Help / The Help Forum

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

Hot Topics

[Bug - staff response] View Count in Stats
Latest: 44 minutes ago
Login issues? Try this.
Latest: 3 hours ago
[replacing | staff response] Aviary editing functions disabled
Latest: 4 hours ago
[BUG] Photostream: Count Incorrect, Missing Images, Album Issues
Latest: 4 hours ago
[BUG] Can't verify/delete Flickr account
Latest: 2 days ago

 

Current Discussion

Can't see my photostream or anybody else's, just the frames where the graphics should be
Latest: 63 minutes ago
Photostream unavailable: "Yahoo will be right back!"
Latest: 2 hours ago
SOLVED - Share photo is not working
Latest: 4 hours ago
Can't view my photostream in Firefox on Mac
Latest: 5 hours ago
Trying to set up a reusable flickr search using the API
Latest: 5 hours ago
How Can I back up my images and videos
Latest: 10 hours ago
Refunding Flickr Pro membership
Latest: 12 hours ago
contacts photos won't open/contact "icon's show as broken icon
Latest: 14 hours ago
Public Private Albums
Latest: 17 hours ago
private groups
Latest: 19 hours ago
images missing when others view
Latest: 21 hours ago
Private photos in search?
Latest: 21 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

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

Flickr Staff

Xerxes2K PRO 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 59 months ago.

1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20 21
(901 to 1000 of 2,014 replies in [Official Topic] Larger image sizes and liquid layout on the photo page)
view photos

Armin Hofen PRO says:

There will be some extra white space around smaller images that were originally uploaded to fit a smaller site. But you will have this same problem with every website as they all start designing for larger screens.

Yes, there will be white space. And yes, this is the case on other sites as well. Problem is, Flickr looks really bad that way and other sites do not, IMHO.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry PRO says:

Bug?

Header Width Bug?

The Flickr header section widens and narrows as the browser size changes, and always fits the width of the content below it... On the photopage, that is.

On all other pages, it still widens and narrows, but doesn't fit the content below, and can look very odd on a group page.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Zack, who is staff, just posted 3 posts above yours that they're aware of and working on the softness issue.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

What size monitor are you viewing on? I have a very small monitor at the office and no one's photos are any smaller than prior to the change. At work, where my monitor is small, I'm still seeing the 640 size (which is not miniscule) even if a larger size is available.

At home on my large monitor, I see the largest sizes uploaded.

Can you link to an example of a tiny photo?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry PRO says:

RubyMae

I just discovered a few minutes ago that if you make the browser window small enough, you'll get the 500-pixel size image, which surprised me. I thought we weren't going backward from 640...
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bluresque PRO says:

... so how come all the images on my stream are now only half the size they were previously...... hopefully you are still flattening bugs...!
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steve-h PRO says:

I have a smallish laptop. Up to about an hour ago my photo had to be scrolled to see the whole square, but this was preferable to seeing the whole thing so small.

And it's a lot worse when it's a small dark photo like this one from a contact -
www.flickr.com/photos/ben124/7222805656/in/contacts/

I could really only see it properly when I went past the light box and looked at the original size of the shot.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

True. When I board I like to keep shrinking the browser and watch the photos get smaller and smaller and smaller.

But that's by choice. You don't have to look at a medium image (which I wouldn't classify as "small and dark." I'm curious what Steve-h is seeing.

In fact, looking back at his post just before Zack's on page 9, it sounds like he's accidentally zoomed his browser out.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ΞSSΞ®®Ξ PRO says:

I do agree with Steve-H the images are centered an smaller and feeling of lay-out does not look so stylish or it's feel kind of non quality
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:

The Flickr header section widens and narrows as the browser size changes, and always fits the width of the content below it... On the photopage, that is.

On all other pages, it still widens and narrows, but doesn't fit the content below, and can look very odd on a group page.


I think that's by design - more accurate to say that the flickr header now always fits the browser. The content however, does not, except on the new photo pages. I fully expect this to gradually change in the next few months, with attendent threads like these for each revision. ;-)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Can you take a screen shot?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steve-h PRO says:

No , I have been having trouble doing screen shots, but odd things have happened when I press CTRL and + and CTRL and - .
Rather strangely I have now got a better , larger sized shot on my monitor by pressing CTRL and -.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

That controls browser zooming.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steve-h PRO says:

The only trouble is now I can see the photos at a proper size , but am straining to see the type.
I'm going to close and reopen my browser to clear the cache to see what happens.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry PRO says:

more accurate to say that the flickr header now always fits the browser.

Sometimes, it does. It depends on the width *and* height of the browser for some reason.

I can force the header on non-photopages to be as narrow as I like, either by shrinking the width or the height. If I shrink the height of the browser, the header narrows, so it no longer fits the browser's width.

This is fine on the photopage, where changing any browser dimension will change the width of all columns, including the header. But on non-phoopages, only the header changes, not the content.

That's my complaint, that this *only* works on photopages. The fluid/liquid header size doesn't work on other pages, since content width isn't changing on other pages.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ΞSSΞ®®Ξ PRO says:

Yea that's zooming in out Steve. You got better size image but smaller text right?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steve-h PRO says:

Ok, RubyMae, this is what happens. I press ctrl and + and the type gets bigger, but the pic gets smaller. I type ctrl and - and the pic gets bigger and the type smaller; I hit ctrl and - again and both type and pic get smaller.

btw how do I get a small pic of you to reply to?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:


It depends on the width *and* height of the browser for some reason.
Hmm so it does... Interesting. I guess the "reason" is some notional scalable content area - similar to or perhaps the same as the 4:3 box used on photo pages.

[...] content width isn't changing on other pages.
Yet.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry PRO says:

Steve-h

how do I get a small pic of you to reply to?

Enclose her URL in square brackets.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/djcohen/]

Which will display as this:


Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry PRO says:

Skink74

You're right that Flickr may be planning on changing the width of other pages as well. But will it scale to fit the header? Or will the content just be wider, while the header scales back and forth without reason?

I'm sure the reason is that they wanted the header to match the width of the photopage's content, which changes now. And it works fine there.

It just looks weird on any other page. ;-)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Steve-h I use a Greasemonkey script, but you can either drag my icon into the box and enclose it in square brackets or if that doesn't work, copy the URL for my flickr stream into the both and enclose that in square brackets.


What happens if you press ctrl zero? That should reset the browser size, which may give you both readable text and viewable photos.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ed Parker Photography says:

My photos look blurry... rescaling/sizing is clearly not working well. Viewing them in the lightbox they look fine but on the photo page they look awful.

After the recent slowdown issues I am very close to jumping ship to another photo sharing site.

is it too much to ask for my photos to look as intended and that the site runs at decent speed?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

coljohnnyF/64 says:

Funny all these feed going on to figure out, to handle the new layout..!!

3 days ago, the layout was working perfect for any monitor size, no problems what so ever.....period.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steve-h PRO says:

When I press ctrl zero it does reset the browser, but my eyes aren't great and I do need to zoom. I have found that by juggling ctrl + and ctrl - I can get a more useable size of photo.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steve-h PRO says:

Wow !! And I've learnt how to do the small pic thingy. Thank you too!
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Canadapt says:

I have noticed that the clarity of the photos in the new large on photostream is suspect ... please see the following photo (it is decidedly blurred) and then view it large on black (it is very sharp by comparison).

www.flickr.com/photos/canadapt/7221691950/

What is going on with the new format and the blur?

Thanks,
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Staff is aware of this issue and is looking into it. It's related to the new liquid layout of the photo page.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

coljohnnyF/64 says:

I like to know..!!
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

HaarFager (Pro) PRO says:

Okay, I've read through this whole thread and can't seem to find anyone experiencing what I'm experiencing on my computer. I've got a 17" monitor, running Windows XP and the screen is set at "800x600 pixels." I use Firefox as my browser and it's version is 11.0. If any of that matters, I don't know, but there it is just in case.

I hesitate to call what I'm experiencing a "problem," because nobody else seems to be experiencing it. All my pictures seem small now. Whether they are landscape or portrait, they're all displaying much smaller than they did a day or two ago when this all started. I liked it when my pictures showed big and filled my screen because they could be seen better, at least in my opinion. I've read people say that before this debacle, their portait pictures all showed in their monitor screen completely, as in they didn't have to scroll down to see the bottom of it. Now, mine always did that so that I had to scroll down to see the bottom of them, but they were big and you could see lots of detail. I was okay with that. Now, people are complaining that they have a scroll bar along the bottom. I have had the scroll bar at the bottom for a couple years now and that was not much of problem. It was actually a problem, but they stopped listening to my suggestions long ago, so I shut up about it. I hate to bring this up now, but I figured some of the techies might welcome this information.

Here is a screenshot of one of my pictures in landscape format, along with it's location so it can be viewed by others on different computers:

Landscape 1a by HaarFager (Pro)


location in my photostream

As you can see, there is lots of white space on both the left and right sides of the image. Before, my landscape images took up the complete space from the left of the screen to the right edge of the column which consisted of username, date, tags and so forth.

Here is a screenshot of one of my pictures in portrait format, along with it's location so it can be viewed by others on different computers:

Portrait 1a by HaarFager (Pro)


location in my photostream

As you can see, the picture is quite tiny on my monitor and just looks terrible and insignificant at this small of a size. Having just had cataract surgery on both my eyes with the last month or so, I can see a WHOLE lot better than I could before. And my pictures look fuzzy as well at times. (Which seems to be a common complaint.)

Will anything be done about this to make Flickr back like it was when it worked like it did last week? I'm getting quite tired of all these "improvements." Will the madness ever stop?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
HaarFager (Pro) edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Have you tried zooming or resetting your browser? You shouldn't be seeing smaller pictures (at least not with landscape oriented photos). Try hitting ctrl zero.

Your monitor set up is similar to mine (except I have my resolution set to 1024x768) and didn't notice a change with the new dynamic layout.

Oh, and one more thing. That Patrick Costello...

You may want to edit that out. Staff doesn't like personal attacks in the forum and this isn't an appropriate place for that comment.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly PRO says:

Personal attacks are not allowed nor welcome in the Help Forum (nor on Flickr in general.)

Eta: posting from my phone - RubyMae's post wasn't there when I started typing. :)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
FlyButtafly edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

HaarFager (Pro) PRO says:

I haven't ever changed my monitor's zooming or whatever. Why should I suddenly have a problem on my end when everybody else is experiencing problems from your end? I don't think it's my zooming or whatever.

Edited to add:
I did just try the "cntrl/0" thing and nothing changed. It was where my browser was set to all along. The picture is small and it wasn't a few days ago.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
HaarFager (Pro) edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

HaarFager (Pro) PRO says:

"Personal attacks are not allowed nor welcome in the Help Forum (nor on Flickr in general.) "

But what the staff does is perfectly legitimate? What's the word for that, double standard?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

I think you're confused about who is staff here and who isn't.

Staff will have the word "staff" underneath their icon.

Staff hasn't personally attacked anyone.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Andy Marfia PRO says:

@Zack Sheppard:

"Before this change was made, portrait photos showing at 640 on a large monitor were all the way to the left of the page with a large white space in the middle. Based on community feedback we tested centering which works better and we believe is the best solution for the wide variety of sizes Flickr needs to account for."

Centering doesn't solve the problem of the photo titles no longer being underneath the photos. That looks wonky and still needs to be addressed.

"There will be some extra white space around smaller images that were originally uploaded to fit a smaller site. But you will have this same problem with every website as they all start designing for larger screens."

Yes, designing for larger screens is a challenge, but this is kind of a cop out. What you're basically saying is, everyone's web sites look like crap, so it's okay for ours to as well. I think you guys need to take this layout back to the drawing board and figure out a way for the site to look good with both large and small images. Some users earlier in this thread made reasonable suggestions on this topic.

I'm glad to hear you're looking into the softness issue.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
Andy Marfia edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

Creepella Gruesome PRO says:

Wil C. Fry says:

I just discovered a few minutes ago that if you make the browser window small enough, you'll get the 500-pixel size image, which surprised me. I thought we weren't going backward from 640...

Yes, I noticed that too. However a bit different on my end...

My browser has always been set to 1024 x 768. Yesterday, vertical and square images were 640 in length. Now, they are 500. In other words, I never changed anything to see the 500 length as it is now.

Therefor, I assume something was done with that. I much prefer the 640 length.

Creepy :)

*edit to add*

At least I can get the 640 length in lightbox though.

*edit again*

I forgot to say.... horizontal images still remain at 640
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
Creepella Gruesome edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

bluresque PRO says:

if I need to reset my browser so that my images return to their previous size..... just how do I go about that ? And more to the point, why should I have to.... everything was working fine yesterday !
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

red-eye says:

'Flickr is almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world.'
Not so sure.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
red-eye edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

You're about the third or fourth person to report seeing smaller images today. I just checked my stream and as far as I can tell, I'm still seeing the 640 size not the smaller 500 size on landscape oriented portraits.

Unless staff comes in and confirms they made another tweak to the photo page, it will be hard to figure out what's actually going on.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Creepella Gruesome PRO says:

RubyMae, thanks for responding :)

I edited my original post.

The 500 length only applies to vertical and square. I, too, am seeing 640 in landscape images. Probably just a change with vertical and square, since a lot of people were complaining about that one.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
Creepella Gruesome edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

Creepella Gruesome PRO says:

But then again, they did fix that yesterday with the scroll issue. I guess they went a bit further with it. Or it's just a creepy bug :D
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

monon738 PRO says:

ColjohnnyF/64: The web site is railpictures.net
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:


If I make my browser small enough I can get the 100-pixel thumbnail to appear.
As far as I can tell from the javascript, this happens whenever the viewport is wider than the photo, and is presumably there so that portrait photos never scroll - which we kind of asked for here.

Basically if the viewport is wider than the photo, it takes the height and then picks the largest photo size available with a height less than that and scales it to fit. It chooses from the full list all the way from Thumbnail to Large.

Whether starting at thumbnail is really a good idea is questionable at best. My feeling is there should be a minimum size (probably 640) where you have to scroll and the layout essentially reverts to the old version.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae PRO says:

Yes, I agree that's what's happening.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Creepella Gruesome PRO says:

Holy twilight zone!!!

Verticals and squares just turned back to 640!!! Is there a gremlin in the system?? hehe ;D
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

bluresque PRO says:

OK so now my photos have just doubled in size.... at least I can see them now.... keep tweaking and you may just end up where you started... which was a pretty good place.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.ipernity.com/mewdeep says:

kmacgray says: They centered the photo in response to feedback from other users who didn't like all the white space that was created when the photo was flush left. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution here that will appease everyone. : /

There is still the same amount of white space as before, it's just distributed differently. In any case, the flush left title under the centered picture looks completely wrong, and I'd be shocked and appalled if things stayed this way for more than a week.



Skink74 says: Well twitpic, yfrog and 500px obviously all have bad designers too, then.

Apples and oranges, in all three cases. All three you mention have better, more balanced designs; none have titles floating awkwardly by themselves, off to the left of photos.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:

Apples and oranges, in all three cases. All three you mention have better, more balanced designs; none have titles floating awkwardly by themselves, off to the left of photos.

Certainly all three currently have more balanced designs - mainly because they are using a fixed width, and allow some scrolling. Yfrog and twitpic don't have titles as such, but comments or tweets or whatever are left justifed both above and below the picture leading to the same ragged appearance with a small or vetical picture. 500px has the title above the photo and left justified, so narrow images will lead to a floating title off on it's own.
A random example: 500px.com/photo/5136994
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.toddklassy.com PRO says:

Screen sizes on all devices are going to continue to increase and the Flickr design will need to keep up with those changes.

No offense, I'm sure you and your team is working hard with what resources it has available to make Flickr the best site it can be, but this sentence above (in my humble opinion) sums up the shortsightedness of Flickr as a whole in one fell swoop.

1.) Watch anyone between the ages of 4 and 30 and how and where do they surf the Internet most? On small mobile devices and tablet computers. If anything, screen sizes are getting smaller...much smaller. And given the concentration on efforts to make pages that appear good on expensive smart TVs seems like a much lower priority that making a good mobile app for Apple and Droid related products, an area where Flickr frankly has been lacking.

2.) There are maybe 4 devices the average consumer uses to surf the Internet (and by adjunct, Flickr). A smart phone or tablet computer (small), a laptop (small), a work computer (average sized monitor...but those are very unlikely to get much larger given the adversity of business to spend money on such frivolities), and home desktop computers (some are small, some are average, some are large and may get larger). Seems to me there are many more smaller devices that will view Flickr than large ones.

3.) Sometimes California-based companies design products that make little sense in middle America or the rest of the world. And while the size of monitors **may** increase, what about Internet speeds necessary to both view AND upload images? Extra bandwidth is need to upload high resolution images AND view them. And even Google is making a point of ranking pages based on how quickly they load. This new effort by Flickr just ensures that Google's rankings for our image pages has decreased if that is true. Why not design a web site that accommodates both large AND small images? Unless this is a feature being pushed solely by marketing, I would be interested to know the logic behind this decision.

I don't knock the idea to create a page to accommodate and showcase larger images. But don't stick it to the smaller photographs and media as a result. Size does not necessarily make a crappy image look any better. I'd much rather look at a great small photographs than a horrible large ones any day.

One of the key parts of the new design is the new Image Size Setting. With that people can upload as large as they want and restrict the view to the size they are comfortable with.

No, I don't feel your settings accommodate sizes many are comfortable with. Many are comfortable with 800 pixels wide, the LAST largest size Flickr used on each individual photo page. In other words, this feature and this setting isn't at all backwards compatible. Virtually all other software and web pages are at least backwards compatible one generation. And if that is also true, adding 800 pixels to this setting seems very appropriate.

As display sizes change you can also change the setting without having to reupload if you so choose. Essentially future-proofing your uploads so you wont have this problem again.

If a person is comfortable with 1024 pixel images floating around the Internet, yes. But something smaller, like the last largest available image size on the photo page is not. That seems like a misstep to me.

There will be some extra white space around smaller images that were originally uploaded to fit a smaller site. But you will have this same problem with every website as they all start designing for larger screens.

Some? It's more like an ocean of white space. But your premise is probably true. That said, any web developer knows that incorporating negative space (or in this case, white space) into any web design is as crucial as the content on that page. It affects how eyes move on a page as well as helps to add emphasis. No offense, but in a case where there is a 800-pixel wide image on your new page, the look is unacceptable and flies in the face of the core Flickr design concepts up until now. It is not at all attractive. It is so circa 1996 it's not funny.

Before this change was made, portrait photos showing at 640 on a large monitor were all the way to the left of the page with a large white space in the middle. Based on community feedback we tested centering which works better and we believe is the best solution for the wide variety of sizes Flickr needs to account for.

I thought the photos were moved to the middle of the page AFTER launch. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's how I remember it happening, which begs the question, how much "testing" was done if the decision to make the change was made overnight? Were these new layouts with smaller images in the middle of an ocean of white tested with users outside of the Flickr engineering and design stable prior to launch?

I don't know how many images stored on Flickr's servers are > 1024 pixels wide and how many are < 800 pixels wide, but I'm confident there are many photos out there that are 800 pixels wide or smaller. Enough maybe to reconsider your position here. Hell, many photos generated by cell phones are tiny in comparison to dSLR images.

This leaves me personally with a couple of choices if this doesn't change:

1.) Run the risk of higher resolution images being made available for download and screen capture and spend the next two years uploading larger images to replace the 2300+ images I already have stored on Flickr.

2.) Deal with a layout that is horribly unattractive for images < 800 pixels wide and the ultimate negative reaction viewers might have as result (and possible erosion of views for me and Flickr as a whole as a result).

3.) Quit Flickr altogether and find some other solution for my needs.

Decisions, decisions.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:

screen sizes are getting smaller.
Physical screen sizes may be getting smaller, but as a general trend screen resolutions are not.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Steve-h PRO says:

I had all these problems of really small photos earlier tonight and solved it by juggling the zoom rates. curiously I found that ctrl and - made the photo bigger and type smaller, but by switching between ctrl and + and ctrl and - I got back to what it had been earlier in the day and it's fine now.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.toddklassy.com PRO says:

Physical screen sizes may be getting smaller, but as a general trend screen resolutions are not.

That's true, can't argue that.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Oxfordshire Churches PRO says:

@ Todd Klassy.

I agree 100% with everything you've said – it's the sensible way forward.

Your three choices are exactly the ones I'm faced with. My thoughts on your choices:

1) With 21K+ images in my stream reloading larger files is impractical even if I were to accept my hi-res images being made available to all and sundry.

2) The dreadful layout reflects badly on me and I don't think I can live with my friends thinking that I created something so awful.

3) I don't want to quit because it would take me forever to rebuild my stream somewhere else.

As you say, decisions, decisions.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.ipernity.com/mewdeep says:

Skink, about 500px: having the title above the photo and off to the left looks a lot better. That is to say, it's floating off to the left, but not awkwardly. The eye isn't "backing up" to read it after having taken in the photo, like on Flickr at the moment. On 500px the eye flows easily through the title into the image.

I didn't think anything was broke on Flickr, and I'm mystified why it had to be fixed.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Nancy Rose PRO says:

How come I don't see anything "new" same as before..nothing bigger?
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Ewan PRO says:

Nancy Rose What resolution display are you using? For small to medium size displays Flickr will still show the 640px image on the photo page, just as it did before, so you won't see much difference. If you've got a screen that can take advantage of the larger size though, you should see it.

If you're not sure what's going on, try posting a full screen screenshot, and we'll be able to see if things look as they should.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Skink74 says:


That is to say, it's floating off to the left, but not awkwardly

Not as awkwardly as flickr currently, no. But I can't take in the photo in one go as I have to scroll to see it all. Win some, lose some.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

pkingDesign PRO says:

Wil C Fry asked a few hours ago why the width of the Flickr header matches the width of our photo pages, but not necessarily the width of most other pages on Flickr. I realize that this is not the burning issue many of you are talking about here (and not the one we're focusing energy on right at the moment), but I can at least explain what's going on.

We set the width of the top navigation on Flickr based on the size of your browser and based on how big a photo we will be able to show on the photo page. We use this same calculation on every Flickr page, not just photo pages. The reasoning is fairly simple -- we want the navigation to always be in a predictable location for each individual viewer. Meaning: if you look at a photo page, then navigate away to a set page, then to a favorites page, then to look at recent photos from your friends, the Flickr logo and the nearby links will consistently be in the same spot. They won't be jumping around, changing widths, etc., and you won't have to hunt around for them.

The current state is what you're noticing - the header is the same width, but various pages on Flickr are various widths. As many of you know we're making a lot of design changes at Flickr lately. We've turned on full-width Justified views on several pages (faves, contacts' recent photos), a much bigger uploadr experience, and now much larger photo pages. More is coming, too. The in-between time is a little awkward while some pages are a little older (and narrower), but in the mysterious future more and more pages will have a flexible width and will respond nicely to the browser getting bigger. So what you're seeing isn't a bug, but more of a transition state as we continue to evolve this thing we all love so much.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Paw Prints Charming PRO says:

Did you guys fix the sharpness issue? I'm no longer noticing a problem (Thankfully!!!!!).
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Henk oochappan says:

@ staff
still

if you can liquid photos to big screens wide browsers
you could liquid the layout as well to smaller posts
instead of changing your browser to almost square to get rid of waste white areas

it could even improve the layout, less white space, by standing photos
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
Henk oochappan edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

Wil C. Fry PRO says:

pkingDesign

That explanation makes sense -- consistent navigation in muscle memory.

Thank you. :-)

(And you're correct, it wasn't a burning issue; just something I'd noticed.)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Diorama Sky PRO says:

Really frustrated with how slowly the images now load. Unimpressed by both the "improved" interface and the very public beta testing.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
Diorama Sky edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

Adam Kingston - Deleted says:

Whatever changes you made to the resampling algorithm has resulted in very strange JPEG artefacts on all of my images when I upload high resolution JPEGs (i.e. 4000px wide +)

Here's an example, zoomed 200% to show detail:



I've deleted that image from my photostream because it looked so bad but it's evident on other images on every photostream I've checked.

This image resamples fine when I upload the file elsewhere, no compression/JPEG artefacts to speak of.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

yclept8 says:

Video doesn't work at the new large size, my 1.3GHz cpu being unable to keep up with it.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Wil C. Fry PRO says:

yclept8

Video doesn't work at the new large size, my 1.3GHz cpu being unable to keep up with it.

Good point. I hadn't even thought to view a video with this new layout.

Add me to the list of people who cannot view video in the new large size. Apparently, it requires so much processing power that I can view about one frame per second. Not good.

(I have a 2.21 GHz Athlon 3700+ processor.)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

wlcutler PRO says:

I LOVE the uploader - being able to do the comments while the upload is happening, and being able to move the photos around. That totally addresses the problem of the photo stream getting shuffled in the upload.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

That's incorrect.

The height of the browser is being taken into account when deciding how large to display the image, not just the width. This was confirmed by staff when I asked about it earlier in this thread:


then it's a bug, since i cannot view portrait-oriented images without scrolling, using Chrome on my Lenovo S10-3 netbook. this is true even when i use F11 (fullscreen).
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

"people who (1) don't already know the value of their images, (2) don't have images others want to use, and/or (3) treat photography only as a hobby because they don't want or need additional revenue."

I imagine that covers 99.999% of Flickr's membership.


since 58,000 flickr members are getty contributors, that would mean that there are more than 5,800,000,000 flickr members. this number is close to earth population (including mainland china). so i think your estimate is wrong, Patrick :)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Ed Gaillard says:

loupiote (Old Skool) - then it's a bug, since i cannot view portrait-oriented images without scrolling, using Chrome on my Lenovo S10-3 netbook

Is your resolution below 1024x768? if so, then they expect you'll still have to scroll; see Ross' post at
www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157629743256454/7215762...
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

loupiote (Old Skool) pro PRO says:

ok, thanks.

i thought flickr would have been able to handle devices with screens that have a 600-pixel vertical size, since all images are stored on the flickr farm servers in a 500-pixel size (in they largest dimension).
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Patrick Costello PRO says:

So everyone who is a Getty contributor knows the value of their images and has images others want to use? I think that's a false assumption.
Some would argue that no one who is a Getty contributor knows the value of their images!
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Scarlet Pimpernel says:

I want to be able set my photos at 640 without having to upload them at that size . I don't want members to be able to see them any bigger than that.. That should be my choose, not flickr's ... I want to be able to see them large myself though, and who ever i want to choose that can see them bigger...
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Henk oochappan says:

No that's not going to happen

all members that were using earlier 640 and 500 small posts
better let their pro-account expire to hide them
cause these sizes are disfavored by the new layout policy with lots of waste white space, or they must replace them all by bigger sizes.

notice that good photos are mostly spotted by their thumbs
which is even smaller and garbage stays garbage at any size
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

sohvimus PRO says:

having the title above the photo and off to the left looks a lot better.

Flickr once tried putting the title above the photo and had to reverse that decision because the massive outrage which followed it. Reason? It meant people had to scroll down to see the photo. What also followed was a discussion regarding where the title, etc. are around the painting/photo/etc. in museums and galleries.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

coljohnnyF/64 says:

I totally agree with...oochappan..!!!
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.toddklassy.com PRO says:

Some would argue that no one who is a Getty contributor knows the value of their images!

LOL! So true, so true. Exactly the reason I am NOT a Getty contributor.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

coljohnnyF/64 says:

[www.flickr.com/photos/25249282@N02/6998645482/in/photostream/] in portrait layout shifted all over the place.!!
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.toddklassy.com PRO says:

According to Zack Sheppard, Sr. Community Manager for Flickr, you (and I) are just going to have to deal with that messy layout. A poor layout and design afflicting roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of all images on Flickr is a small price to pay for the benefit of people seeing larger images, it would seem.

A clean, simple, intuitive design...the hallmark of Flickr for years...has officially been sacrificed on an altar of gimmickry, which is the American way, where "bigger" is more important than "quality."
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Pete Foley PRO says:

I appreciate the need to continue upgrading to stay competitive, but I think this may be a case where the upgrade is very "California centric".

Three main problems that I would ask to be fixed.

1. The minimum size of the image has been dramatically increased, but security against even very simple screen capture hasn't. Now I realize that the dance between security and pirating is an ever evolving arms race, and that you can never stop a determined pirate, but this has just made it too easy for the casual thief (and there are a lot of them, I find new examples every week).

2. Having to scroll to see a porttrait is just a design 101 error. It would fail any introduction to design undergraduate class. Certainly getting the balance between text and image is important, but this is a photo sharing website first and foremost, so not being able to see the full frame of half (?) of the loaded photos is a design miss.

3. The new larger images are problematic for locations where high band width is not readily available. I was traveling in Peru when the 'upgrade' happened, and it basically shut down my account. The loading times were just too long. It works fine this morning back in the USA with my broad band connection, but one of the best things about flickr is that it is a global community, so please try and keep the designs globally compatible.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

peayq says:


this is what I get when I open almost any page on flickr now — an empty frame and no picture. to actually see the picture I have to refresh the page, and refreshing seems to somehow mark the picture as visible, because when I open it later again it's there. this happens to almost all pictures from my contacts' stream and all older pictures of my own. does anyone else experience anything like this? I'm on windows7, latest chrome if that matters.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ PRO says:

Not a major thing, but I'd love to see some more space above and below panorama-shaped images, like this one: www.flickr.com/photos/zseike/7225163510
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

BigGuy4U2011 says:

peayq That is what I'm seeing too...smaller pics seem to load ok but larger takes forever or I have to refresh...I have a slow connection but it worked fine for 640px , now the new format is way to slow, fuzzy pics. and all out of wack-text & photo positions....very poor design :(

edited to add...XP-SP3... Chrome, FF, IE, Dial-up
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )
BigGuy4U2011 edited this topic 60 months ago.

view photos

pongo 2007 PRO says:

I've been seeing that today, it's annoying.
I'm on win 7 (64 bit) Using Firefox 12. With 24" screen, (if that has anything to do with it).
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

peayq says:

my guess is that because this view uses larger image sizes that were not available previously, these have to be rendered on demand now and flickr servers just can't handle it instantly... would be great to hear some comments from the staff regarding this. refreshing every single picture in your stream is bloody annoying. 8(
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Oxfordshire Churches PRO says:

@ peayq. The whole update is ill-conceived and annoying. Flickr staff should admit they got it wrong and take us back to where we were when it was working fine for everyone. They should then do proper testing in Beta until they are ready to roll out a properly thought through product. Like you my pics are now taking forever to load. Add that to all the other genuine complaints and this is a real mess. I used to love the Flickr experience but since this update I dread going in there.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.ipernity.com/mewdeep says:

sohvimus says: Flickr once tried putting the title above the photo and had to reverse that decision because the massive outrage which followed it. Reason? It meant people had to scroll down to see the photo. What also followed was a discussion regarding where the title, etc. are around the painting/photo/etc. in museums and galleries.

Hilarious. I didn't know I was at a museum.

Again, if they're going to keep the title below and way over to the left, which looks terrible on portrait photos, they need to bring other design elements into play to create a harmonious look. One other photo site brackets that naked white space with arrows (the left arrow is flush left), which makes the photo centered between them look ... centered. Not just floating uncertainly in space.

To be frank, a simpler solution would be to dump all new changes. There's not one of them that was worth the trouble, in my opinion.

Also, I don't know if this puts me in a minority, but I don't mind scrolling, and if I want to take in a whole image, I right click on the large size and select "View Image," then toggle back and forth between a full view and any detail I might want to see larger. I do this all across the web in fact.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.ipernity.com/mewdeep says:

(If the powers-that-be wanted to do me a personal favor, they'd make "View Image" accessible from the main photo page, but we're talking about the difference between 2 clicks and 4. I'll hack it.)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

PammyLZ says:

I saw that you guys at Flickr fixed the portrait sizing issue on the pages. Good job! I didn't like that I had to scroll down. And you centered it too! Now it looks really great!

From a fellow web developer,

Pamela. :)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

coljohnnyF/64 says:

Portrait sizing is in the center, all other issues still cluttering all over the place no alignment what so ever, in the old layout, Landscape and Portrait Perfect at Monitor size 22" resolution 1920x200 had no problems
viewing..!!
Why not a beta version to sort things out Like Adobe, Apple, and other great developers by invitation, and launch it when it is ready.!!!

This only 4 days ago.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mute* PRO says:

I get that a lot too, have been for the past week or so. When I look at the URL that's waiting to load it's always farm4 or farm7 sub-domains. Those particular servers seem to be slow for me, or they're slow in general for certain regions.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Oxfordshire Churches PRO says:

@ MewDeep

To be frank, a simpler solution would be to dump all new changes. There's not one of them that was worth the trouble, in my opinion.

Makes good sense but I wouldn't hold your breath – the guys at Flickr aren't listening. I've made that point several times, as have many other contributors to this thread, but nothing happens.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

♥ shhexy corin ♥ PRO says:

sohvimus says: Flickr once tried putting the title above the photo and had to reverse that decision because the massive outrage which followed it.

I think the title was originally on the top, with description below.

I posted a link to a screenshot from 2007, but it looked like there was something dodgy in one of the thumbnails, so removed it
:)
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Scarlet Pimpernel says:

Flickr has become a place where there is no choice in what size our photos are presented to the public.. Free members have no choice what so ever now unless photos are turn private. Flickr doesn’t even say that free members photos are shown to the world in the much bigger sizes in the FAQ’s. I had to find that out for myself.. This is leaving the bigger sizes open for anyone that want to sale copies down the local market or to sale them on ebay or however they want to sale them .. Flickr has become a very open source of free stock for anyone to making a good living from them…

"Images stolen from Flickr and sold in eBay"
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157629622101044/
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

:lynn: says:



Very well said.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

www.ipernity.com/mewdeep says:

I did not know this. You're right; not very cool.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

pkingDesign PRO says:

peayq and a couple others mentioned that they were seeing broken images or that images were failing to load. This would not be related to the larger photo sizes, at least not directly. We do not create large image sizes on demand. I see that this was discussed 6 hours ago and hopefully this issue has been resolved already, but please post again if you're still seeing empty photo pages.

sohvimus and ♥ shhexy corin ♥, among others, have mentioned that we tried putting the title above photos at some point in the past. In fact, titles were above photos most of the time prior to the major photo page redesign in 2009. Here's a screenshot that shows before and after in that redesign.

Old photo page → First mock → New photo page by Dunstan

Putting the title above the photo does push down the photo, and after a whole lot of discussion and experimentation we found that we liked having the title under the photo better. We do this consistently across the site with both thumbnails and big photos, and this is very unlikely to change right now.

We'll be poking out heads in here over the weekend a bit, but please keep in mind that this is the weekend at Flickr's home base in sunny California.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Oxfordshire Churches PRO says:

@ pkingDesign. Take us back to the layout shown on the extreme right and all our problems (and yours) will go away. Greetings from a not so sunny England.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

coljohnnyF/64 says:

Maybe an indication how the portrait size will look like...!!

Greetings from a first sunny day Amsterdam-Netherlands.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

peayq says:

just tried to browse my contacts' stream on chrome again. out of a dozen or so images only 2 succeeded to load, the rest were blank borders. out of curiosity, installed firefox and tried it — and everything works! the images still took some significant time to load though, but all of them loaded nonetheless. so I guess, chrome is the one to blame...
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

pkingDesign PRO says:

The latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, IE, and Safari should all work equally well loading images. Its hard to say what would be causing Chrome to fail for you, but I can pass this along to some engineers to have a look. It could be just a coincidence, it could be something local to your computer setup, or there could be some browser specific bug that we need to be aware of. Thanks for checking back and thanks for your patience.
Posted 60 months ago. ( permalink )

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

1 2 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20 21
(901 to 1000 of 2,014 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