - I want the large photos to be accessible straight from the thumbnails. I think it will be a great way for viewers to peruse any gallery! I tried the viewer on my iPhone 6plus and I like what I see.

The next decision is how to link to the 720 screen as the thumbnails currently do. I see two options;

1. Add a View/Post Comments link under the thumbnail. This would be the most obvious but will require more real estate on the thumbnail page.

2. Make the photo title under the thumbnail the link to the 720 page. Though less obvious, no additional real estate needed. I could add to the current "Click Thumbnail to View Image" notice at the top of the page "Click Photo Title to View Details and Comments" - and I could also make the photo title stand out better.

I'm leaning toward option 2 but would like to hear your thoughts.

Option 2, Jim. You could underline the photo title just like a standard link and keep the bold font.

--P

Jim,

I only saw the thread today, as I was away from the internet most of last week. My thoughts:

1. I see protecting the photos from unauthorized download as a top (and urgent) priority. I know of two people who have not joined NPN only because in its current configuration it is possible to right click and download the 1200 px image. I would not be surprised if there are many more. Eliminating the copy/save option when right clicking may be the most important aspect of an upgrade.

2. 1600px and 1 MB sound good to me, but 1200px and 1MB could also work, especially if there will be no auto resize functionality.

3. Using the 720px as the thumbnail is great, and I would go with your option 2 above (photo title is the link).

4. Any and all flexibility that can be added to arranging and customizing the personal gallery will be another very significant improvement, that may help to attract and keep more members. Anything that you can do to make the personal gallery look more modern and appealing will be a major improvement.

5. I think that the 1 photo per day limit is a great idea, and I would not change this. I can understand, however, why a higher quota may be desirable, but I would definitely not go beyond 2. In my view, the best way to increase the number of postings is not to allow more postings per person, but rather to have more people posting. And I think that points 1, 2 and 4 above may go some way in that direction.

Well, I now have to go back and read the thread again, as I am sure that I have forgotten several things...I do hope that you find some of this helpful.

Albert, thanks for your feedback! A few notes in response;

1. The lightbox viewing script addresses the right-click-save concern. Of course, there really is no way to protect any photo posted on the Internet from being copied.

2. I am going to include some "recommended sizing" verbiage on the upload screen. IMO, 1400 pixels in width and 900 pixels in height are really the practical limits at this time to avoid scrolling with some common screen resolutions.

3. Yes, option 2 seems to be the winner!

4. The PGs will be a work in progress this year. First step is to have personalized gallery headers (perhaps with a bio/photo upload) and easy URLs direct to the galleries; members.naturephotographers.net/user name

5. We will roll with 2 per day and see how it works.

Once the new functionality updates discussed above are completed (hopefully within about 30 days), there is also going to be a constant/gradual upgrade of page aesthetics to support the improved viewing experience.

Jim, your last list here sounds very good and we look forward to seeing the changes overall. Good luck with the programming and testing.

btw: I did not see the thoughts you'd mentioned early on about the background gray scale choice, is that still part of the planned changes?

Paul, thanks!

Yes, there will be grayscale selections added to the upload page.

All positive changes, Jim.

As I said before, I think that simplicity for new visitors and users is important, so your ideas for simple and easily-seen instructions at the top of the page are excellent.

Speaking of simple instructions, I see that the need to scroll larger images seems to be a concern for some. While various tablets and smartphones handle such issues in different ways, browsers on computers have a VERY simple way to handle images larger than the monitor's resolution; and from complaints that I have seen on NPN, quite a few people seem to be unaware of it.

I don't know if it is worth cluttering the screen with more instructions, but somewhere in the site's instructions, a simple message like the following would help those not familiar with their browser's controls: "If the image it too big for your computer screen, click on "View" and then "Zoom" in your browser's top menu."

If you put the message somewhere on the site where more text is not a problem, pointing out the faster shortcut keys would be helpful for people not familiar with gleaning that information from their menu. Hold down the "Control" and press the "-" or "+" keys to decrease or increase the size of the image; the Control + the Zero Key combination restores the display to the default (100%) screen size. (You would add the equivalent keystrokes for Apple computers.)

Hold down the "Control" and press the "-" or "+" keys to decrease or increase the size of the image; the Control + the Zero Key combination restores the display to the default (100%) screen size. (You would add the equivalent keystrokes for Apple computers.)

Thanks Wayne, I knew about these excluding the return to default item. I always just remembered the number of + or - I used to navigate back.

If we're thinking out loud on screen and text items in general, I have an item of thought with regard to the Text Style Menu. I personally have them memorized and use them often. But many times I see in forums and such url's without the auto link brackets. Easy enough to just select the entire string and use the open link method, but there is also the other Text Style Menu items that could all be short cut.
I know it is pie in the sky but just thought I'd mention it as an item for future thoughts. The shortcuts are just a quick click that inserts the brackets for you. B could be the short cut for bold for instance. By just clicking on these they would insert the required string. Then just type or insert the verbiage between the brackets. Again, just thinking out loud.

I second improvements to text style. The existing setup is very antiquated (as are the emoji's but they have a certain charm I suppose). There are many more simplified ways to edit the text that would be helpful. If we could get an improvement with that it would be huge

Luke, definitely - that has been on my list too.

I'm pretty leery of the idea of boosting the number of posts per day. there's already not enough comments per image, and this will allow people to post twice as many images (or potentially 5x as many) with no incentive to boost their commenting. There are already lots of images rolling off the front page with only 2 or 3 or 4 comments--now they'll roll even faster. More photos from fewer people (only a small subset will post more than 1 a day) does not seem like a great way to deal with the lack of commenting problem.

does not seem like a great way to deal with the lack of commenting problem.

Brian, although more of a human issue per se, a hook could be placed in the system to increase comments even if only a "good shot" message was received.

The hook would be that before a person sees their own image surface in any gallery they MUST comment at least 5 times in any of the listed galleries. If not their image does not surface.

In the end it may never bring about very true objective responses, but it would bring up comment counts, or the reality of maybe much less images ever really surfacing at all......

The idea of a minimum number of comments before another photo can be posted has been discussed before and can be done without much effort. The challenge is getting someone to post a meaningful comment - all the software can do is count. If all someone does is post "great shot" five times to be able to post their own photo, what have we accomplished?

A better approach may be a means of recognizing those who consistently post meaningful comments. Though any automated system is subject to abuse, perhaps we should install a "Like Comment" feature and a means of tracking those comments. We could also run a "Critique of the Week" recognition to further encourage quality participation by all.

FWIW, I agree that more posts per person is not the answer in itself, but in combination with the above could be beneficial.

I'm really looking forward to the changes being proposed. I don't think adding any requirement about number of comments is a good idea, primarily because it might give people an incentive to leave NPN. I do like the idea of a "Like Comment" feature and "Critique of the week" recognition.

The challenge is getting someone to post a meaningful comment - all the software can do is count. If all someone does is post "great shot" five times to be able to post their own photo, what have we accomplished?

I totally agree with this point, Jim. In the long run "forcing" a comment will never bring about a true critique.

However, the point Brian mentions about the multi-posts of any amount in a day would dilute the situation and bring on more in the lacking "total" comment ratio. If the perception is not enough comments now then adding more images to the list would make things worse, I would think. Maybe the two per day might work OK, but I suspect there is more concern for lacking C/P ratio then can we post more images in a given day.

As one of the last standing "film" shooters in the mix here I work on an ALL film site that has a 5 per day gallery uploads and it winds up just dozens of images not receiving ANY comments. I will admit the site is not geared toward pass and review it is more based upon several strong technical forums. Whereas the posted galleries are merely running in the background and receive little viewing. So maybe not a good comparison, but maybe just a slight point of caution on the uploads allowed per day.

The challenge is getting someone to post a meaningful comment

Indeed it is. It's a 'people' issue rather than a technical one. At least to me, 'Like' buttons, 'Critique of the Week', etc. will likely not resolve our concerns about lack of comments.

The bottom line is, I think, a leadership issue. There are two pieces to this, as I see it:

First, new members need to understand that the purpose/mission of NPN is one that is distinct from social media and the other photo sharing sites. If I recall correctly, a statement to this effect was suggested as part of the initial response from Jim to new members.

Second, the moderators and older members should consider prompting those who post many images and few comments to step up their game. As an adjunct to this, older members who post many images and few comments, need to lead by example by also increasing their number of comments.

--P

It's a 'people' issue rather than a technical one.

Exactly.....in fact, I suspect those who struggle with commenting on a small scale or at all, have no idea this thread is even taking place with thoughts of improving the site for ALL concerned.

Maybe a "Hall Of Fame" list of top commenters, or "Hall Of Shame" for low or no commenters, maybe both.....

I think that forcing comments is a negative incentive that will only reduce your membership. I like the idea of adding a critique of the week and month. Being recognized for quality critiquing would put more focus on that aspect of photography and can serve to arouse curiosity and interest in that set of skills and expertise. If you could somehow highlight the specific critique that is being awarded in the original photo posting it would be helpful so that it would stand out whenever that posting is viewed.

I think that forcing comments is negative incentive that will only reduce your membership. I like the idea of adding a critique of the week and month. Being recognized for quality critiquing would put more focus on that aspect of photography and can serve to arouse curiosity and interest in that set of skills and expertise. If you could somehow highlight the specific critique that is being awarded in the original photo posting it would be helpful so that it would stand out whenever that posting is viewed.

I think that forcing comments is a negative incentive that will only reduce your membership. I like the idea of adding a critique of the week and month. Being recognized for quality critiquing would put more focus on that aspect of photography and can serve to arouse curiosity and interest in that set of skills and expertise. If you could somehow highlight the specific critique that is being awarded in the original photo posting it would be helpful so that it would stand out whenever that posting is viewed.

When I suggested earlier that raising the number of posts to 2 per day may not be the best idea I had Paul and Preston's concerns in mind. Although I am a relative newbie here, I feel that what makes NPN stand out from other photo sharing sites is the general helpfulness of the comments that one gets - even if I may not agree with some or many of them, I always find it educational and helpful to know what other people think of my work, and I hope that I can offer something in return. All other sites that I am familiar with are of the "good shot" denomination, and I do not contribute to any of them any more - waste of time. I am concerned that this great aspect of NPN may be diluted if, as I suspect will happen, comment-averse contributors are also the ones who will most frequently make use of the new limit.

As I said above, I think that the best way of ensuring the well-being of NPN is by getting more (new?) members posting (and commenting) rather than by having more posts from the same number of contributors. The latter may in fact lead to some members losing interest and the number of members actually going down.

Jim, I believe that all of the improvements that you are working on are great and will result in a much more up-to-date and attractive site. I think that NPN should capitalize on this to attract more members, and perhaps use some of Preston's and Paul's ideas to encourage meaningful participation from day one.

I hope this helps!

Preston and Paul, agreed! Updating the mission statement on the Membership page is indeed needed, along with the updating of many important screens, such as the photo upload screen, preferences screen, etc. Though the upcoming site updates may not be profound, collectively it should all move us in a positive direction.

FYI, I have started the conversation with Dave the Programmer. He is going to study our list of updates and I'll be having some phone conferences with him next week. What follows is the "wish list" I presented to him - please note that we may not be able afford to do it all;

1. Install the lightbox script as already discussed above. This would be installed on the screen with the comments and 720 pixel photo. The photo would be the link to the large version, which would be rendered with the lightbox script. If no large version was uploaded, the script would render the 720 version. This is for consistency sake so people get used to always clicking the 720 photo for the alternate view.

In the spot where the current "View larger Photo" appears, display the views/comments count as currently shown on the thumbnails screen.

2. Install the lightbox script on the thumbnails page. Clicking the thumbnail would render the 720 photo with the lightbox script and photo title under the thumbnail would become the link to the comments screen.

Other thumbnail pages updates;

1 - Expand the sort thumbnails by post date or by last comment to also include sort by view count. So there would be three options: sort by post date, sort by last comment or sort by page views. Selections via radio button.

2 - Have a hide or show photo details (all the text that appears under the thumbnails). So there would be a viewer option to either show all the text under the thumbnails or hide it for a cleaner look. Along with that we would use a cursor tooltip that when placed over the thumbnail shows the photo title, photographer name and post date: Photo Title posted by Member Name on 03/18/2015. Selection via radio button.

Create a new "Gallery Settings" section on the thumbnails page for the radio button selections to appear in and to make them more obvious. Additionally, there will be some aesthetic updates of the thumbnails, comments and the upload photo screens as part of an overall site refresh.

3. Enhance the Personal Gallery feature;

a - a personalized header on these pages, something like "Gallery of Member Name"

b - a bio and photo upload like we do on Photoportfolios, so the member's bio and photo appears in the header section of their Personal Gallery thumbnail page.

c - enable a custom URL to the Personal Galleries as we do on PhotoPortfolios: members.naturephotographers.net/user name

4. Install a new comment posting script to something more modern and functional.

5. Miscellaneous;

•Allow poster to delete photo at any time. Currently they can only delete if there are no comments on the photo.
•Increase large photo upload from 1200 pixels/500KB to 1600 pixels/1MB
•Increase 720 file size from 300kb to 500kb

I hope to know in a few weeks how much of this list we'll be able to do. It would be nice to do it all and then continue with other updates as we see fit.

BTW, next month starts NPN's 16th year online - here's to many more!

Alberto, agreed! Notice I did not ask for an increase in the "posting speed limit" at this time.

I would agree with Alberto's comments. It would be best to make incremental changes and a more up-to-date site is a great first step. Hopefully, this will encourage new members, current members to stay, and prior members to return. I would hold off on increasing the number of posts per gallery. As already pointed out increasing the number of posts could well result in less comments per post as the posts become more quickly shunted to the next page. I would be opposed to any plan to force comments. Regarding the discussion about "meaningful comments", some photos are simply so good that all you can say is "great shot" or something similar. And, some people are probably hesitant to offer a critical comment on "name" photographers. While I'm sure we are all interested in improving our work, I'd say there are two groups: those who are mostly interested in showing their work and those, like myself, who are members in order to receive feedback that will make us better photographers. I suspect the former group is happy with the "great shot" comments. Those in the second group tend to ask questions and ask for feedback.

BTW, next month starts NPN's 16th year online - here's to many more!

Happy anniversary! I totally agree!

@ Jim,

BTW, next month starts NPN's 16th year online

......Congratulations on this milestone.

Jim - is there a need to generate some additional funds? There are a variety of ways NPN could "fundraise" some extra $$ and I'm sure many members would be willing to make 1 time donations if it means added functionality.

Luke, there may be a membership drive in the near future.

I'll know more in a week or so when I get the estimate from DtP. We'll find a way to make it happen!

Ok - sounds good! I think I could encourage a few people to join the fun

Jim,

Currently, when one needs to remove an image from their personal gallery they uncheck the box 'Check this box to include photo in your gallery' and then click Update Photo. That part is fine, but the image remains in the gallery for quite some time, or is never removed.

I think this should be fixed so that the deletion should be immediate.

Thanks for all your efforts!

--P

Preston, members will be able to manually delete immediately.

Some thoughts and suggestions:

A. Providing the ability to upload 1600 pixels may actually turn some people away from the website for fear of having their image 'stolen'. Regardless of software modifications to prevent a download many photographers may not feel safe with this.

B. I suggested a few months ago a gallery where members would post a 'before' and 'after' image and include all of the steps the photographer took to accomplish this. If you were really bold you could even provide why this was done. I firmly believe this would make NPN stand out.

C. Voting. I'm thinking it would be fun if members were given the opportunity to vote for their favorite image of the week and month. This wouldn't be binding. The moderators would still make the final selection. But it would provide some interaction.

Igor, thanks for your thoughts!

1. The 1600 is being provided as a maximum - members can still upload smaller files if they wish. The 1600 max is really intended for panorama photos. We are going to recommend 1400 pixels in width or 900 pixels in height, whichever is greater, as the practical maximum based on smaller monitor resolution capabilities. Everyone will be free to upload something smaller: a 1200, a 1000 or even just the 720 - whatever size is uploaded is how it will be rendered on the site.

2. Yes, creating such a gallery is easy to do and I think is worth a try! That said, we had many people a few years ago asking for an Anonymous Gallery, where a photo could be posted without the member's identification attached to it, the idea being that more honest critique might be offered. Unfortunately, the gallery has been a resounding flop and has actually caused more problems than photos posted to it - people accidently posting to it and then emailing us stating they can't find their photo.

The Anonymous Gallery was a good experiment but is going to be discontinued. We'll give a "How-To" gallery a try this year and see how it goes.

3. Voting is something that brings out a strong debate. The consensus is that most members are opposed to any voting system on photos. That said, I too like the potential user-interaction it could provide and welcome any further discussion on this idea. BTW, installing a Like feature for comments/critiques is something we're taking a look at.

Thanks again to all for your thoughts and suggestions - please keep them coming!

(Jim logged-in as Donna)

So I've been working on some thumbnails screen tweaks to accommodate the changes above: the thumbnail will open the 720 in the lightbox viewer and the photo title will be the link to the comments screen. Right now I'm rolling with earth tones and like the look, but I'll be tweaking it some more based on your feedback. BTW, the thumbnail background is a tile that I can easily change at any time with a single upload.

Take a look and let me know what you think!

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/thumbnails-2.html

Looks good, Jim, but I can see that on occasion the thumbnail will be hard to separate from the background. What about a few pixels of white around the thumb and then the earth tone?

Jim, looks really good. To me the images already have a more defined look with the color change you've made. Maybe it's just me and how my eyes work, but the images in a neutral color come across looking very nice. As I stated earlier, the existing Portfolio area images always had more definition or clarity on that background. Again, might be just my vision.

I do also see Mark's point if that is an item for possible consideration.....

I like the look of the page. The neutral background sets the images off nicely.

I like Mark's idea of a thin white border around the images.

When I click the 'title', all is good.

When I click on the image thumbnail, the current page 'flashes' but I don't see the image in the light box viewer. This happens in both FireFox v. 36.0.4 and in IE 11.

--P

Yes, that is a nice presentation. To better visualize Mark's idea of "a few pixels of white around the thumb" I selected a couple of light images and a couple of darker images and pasted them on the page with a white border. The white really does separate the image from the background, but I wonder if it might be a bit too "shocking" given the darkness of the background. For comparison, I changed the borders to black and put them on the attached image next to the ones with the white borders. Not sure which works better. What do you think.

Of course, all this depends on how do-able adding image borders is.

I think as the "thumbnail page" it may not be too critical on the border color, just something to break the edge. But, that leads to a bit of thought then on any / or the backgrounds for the 720 and or the 1200-1400-1600 large size. Overall, the neutral to me looks good, maybe just a bit more thought or input with regard to any possible borders. I don't think the white is too harsh looking at them here.

@ Wayne, thanks for taking time to make these bordered ones up it helps to look at things ahead of time.

The light box script has not been added to this test page, so some imagination is required.

Since the thumbs are links a border can be set around them but the same color as other links. The light box script will place a white border around all photos opened in it to separate the photo from the darkened background. Without adding a border to the photo before uploading, there not much else that could be done.

OK. That's makes sense.

Jim, you could try the link color as a border and let's see how it looks. To my mind, the simpler and uncluttered the look, the better.

--P

Don't know if this is the right topic to post. But if you're going to make software changes to the site it would be really nice if all dates posted would include the year as well. It can be confusing.

...it would be really nice if all dates posted would include the year as well. It can be confusing.

This is a great idea, Igor!

--P

Update

Had my phone conference with DtP today and we are moving ahead with the first batch of updates;

1. Lightbox viewer on comments page and thumbnails page
2. Update of thumbnails page as previously discussed above
3. Upload size increase
4. Rich text for the posts/comments

We'll keep rollin' from there!

Nice to see the updated post here Jim, even with it being dated April 1st......

Looking forward to seeing how the improvements work out.......good luck with things overall....

Jim,

Excellent! Like many others here at NPN I am looking forward to the enhancements!

What are you looking at in terms of a time frame for "go live"?

Many thanks for all your, and DtP's efforts!

--P

Hopefully in a week or two.

Live testing happening here;

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic1.cgi?a=va&ns=1

All lightbox functionality is there. Be sure to click a thumbnail and see how you can toggle through them all slideshow style from the thumbnails screen! Right-click no longer gives save photo dialog.

We're now working on cleaning up the comments screen and a new rich text feature for posting comments, so don't be surprised if something looks broken when you try out the link above.

Hope to have it done and rolled out live next week.

First update is rolled out!

Next up is an update of the Post A Photo screen and the updating the forums with the new Rich Text editor and some minor graphics updates so the forums have the look/feel of the galleries.

Thanks to all for you input through the process!