I could swear I saw a similar post in the past, but couldn't find it. Regardless, it needs to be addressed.

The portrait images in the gallery are very small compared to the real-estate provided on the screen. I am seeing the same problem with landscape images that I have partially cropped but could still be considered landscape. The only images that seem to display properly are the full landscape images. I am providing examples.

Bottom line is the image should display as big as the screen allows, i.e. bottom anchor point for both portrait and landscape images should be the same.

Portrait Image

Landscape Image

Partially Cropped Landscape Image

For reference I also included the save image size option on the screen print - in each of the examples, the save image /display image has been set in Access Control to be the largest allowed, but it varies with each actual image. Not sure if there is a relationship with the problem mentioned above, but its odd that the large landscape image has a max image save width (vertical side) of 779 pixels, but it displays the entire page, while the portrait image save vertical side is 850 pixels,but it looks to be nowhere near displaying that size.

What's odd is that I've thought the same thing before - I'm only responding to this post because I agree with you Brett and would like it to be tweaked as well!!

Thanks for posting this concern!

I know that from your original, several 'display images' are created at various size increments...  this makes displaying an image faster than doing the resizing on the fly... it just picks the largest displayable size and uses that.

upside, faster display.  downside, images not ALWAYS filling the available real estate.

I did notice that in your sample images, the vertical dimension of the largest displayable image was different for the full-landscape [799px], where as the other two were the same as each other [850px].  I would like to see how the three images looked if you resized the two 850's to 799...  just as a test.  :)

Kevin - in response to your point about the image sizes, I included that information but it should be superfluous to this issue because the actual image sizes in the gallery are 1200 pixels minimum width. I would have expected the largest save size to always have the maximum allowable pixels, 1100 as I specified in access control.  I forgot to mention that earlier, but is part of my puzzlement as to the apparent arbitrary nature of the image save size options offered on the screen.

As an update to the original issue, I noticed the following:

The gallery IS displaying properly now, on my computer at least, in Firefox for the center layout, but is not displaying properly in Internet Explorer:

Center Layout With Thumbnails Screen Print

I thought I would test another layout to see if it is possibly a layout specific issue. Possibly so - image appears to display properly in both Firefox and Internet Explorer for the Left To Right Layout With Thumbnails.

Left To Right Layout With Thumbnails

I didn't test any other layouts but maybe this will be some helpful information for ZENFOLIO TO FIX THIS PROBLEM QUICKLY!

again I think by looking at this the problem is what I suspected the first time...  the fact that pre-defined display images are created from your original file.

Notice the header height between your firefox and IE browsers...  the firefox header takes up less vertical room... not much less, but less none the same.

In the second example where it appears to be working, because the thumbs are on the side, you have more vertical real estate.  notice the images are the same size, but because of the thinner header, the firefox browser shows the image a bit higher and should have just slightly more room to go lower... there is space there below it, but not much.

in the first example, where the thumbs are on the top, you have less vertical real estate to work with, and apparently the difference in size of real estate is just enough that the IE image has to switch to the next smaller size 'display image', thereby leaving more room at the bottom.

To illustrate this effect further, you could... what's it called?  not maximize your browser on your screen, then while the image is being displayed, slowly drag the bottom up to change the vertical real estate.  you'll notice that instead of the picture resizing consistently with the window, it will suddenly jump to a smaller image to fit within the window, and stay that size until the window shrinks small enough that it requires a size change again.

That's the trade-off in the way they've designed it.  faster display because the display images are created and stored when you upload your originals and don't have to resize on the fly, but depending on how much available space you have, it could show more space below the image...

I know there had been discussions about this in the past, and some things suggested were more display sizes (more sizes in between the current set) to minimize this effect, and others suggested just going to the 'resize on the fly' method, giving up some speed to maximize display all the time.  I do not know where anything is in the process on anything however.

Hope that explanation helps show why it is happening anyways...

OK - I see your point to a point.

It's still a Zenfolio problem and somebody needs to fix it. Whatever Image size options they provide there should always be a consistent max vertical pixel length so that landscape and portrait images present consistently.  The landscape images are presenting just fine in both IE and Firefox. For a typical 1100 pixel landscape image, the vertical is 733 pixels (35mm aspect ratio) so Zenfolio should also provide that same vertical size option for the portraits. Suggestion: In the current options, there is very little difference between the small and medium size options for a portrait image (400 vertical pixels vs 450). Maybe they could make the medium size option a little bigger (533 vertical pixels to match the large portrait constraint) and change the large option to have 733 vertical pixels instead of 630. That would solve the problem.

Also, maybe this is beside the point, but the other thing that's confusing is that there is a scroll bar in the Internet Explorer page. Its hard for me to see how Internet Explorer is resizing the image if its not even resizing the page to fit on the screen.

I would be curious to know what actual display image sizes are created...  it would be nice to have additional intermediate sizes to lessen the effect, but I realize they would be storing alot more images...  even making 3 more display sizes, for every picture currently stored in their server farm...  ouch.

The actual image sizes are displayed when you click the Share button in the visitor view, when looking at a photo. The list of all available sizes is displayed.

The larger dimension of portrait images does not equal the larger dimension of vertical images. This was done to maximize the vertical image size that fits a given browser screen. In many cases, galleries contain images with varying aspect ratios, so we cannot guarantee that images will always be displayed bounded by a fixed size rectangular frame.

There are currently 4 image buckets. To fill the buckets they evaluate  the uploaded file - It's likely an algorithm to compare horizontal pixels to vertical pixels - if horizontal is greater than vertical then the horizontal size is set at 1100, 800, 580, 400 and the vertical size is determined by the aspect ratio (constrain proportions). If the vertical pixels are greater or equal to the horizontal, then the vertical image size is set to  850, 630, 450 and 400 and the horizontal is again determined by the aspect ratio.

Support has told me in past correspondence that they are going to be adding larger image display sizes in the future, although I wonder about the value of that given the scenarios discussed above as well as the issue I have raised before about the displaying versus saving images. I am already setting my display in most galleries to large instead of extra large because I don't want people "saving" 1100 pixel versions of my images.

Sorry Vitas - I didn't realize you had already responded to this thread before I wrote my last post.

As I mentioned way above, it seems like you guys could tweak the size definitions so there was a better correspondence between vertical and horizontal images. As it stands now, when the computer decides that 850 pixels it too big for the screen, the jump down to 630 pixels is really inelegant in my humble opinion.

Our image sizes were carefully picked based on data we gathered about visitors' browser sizes. One of the lessons we've learned is that there's very hard to predict how viewers will be experiencing your site. Some people always maximize their browsers, some install many plug-ins and toolbars - reducing the available screen real estate, while some use huge LCD TV's as their monitors. 

We will be tweaking the sizes, however at this point it is impossible to achieve smooth resizing of images without compromising their quality.

One thing I've done in my galleries is put all the landscape photos first, then all the portrait.  It gives the page a very clean look.  I always size the landscape 3:2 ratio.

Here is a sample.  Portraits start at 196.

http://texaspic.net/p169879238

swtrans:

One thing I've done in my galleries is put all the landscape photos first, then all the portrait.  It gives the page a very clean look.  I always size the landscape 3:2 ratio.

Here is a sample.  Portraits start at 196.

http://texaspic.net/p169879238

 

Good idea for a layout design. It can get annoying to keep mixing sizes between vertical and horizontal. This was/is a standard for displaying a printed portfolio.

~ trace