Help / The Help Forum

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Hot Topics

[Official Thread] Detailed explanation of new features in Flickr 3.0 apps
Latest: 32 minutes ago
[Official Thread] Update on the new photo experience
Latest: 3 hours ago
[Official Thread] Using a Yahoo username and password to sign in to Flickr
Latest: 8 hours ago
[Official Thread] Take a survey to help us improve Flickr groups
Latest: 8 hours ago
[Official Thread] Providing feedback on Flickr 3.0 for iOS and Android
Latest: 20 hours ago
[Official Thread] Using Flickr over a secure (SSL) connection
Latest: 2 days ago

 

Current Discussion

What happened to Sets ?
Latest: 59 seconds ago
Search - can no longer exclude terms?
Latest: 65 seconds ago
I can't Post pictures to groups
Latest: 3 minutes ago
cant upload photo
Latest: 22 minutes ago
[Acknowledged BUG] Group cover photo
Latest: 29 minutes ago
[bug?] why are these images returned by a search for "chickens"???
Latest: 31 minutes ago
[BUG] In the menu bar of the Italian version
Latest: 36 minutes ago
Blackout
Latest: 38 minutes ago
[?BUG] "Blank box" in "activity" view ...
Latest: 66 minutes ago
How can I get from a specific foto to its place in my photostream?
Latest: 2 hours ago
How do I transfer photos from some else's account?
Latest: 2 hours ago
Bug: left/right buttons do not fade out
Latest: 2 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

[Official Topic] Larger image sizes and liquid layout on the photo page

Flickr Staff

Xerxes2K says:

Hi all!

Following on the heels of our announcement of the two new photo sizes, we are happy to announce that they are now available on your photo pages as well.

You heard right! We are introducing a shiny new "liquid" layout that takes care of adjusting the photo page and choosing the matching image size based on the dimensions of your browser window.

In addition, we enabled the two new photo sizes on the "All Sizes" page and made them available through the API depending on your account settings.

Read all the details on Flickr Blog.

If you encounter any issues or have questions or feedback, please let us know right here in this topic.

Staff Edit - 5/22/2012 12AM PST
Some members have reported a loss of sharpness in photos when viewed in the new photo page. Staff are investigating what may be causing this and, if we identify a root cause, we'll work on solutions. A few more updates here.

Staff Edit - 6/6/2012 10:45PM PST
An update to assure you that Flickr staff are actively listening to feedback in this thread and that we're still considering options for large photos on the photo page. Some members are still reporting a loss of sharpness in some cases, which we're still paying close attention to. More details here.

Staff Edit - 6/13/2012 10:51PM PST
We've made a change so that we will only show native sizes if the space available for the photo is 1024 or less. More details here.
Posted at 10:54AM, 15 May 2012 PDT ( permalink )
Ross (staff) edited this topic 22 months ago.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 21
(1 to 100 of 2,015 replies in [Official Topic] Larger image sizes and liquid layout on the photo page)
view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

For a more technical look at how it all works, see my blog post on code.flickr.com. It answers a lot of questions about why you see photos at certain sizes.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BlueisCoool says:

It looks wonderful!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

josh-n says:

great job guys. the image is the most important thing - glad this update has made it awesome sauce!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pr1mo Fotografie says:

I think it looks great!!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Bentley says:

Thank you! Great job, looks very nice.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steffen und Christina says:

Really love the new size of pictures, looks wonderful on landscape and panorama shots and adds a more modern (and dynamic) look to flickr. However not being able to see a vertical photo completely is definitely not perfect ...and to say it even more drastically: not acceptable at all! My friends often take vertical shots and I don't want to scroll down to see the whole picture! But nevertheless, great idea bringing up those big photos! :-)
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

:: James. says:

It looks very different to the older page. Much easier for those who wish to take our photos though as they will get a good screenshot image of it.

That of course is unless flickr does something to prevent images being Screenshot by blanking the image to a White Square like some other sites!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

traciw says:

I get the goals of this change and you're right, it looks beautiful with landscape photos. However, when I look at portrait photos now, I can't see the entire image—even with my browser maximized (I'm on a laptop with a display set to 1680x1050). The only way to see the whole photo is if I enter lightbox mode, thus losing all the awesome context (location, comments, etc.) I love having access to when looking through my friend's streams. That's a bummer.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jared Cherup says:

Great start, but scrolling for portrait photos is a little counter productive to the idea of viewing the entire photo.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

meike says:

Is there any way to turn this feature off? Because I for one DO take a lot of vertically oriented pictures, not just landscape ones, and I just do not like having to scroll to see the whole picture. It would be nice if we had a choice!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Spencer Bowman says:

well done flickr, images look great in the new resolutions.
i will need to sharpen my images now !
thanks.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Steffen und Christina and traciw - I hear you about the portrait photos, and I agree that it would be nice to see more of those photos. But scaling them so that they are entirely visible results in tiny photos. In the end, we decided that having some of the photo cut off is the best of the two options; this is just a result of the fact that computer monitors are much wider then they are tall.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Faire Un Voeu says:

Is it not on everyone's photostream yet? I don't see a difference on my photostream at all.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Faire Un Voeu - It's on the photo page, not the photostream page.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

►i.Anton says:

very very bad. It only works with landscape photos. With photos in portrait or certain square photos it's NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
►i.Anton edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Faire Un Voeu says:

Ross, I'm not seeing a difference on the individual pages either.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Akos Batorfi says:

Nice, but scrolling to see the entire image is not exactly useful. Even with my 1920x1080 and browser in fullscreen I have to scroll to see the full image now.

Still wondering whether it's better than having the small images that we used to have before. In all I am glad that Flickr is improving. Now for a proper rating system, and a more fair explore.. I see too many creepy dolls and knitting on there.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bye·bye says:

Square pictures look definitely blurry (at least in my photostream), compared to the [sharper] original (the one in the lightbox, for example): www.flickr.com/photos/thistrace/6952562306/in/photostream/

Edit: some landscape ones look blurry too: www.flickr.com/photos/thistrace/5866765685/in/photostream/
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
bye·bye edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Sussi Johansson says:

I´m with meike on this, my images are also mostly portrait oriented and they look HUGE! I don´t like it at all to not being able to see the whole picture without scrolling.

For me the old format was not to small!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jared Cherup says:

@Ross while yes, it shows a zoomed photo, scrolling it to view the entire thing is counter intuitive. I know this results in a lot of whitespace due to the new layout, but it really hurts the idea of a portrait photo.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Faire Un Voeu - The photo now scales to the size of your screen, but smaller screens won't see a difference since they show the same 640 px photo as before.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Faire Un Voeu says:

Ross, thanks.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

►i.Anton says:

Pls give us the option of reverting back to the old system.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
►i.Anton edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

traciw says:

It's not really about seeing "more" of the photos, it's about seeing the photo you or I took, in context. I guess to me it's sorta like you're opting to visually crop my photos via design choices and that's a bummer because it seems counter-intuitive to what Flickr is supposed to be—a place for me to show off my photos, with my composition choices. Anyway, I know you're not likely to make changes based on our feedback, but it's still something that really makes me sad about this change.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jared Cherup says:

Well put traciw. This change should be optional for portraits.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

traciw - We really do appreciate the feedback, and it's something we take into account. We never assume that what we release is perfect on the day it goes out :)
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:

OK in general I am in favour of larger photos, and so this is great - for landscape format.
However, I already found the way a "portrait" format photo is kept on the extreme left a bit jarring as it leads to lots of white space in the middle of the photopage.
This change has made it much much worse as now the same happens to all square photos. And also, should I choose to restrict the maximum display size of my photos to "Large 1024", it can happen to almost any photo if I maximise my browser.

You dev blog says "we’ve been happily viewing them for years" this way, but I disagree.
I kinda agree about the benefits of consistent page width, but personally I would prefer the photo centered in the "photo space" to reduce whitespace in the middle of the screen.

You're not going to do that though, so here's an idea I would like a comment on. If my maxmium display size is set to "Large 1024", can you base the page width on that size? Or is that not going to work because of the need to leap around between different users e.g. when browsing a group?
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

the new YYJ_colin says:

Landscape photos rock!

Thank you for this, but I have to agree about the portrait layouts... Scrolling to see the photos and details really takes the experience down for me. Is there anyway to code it so landscape shows large and portrait appears as it used to? Or a way for me to individually determine how a portrait layout photograph appears?

Please, if you are able to change this that would be great.

Otherwise, I'm cheering for the changes you're making... Keep up the great work!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
the new YYJ_colin edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Alan Rappa says:

Kudos! Looks great


Will photo titles & descriptions be updated to take advantage of this new size?
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Skink74 - Thanks for the feedback. The idea to center portrait photos within the available space is a good one; we tried it a few years ago with the photo page relaunch, but ultimately found that it made title and action menu seem to float in space, disconnected from anything else on the page. We'll play around with that some more.

You're right that we can't set a different page width for some users' photos because the width would jump around when navigating the site.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

red-eye says:

Most of my photos are portrait - hate this.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Alan Rappa - If your monitor is wide enough, the title / description block and the faves / comment block will appear side by side. You generally need a 24+ inch monitor to have room enough for this to happen.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

someToast says:

Layout seems to spread the header and sidebar UI elements too far to the sides when viewing fullscreen (1920x1200) with Safari in Lion.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/sometoast/7204651430]
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/sometoast/7204653156]
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

derekbruff says:

I agree with many other comments here--the new look for landscape photos is incredible, but scrolling to see portrait photos is a bummer. Please add my vote for better scaling of vertically oriented photos.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

davidezartz says:

Thank you !
It really is wonderful ! !
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Spencer Bowman says:

really happy with new sizes, it's like getting a new pair of glasses !

..this is worth viewing now ! : )
branch out

i resize all my images to 1000px max length/height. views ok on laptop.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
Spencer Bowman edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Adam Evans (ffaffman) says:

The vast majority of photos are in Portrait format and you've just gone and decided that, oh well we can't be bothered to fit it on screen so tough. What the hell Flickr?! This is madness, first you've dumbed down the editing software to something akin to childs ability and now we can't see half our pictures! I love Flick and the audience it's allowed me to reach but you're fast becoming just a mobile phone snap shot viewer...
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

onkel_wart (thomas lieser) says:

great
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:

Thanks for the reply Ross.
I have to say I know you've put a lot of work into this, but you can't seriously tell me the portrait or square pages look better now.







Also I'd add that resizing my browser vertically only to see more of a vertical photo resulted in the page getting wider and adding more whitespace, but me not seeing anymore of the photo. This seemed counter-intuitive.

edit: also as seen in a couple of the screens posted above the - are the comments now always in the centre? They "seem to float in space, disconnected from anything else on the page" ...
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

oochappan says:

it sucks but like always too many don't dare to say afraid from some hilarious fanatics ... the layout was already a sign that cheap labor is involved ... it proves again a playground for yahoo children.

From 500 to 640 to 800 while all was already there in all sizes, a flickr over-sharpening forcing to post soft in bigger sizes ...

640 was ok for all sizes, standing and landscapes for the majority of screens, now we should buy bigger screens, bigger laptops as desktops are in decay.

oh well, have fun guys, I couldn't care less
I'll keep my browser smaller, space left for skype,
and my personal css for better layout
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
oochappan edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

kmacgray says:

I asked this during the photo page redesign a couple of years ago, and I'll ask it again here. : )

Can the width the of the description field also be fluid, to fill the available content area? Or is it being kept narrower for readability reasons?
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Bruno T. De Renzo says:

That's all I wanted. Now Flickr only misses a good official iPad application.
Congratulations to the Product Managers and developers!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

drfugo says:

portrait format images are cut off for me, its quite irritating and hurts the photo you are trying to see. i'm all for bigger images but the longer height formats need to fit on screen!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Andy Marfia says:

This new design makes me less eager to use flickr. I hate the way it looks with portrait photos. No one should have to scroll to see the entire photo-- that is poor design for a photo sharing site. And even when photos do fit properly on the page there is too much white space in between.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sohvimus says:

If it's meant to scale the image (especially landscape ones) to the size of the browser window, why am I still getting a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of the photopage?
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

drfugo says:

uh, off topic, all my posts are being duplicated!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

kmacgray - We kept it narrow for readability reasons, as you guessed. Really wide columns of text are incredibly hard to read.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mihai Andritoiu says:

Great evolution!

I can enjoy my recent pictures at a bigger resolution.

However, this is not working for my older pictures.

Moreover when clicking "view all sizes", I only see the option 1024x683 while the new resolution (1600x1067) is missing for pictures uploaded at 1620x1080 (HD) and even for pictures uploaded at 4752x3168.

Any clues why?
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

►i.Anton says:

In your opinion, is this an acceptable way to view a photo?

www.flickr.com/photos/ianton/7190396010/in/photostream/

.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

Ultima Gaina - The new larger sizes have been generated only for photos uploaded since March 1st, older photos have a maximum size of 1024x1024.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sohvimus says:

►i.Anton, in my opinion, no it isn't.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

otherthings says:

Long-time happy user here. I've been around long enough to weather the waves of outrage over each change to the UI, so props to you guys for keeping things moving forward! My feedback:

I love the new "liquid" design for landscape aspect photos. Love it!!!

I do not like the way it cuts off portrait-aspect photos, though. Not at all.

Seems like I'm not alone-- it's a pretty common complaint in this thread at least. I get the motivation behind "bigger is better", but the consensus seems to be that seeing the whole photo is actually better than seeing a bigger one that's cut off.

Hope you guys will reconsider, as it's just making the main photo page less usable overall.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Amber Dawn says:

Ross - My iPhone portrait photos are getting cut off which seems a bit excessive, and I am on a 27" monitor. I hardly think that showing all of these would make my photos "tiny". I understand the cut off for things that are VERY vertical but it seems a bit unreasonable for images that are adhering to standard ratios. I love the new images but agree that this cut off is super annoying.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

protohiro says:

It really depends on the size of your browser. As Ross mentions in his code blog post, it's very complex to identify the ideal way to show a photo as big as possible. Thanks so much for this feedback, we will continue to tweak things so that things display as good as possible.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kmacgray says:

Thanks, Ross. That's what I suspected.

I'll also chime in and say vertical photos definitely don't work as well. This was an issue with the 2010 photopage redesign, and seems to be exacerbated here.

But, if you expand the width to fill the available space, that isn't going to work, either. Centering it, as mentioned earlier, also doesn't work. It's a tough nut to crack.

I'd also like to see a darker background on the photopages, but I believe there is a Flickr Ideas topic for that. : )
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sohvimus says:

Oh yes, I will add my voice to the growing choir of "this does not work well with portrait photos".

Do I really need to buy a bigger monitor to get rid of the horizontal scroll bar at the bottom my browser window?

(Having said that I have been contemplating of getting a bigger monitor for a few years now, but for completely other reasons.)
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

MDunckley says:

Not seeing any changes on my photos, but if portrait style photos are being cut up that sucks.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

_pndt says:


 ►i.Anton: And this one

www.flickr.com/photos/pndt/7175949956/in/photostream/
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Des Hawley says:

With landscape shots this is fine, but with portrait & square formats this is awful !! whats more if i shrink the portrait shot so that i get the whole thing (which is what me and my friends want....does that matter to you ??) the text is too small and i can hardly read it.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nionyn_ says:

Why would Flickr figure that we don't want to see the whole of a portrait oriented photo, and that we don't mind scrolling just to see the bottom of it?
Very poor, and very presumptuous. :-(

Keeping text boxes a practical size so that they're easy to read is sensible, but surely the same logic should apply to the display of photos? This being a photo-sharing site and all...
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

DazJW says:

My images are now all slightly soft whereas they used to be sharp. It's as if there isn't a properly resized version of the image for the size it's being displayed.

There's a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of the page but it doesn't actually scroll anywhere.

My portrait orientation images now only just fit the height of my browser window and I have to scroll to make them do so. I have to get this scrolling pixel-perfect or the image is cut off the page.

1280x1024 monitor resolution using Firefox on Windows XP.

"In the end, we decided that having some of the photo cut off is the best of the two options"
This quote is absolutely unbelievable coming from an image hosting site. Seriously, it's astounding that any individual working for Flickr could think that making an image only visible in part is the best of the two options, let alone that the whole team that must be involved in releasing an update could think it was the best option.

All in all this is an extremely poor update that should never have been implemented in its current form, I'm embarrassed to link people to Flickr hosted images now because they look so bad.
I'm just glad I didn't renew my pro subscription when it ran out, I'd be absolutely furious if I was paying for such a horrid way of displaying images.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
DazJW edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Niall Oswald says:

Two issues:

1) Really doesn't work for portrait photos.

2) The photo page view is less sharp than the 'large 1024' image size viewed on the 'all sizes' page. Here's an example:

New flickr photo page - not so good?

I thought it was my eyes playing tricks on me until I put the two side by side.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

David Cronin says:

I wish to add my vote against the new format. As one of many photographers on flickr who photograph architectural features, eg stained glass windows, church towers and statues, I want the whole of my picture to be viewed on screen without the need for the viewer to scroll through the picture to see the whole image. The new format does not work for me and I suspect the many others who spend many hours recording the subjects I mentioned above and other subjects which dictate a portrait format. Please rethink this revision of the photograph display urgently.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Vasant Marur says:

Is there a bug with some accounts? Photographs uploaded back in 2009 are showing up as uploaded recently in May 2012 alongwith the names changes to the unique alphanumeric filename that you'll use.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

meike says:

Exactly, DazJW! My pictures are softer too, I I am now starting to regret that I renenewed my Pro Account just a couple of days ago. I want to be able to choose MY kind of layout for MY pictures. Having that choice taken away is just plain bad practice IMO.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

traciw says:

I've noticed it too. I wonder if it has to do with whether or not they are on-the-fly resizing a generated size and how the browser handles that resizing in rendering the image.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sohvimus says:

I have to say that I've noticed the same thing as meike, Niall Oswald and DazJW... same photo, same size on photopage and lightbox and the photo is sharper in the lightbox view.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

flips99 says:

So this is for people with huge screens only then. I see no difference with my 1600x900 resolution. How about making an effort for all flickr users.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Sebastian Schubanz says:

seeing new features and layouts to flickr is a good thing. but this new layout has a couple of flaws, i think.

have you tried to view the layout on a 2560px wide screen? i don't see no reason to upload more then 700px sized images into flickr. thats how i did it since years. with the new layout, my photo page looks like this on portrait layout:

screenshot by sebastian schubanz . offstream


this doesn't look nice, i think. i even think it looks broken. there should be a way to allow smaller images and have a proper layout on large screens. even with a screen size like mine i don't think the photo is to small.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

anuwintschalek says:

GREAT! At last a new feature I'm in love with from sthe start!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Gary Faulkner's wildlife photography says:

Sorry but I hate it. If it ain't broke don't fix it and there was nothing wrong with old format. Not being able to see whole image on portrait shots is hopeless and even on portrait shots and videos you can't read the description and look at the image at the same time and are constantly scrolling up and down. There needs to be an option to go back to how it was before or I shall give up.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

red-eye says:

The photo page view is definitely less sharp than the 'large 1024' image size viewed on the 'all sizes' page.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

oochappan says:

got 1600x900 too,on a lap ...

I see only one solution for standing or sharpness problems :
post all on 640,
no awkward flickr sharpening, you see what you post
no standing problems,
less interesting for theft ...
and keep your browser smaller,

all problems solved and let them play
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sohvimus says:

I know I sound like a broken record, but that redundant horizontal scroll bar just has to go.

To be honest, I am not entirely sold on this. Considering that there's already lightbox and full screen view on lightbox, this "improvement" or development was actually a completely pointless exercise.

The photopage was not broken. Now it is.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ed Gaillard says:

*facepalm*

It's a photo site. It should display the whole photo.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Roy 007 (Theo) says:

Photos are too big now, scrolling is very bad. You don't go to admire a painting in a museum from a half meter distance.

Give the people the possibility to change the new format to the old one. I don't like it. To say nothing about the text under the photo - sometimes it contains very useful data and now you have to scroll for reading it.

Hey, I have a nice idea: why not photos 3 feet high on the display?
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
Roy 007 (Theo) edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Stig Nygaard says:

I've been waiting for bigger display sizes on Flickr for years, and I raised my arms into the air when I saw you introduced 1600px and 2048px wide photos a few weeks ago with autoscale in lightbox view. And now the new "liquid" design is also nice. BUT one thing spoils it all... You only get the new big sizes for photos uploaded since March 1st and you say you DO NOT currently have plans to backfill to photos uploaded before that!?

Wait, doesn't that kind of spoils it all!? My many photos uploaded (and all uploaded in "mega" original size) before March 1st 2012 will never ever get these new display sizes unless I re-upload them all!?!? Not even the pro replace-feature will trigger the new sizes (I'm told), but replace would also break anybody embedding my photos on 3rd party pages (or Flickr forums, etc).

So if I want all my photos available in the new big display sizes, I will have to start over re-uploading them from the beginning. This means new uploads wont have all the old comments, faves, etc. Also I will have to start over organizing my photos in Sets and Collections. And if I have to do all that, why not reconsider if Flickr is the right site for me be at all. I can't see I loose anything anymore by trying something else then?...

So I really really hope Flickr reconsider this stupid decision...

EDIT: People misunderstands above I see. I'm talking about the new 1600px and 2048px wide sizes. I do get the 1024px wide size in the new liquid design for all my photos.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
Stig Nygaard edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

sohvimus says:

Stig Nygaard, actually I have noticed that many photos I uploaded, for example, in February 2010 showing in the new sizes on the photopages. It appears that many photos which have the 1024px version available do appear in the new sizes, regardless of upload date.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

flips99 says:

I had expected a new picture viewing experience that would be available for everyone when you made a change on your pages, not this "oh you have a small screen, too bad!" nonsense. Very disappointed with this.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

I'll nth the soft images issue. It's fine if my browser happens to be filling the whole monitor, but when it doesn't -- when I've minimized the browser (say, so that I can still see other things happening in other programs), the image looks out-of-focus.

edit Looking again with my browser on Maximize, the photo page image is still a little bit softer than the lightbox image, but not as critically.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
Lú_ edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

RubyMae says:

Yay for the landscape photos.

Big thumbs down for portrait oriented photos. Yes, the "majority" of my photos are landscape orientation but a significant portion of my photos (and my contacts photos) are portrait orientation.

Not only is the scrolling annoying but the alignment on the page just looks weird.

Do I really have to have a flickr account for my landscape photos and go elsewhere to display my portrait oriented photos?

It seems you've only got this half right this time.

I'm hoping there will be changes in the near future tweaking the layout.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Stig Nygaard says:

sohvimus, up to 1024px wide the "old" photos from before March 1st are shown in the new liquid design. But not wider than that on the photopage or lightbox view. At least not those of my photos from before March 1st I have tested. I haven't looked at ALL my photos :-) ....
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Sebastian Schubanz says:

Stig Nygaard, there is an option to "replace" any of your photos without loosing anything. maybe you'll loose links directly to the old file itself. but usually the flickr keeps the url, comments, views, favs and stuff.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sohvimus says:

Stig Nygaard, if any of your older photos were uploaded bigger than 1024px (for example 1200px wide), you only need to rotate them back and forth for the 1024px image to be created.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

colink. says:

"The current photo page has the same problem with photos that are taller than they are wide being below the fold, and we’ve been happily viewing them for years." No, no we haven't. At least not on anything bigger than a netbook.

I'm going to add my voice to the cacophony of people complaining about having to scroll to view a portrait orientation photo. I have a 24" monitor, and I can't view the entirety of the photo? Very poor decision.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Stig Nygaard says:

Sebastian Schubanz, in another thread a Flickr staff tells Replace will not make new bigger sizes available on older photos either. It might be true or not, I haven't tested this myself. But as I also write in my comment (and you point it out too), this breaks directs embedding of my photos from other sites. So that's not a good solution even if the bigger sizes gets available that way...
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
Stig Nygaard edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Miss Minie ♥ :Process Of Illumination: says:

I am completely relieved that it wasn't a problem with my monitor (I thought it was!), and I am also relieved that I am among MANY when I say that I really wish the portrait-oriented photos didn't require scrolling :(

I'm right there with colink, I have a huuuuge monitor and can't believe it's not an advantage :(

I'm not really worried about my work being stolen, but I am thinking I'll have to re-vamp my editing process to make the web-files much, much smaller if this is gonna stick around. I really want people to see my whole photo at once, and I feel smaller photos discourage people from screen-grabbing, when they can just ask me for the full version to post elsewhere (and have it look good!).

However, I have faith that my beloved Flickr will keep improving, and I can't wait to see if anything changes in that department! Thank you for taking in our comments and suggestions!!!
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Stig Nygaard says:

sohvimus, I'm not talking about the 1024px size. I'm talking about the new 1600px and 2048px wide sizes.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )
Stig Nygaard edited this topic 23 months ago.

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

1) Oddly, all the images now seem less sharp than before. Has Flickr turned off the sharpening algorithm, or weakened it? Or is this a side-effect of the changing image size thing?

It would be handy to know, since I've applied a specific amount of sharpening in the past, knowing what Flickr's result would be. Unless something is fixed, it looks like I'll have to really increase the amount of sharpening I add when processing my images.

2) This view is a bust for square or portrait oriented images.

For years, I've been saying computer monitors should be taller, not wider, and square would be ideal. But no monitor manufacturer ever listed to me.

So now there's no point in uploading square or portrait oriented images? (Or if we do, we need to link to a smaller size so people can see the entire image? Or put a note in the description telling them to make their browser window less wide so the whole image will show up?)

3) "In addition, we enabled the two new photo sizes on the "All Sizes" page"

I'm not seeing the two new sizes on my All Sizes pages, even for images uploaded since their introduction.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

DazJW says:

"Unless something is fixed, it looks like I'll have to really increase the amount of sharpening I add when processing my images."

The sharpening issue seems to be related to the way the image is being sized for the photo page. If you click the image so it opens in the lightbox it looks the same as it has always done, which means if you do your sharpening for the image page (which would have to be some really serious sharpening) it'll look rubbish in the lightbox and at the other image sizes.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

crystalliora ✦ vesper704 says:

better scaling for vertical photos please! It would be nice if this was an optional change perhaps, since the vertical is not working properly. I will also be resizing my photos before uploading if you will not be able to view the entire picture.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Option8 says:

The floating of the elements is completely broken with really wide browser windows. Details, title and comment box, are jumbled and not below the photo and eachother as they should be.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

says: Photos are too big now, scrolling is very bad. You don't go to admire a painting in a museum from a half meter distance.

Yes, this. Bigger isn't always better: I want somewhere on the site where I can see the whole, single picture at a glance, roughly centred (not over to one side of the monitor) and not taking up my entire monitor so that my eyes have to travel around to see all its part (I can do that in Lightbox view if I want to) and not partly off the screen entirely.

I want somewhere on the site where I can do that -- see something the eye can grasp at once. Right now, that means choosing between optimizing my Contacts view (maximized browser) and being able to really see a whole photo (non-maximized browser).

It seems to me that the redesign here is all about design, not about seeing photographs.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Arek Olek says:

1. It's cool with landscape, a big improvement.
2. It looks a bit wrong with square format. The gap in the middle of the screen is disturbing.
3. It's terrible with portrait photos - there's the gap AND I need to scroll to view the photo because it doesn't fit vertically.
4. Top menu is disturbing as well, especially on my homepage because it is aligned to the left, while the content is centered, so I need to move my cursor all around the screen, while it's not necessary at all (and looks worse than used to).

I hope you can make the best out of this.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry says:

DazJW

Fortunately, I never look at the Lightbox. ;-)

But my point is that the photopage photos are now dangerously soft, especially if I downsize the browser window a little bit. I didn't know if this was intentional or just a bug.

I of course don't speak for anyone but myself, but almost all my Flickr photo viewing is done on photopages.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:

Or put a note in the description telling them to make their browser window less wide so the whole image will show up?

Actually that doesn't work, you'll always have to scroll.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Thanks for the continued feedback. I'm looking into the fuzziness issue.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

Ross says:

Skink74 - You're incorrect, a smaller browser window will show most portrait photos without scrolling.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Todd Klassy says:

Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

You do realize that without the ability to go back to the old layout on each Flickr page those who have uploaded images only 800 or 1000 wide now have pages that look like crap, right?

What are you guys smoking over there, seriously???????

UN. FREAKING. BELIEVABLE.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

Thanks, Ross.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

← prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 20 21
(1 to 100 of 2,015 replies in [Official Topic] Larger image sizes and liquid layout on the photo page)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads