suggestion for best do it yourself photo website software

gibbs A. Williams

Active member
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Location
C, NY, US
To all: I want to construct my own website pages to display my photos. There are many possibilities. I am interested in your experiences with respect to ease, relatively glitch free, etc. Or are they all substantially the same with no significant differences. Thank you G.A.Williams
 
To all: I want to construct my own website pages to display my
photos. There are many possibilities. I am interested in your
experiences with respect to ease, relatively glitch free, etc. Or
are they all substantially the same with no significant
differences. Thank you G.A.Williams
There are several contenders out there, but I've been impressed with the functionality, flexibility but simplicity of Thumber. The first ink is to a sample site I uploaded to test Thumber, and I would mention that the largest images were the ones I supplied; Thumber generated the thumbnails and the intermediate sizes. It also added the Exif data I selected, as well as the comments it allowed me to incorporate into the images. Also it has three layouts to choose from, not just the one I used.

Well worth at least trying IMO, and should you decide to keep it beyond the free trial, it will set you back all of $18!

The second link is to the Thumber site itself.

http://www.redbreast.net/thumber/

http://members.tripod.com/~tawba/index.html--Regards,Robin [Redbreast]
 
Thumber generated the thumbnails and the intermediate sizes.
I looked at your site useing a dialup modem at 51kbs, and it took over a minute to load the thumbnails. I didn't have time to wait for one of the full sized images. I checked the file size of your first thumbnail and it is over 26kb. IMHO that is too large for thumbnails. They should be closer to 10 or 15 at the most. Is there a way you can set Thumber to make smaller thumbs? I also wouldn't like to wait for full sized images much larger than 50kb. If possible, set it to make them smaller. Remember that about nine out of ten of your potential visitors are on a dialup modem. HTH. PatiO.

(A 51.2kbs voice in the wilderness...)
 
for one of the full sized images. I checked the file size of your
first thumbnail and it is over 26kb. IMHO that is too large for
thumbnails.
Patio,

You have my sincere apologies!

I am normally so careful about web file sizes, but what happended was that I had built the site purely as a test for use on my computer. After a previous enquiry, I uploaded it "as-is" without first checking the file sizes.

You are of course absolutely right, and all the files were far too large! I have now uploaded a fresh set that are much smaller.

Thumber does allow you to specify the quality (i.e. compression levels) of the thumbnails and intermediate sized image it creates, and I'm not sure after all this time, that I had used this feature "with intent". In any case the originals were far too large to begin with, so even if I had used Thumbers' settings, it would have been acting on large source files as inputs.

Many thanks for bringing this boo-boo to my attention.
--Regards,Robin [Redbreast]
 
Hey, Robin:

I didn't intend to come on so strong. No apologies are required here, you didn't do anything wrong. I'm sorry you just happened to come in my sights in my lame campaign to get faster file downloading here on one of my favorite sites.

I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing to be able to go take quick looks during the day at the activity on a few sites, but when the files are too big, I don't have time to wait and look at them.

Anyhow, from what your said, the program is capable of creating smaller file sizes and that's great.

(Just went and looked at the new version and it is just right. I like the looks of it and intend to look into it (the program) later this week when I get some time.)

By the way, the first one, the brick path pic looks familiar, have you posted it before? It's my favorite. PatiO.
for one of the full sized images. I checked the file size of your
first thumbnail and it is over 26kb. IMHO that is too large for
thumbnails.
Patio,

You have my sincere apologies!

I am normally so careful about web file sizes, but what happended
was that I had built the site purely as a test for use on my
computer. After a previous enquiry, I uploaded it "as-is" without
first checking the file sizes.

You are of course absolutely right, and all the files were far
too large! I have now uploaded a fresh set that are much smaller.

Thumber does allow you to specify the quality (i.e. compression
levels) of the thumbnails and intermediate sized image it creates,
and I'm not sure after all this time, that I had used this feature
"with intent". In any case the originals were far too large to
begin with, so even if I had used Thumbers' settings, it would have
been acting on large source files as inputs.

Many thanks for bringing this boo-boo to my attention.

--
Regards,

Robin [Redbreast]
 
I've been on a cable modem for a few months now, but I still sympathize with those on dialups. Just speaking in general terms, and not to anything specifically mentioned here, some people seem to be more concerned with style, rather than substance, when it comes to site design. I'm much more concerned with content, rather than whether someone has some flashy animation going on. I'm for almost anything that will help the pages load faster. I've seen sites that load up all the full-sized images before you can view anything. Just loading the thumbnails would have been fine. Load the full-size version only if someone clicks on it. Website design is a tricky business. It needs a good balance between asthetics and usability.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top