PPG is back!

**jpzk** · 10-24-2011, 06:44 PM

So ... this looks good.

What gets me is that when you upload a picture, they also ask for a "description", which is fine - as it was before actually - but when you want to vote on photos, where is (are) the description(s) ?

Other than that, I think this looks a bit more "pro" than the earlier version. Seems to be a bit faster to load as well.
All in all, it has definitely improved.

Now, one last thing: I need to change that link at the bottom of my signature. It used to send the viewer of this forum directly to my PPG page. Since I am almost computer deficient, how do I do this ? EDIT: I did it !! All OK now. Sorry.

JP

Last edited by jpzk; 10-24-2011 at 06:50 PM.

photolady95 · 10-24-2011, 08:34 PM

When I first loaded the Gallery, I was seeing a different photographer and it took me a bit to find me. I'm not liking the type, or the color of the type, on black it's hard to read with old eyes. Other than that, I like the new look, and the option to upload larger photos. I always thought that my photos looked better bigger, and the smaller height just didn't do them justice.

falconeye · 10-25-2011, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by GordonZA

Just fixed my link to it... it should now be something like http://pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/username#/grid

Actually, it works more nicely as
http: //pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/username

doesn't need the grid part.

Originally posted by Catalana

I logged into my account and was extremely disappointed. Images at 600 pixels height, approved from previous submissions are now displayed at 900 pixels height.
They all look like crap.

Originally posted by ihasa

Generally prefer the new look and layout, but the upscaling of old images to fit the 900px format is totally unnacceptable. They should be displayed at their intended resolution at 600px high.

Sure, images at their native resolution look slightly better. However, the difference on modern high-resolution screens is almost unnoticeable. A mild loss in perceived sharpness may be noticeable for some subjects. There is no reason why an original 900x600 or 1350x900 image shouldn't be scaled to fill the screen to make a better impact on the viewer. After all, you don't bother to create an image at print resolution, before printing either.

What you see is your browser fail to properly scale the image. E.g., Firefox on MacOSX displays the scaled PPG images just fine.

PPG sends unscaled images to the browser which must do the scaling and some browsers then don't do a proper scaling (just create a pixelated view). PPG isn't to blame. However, some sites scale on the server side and send dynamically created web pages and images to the browser (like SmugMug does).

Theoretically, PPG could double the size of all curently hosted images (which only has little impact on perceived image quality if done properly) and send those to browsers. Could be the easiest solution for everybody.

Caat · 10-25-2011, 03:21 AM

Well it prompted me to at last update my profile photo on the PPG!

I think it's a much better site overall. Far faster.

My only complaint is that once you've clicked on the button to get more information and it's displayed it you can't seemingly go back to the full sized image. At least I can't work out how to.

thoughton · 10-25-2011, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Caat

Well it prompted me to at last update my profile photo on the PPG!

I think it's a much better site overall. Far faster.

My only complaint is that once you've clicked on the button to get more information and it's displayed it you can't seemingly go back to the full sized image. At least I can't work out how to.

After you click the 'i' to see more information about the photo there should be a red 'X' and 'close' in the top right corner.

gazonk · 10-25-2011, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

What you see is your browser fail to properly scale the image. E.g., Firefox on MacOSX displays the scaled PPG images just fine.

As I said, it looks like crap, at least in Safari full screen mode, on my iMac. But then it's a 27" and I just got new glasses for computer work so my vision is too good

But on more common screen sizes I agree that it's fine. My laptop is a 15" with 1680x1050 resolution, and it looks very good.

thoughton · 10-25-2011, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

As I said, it looks like crap, at least in Safari full screen mode, on my iMac. But then it's a 27" and I just got new glasses for computer work so my vision is too good

But on more common screen sizes I agree that it's fine. My laptop is a 15" with 1680x1050 resolution, and it looks very good.

Must agree it looks pretty ropey at 2050 x 1250 on my 27" iMac as well.

mickey · 10-25-2011, 05:11 AM

Glad they took the names off the photos in the voting stage.
Not that it really mattered, but preferred the anonymity.
However, did prefer the old style of listing what equipment had been used to take the pic.

Caat · 10-25-2011, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by thoughton

After you click the 'i' to see more information about the photo there should be a red 'X' and 'close' in the top right corner.

Thanks!

thoughton · 10-25-2011, 09:29 AM

Posted this in the wrong PPG thread earlier

Quote:

Saw an interesting thing today, when I visited an old broken PPG link:

**boriscleto** · 10-25-2011, 09:32 AM

One thing that's driving me nuts is that the DA L lenses are at the bottom of the lens drop down.

ragingtornado · 10-25-2011, 03:34 PM

The new design really makes those images look bad on my screen (1920X1200 running Chrome). Downscaling is fine, but I think they should limit the display to the original image size.

As a somewhat-computer-literate user I understand that it's the browser's scaling causing the issue, but if I was completely new to photography and/or computers I would stay far, far away from Pentax. The photos in the PPG are supposed to showcase the high-quality images that a Pentax can capture, instead I see pixelated, noisy-looking images in a "premier gallery". I'm a bit disappointed.

**jpzk** · 10-25-2011, 07:41 PM

I have tow monitors: an old 17 inch for "data" stuff and a 22 inch which is, I consider, very good.
The PPG pictures seen on the 22 inch monitor just don't do justice to my originals, that's for sure; and I notice some people have similar problems.
Will that make a difference when the voting goes on ?

JP

deadwolfbones · 10-25-2011, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Adam

They're still misspelling premiere

Can't tell if this is a joke or not. :O

Class A · 10-25-2011, 08:27 PM

The new interface is a lot faster for me but the upscaling sucks. Using both Firefox and IE (I don't use the latter just checked out what many people would see) I find image sharpness to be lacking. Currently, I don't see the images selling Pentax at all. I believe smaller images should be shown at their original size, with borders as necessary.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract First PPG!	Kryosphinx	Post Your Photos!	5	01-15-2010 07:03 AM
People ok for PPG	devisor	Post Your Photos!	10	12-22-2009 10:30 AM
JUST got into the PPG	Adrian Owerko	Photographic Technique	5	11-25-2009 05:18 AM
Nature 2 for PPG	sealonsf	Post Your Photos!	3	11-07-2009 01:22 AM
Should we now post back those new K-7 threads back to the DSLR forum?	RiceHigh	Pentax News and Rumors	2	05-22-2009 07:01 AM

10-24-2011, 06:44 PM	#31
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	So ... this looks good. What gets me is that when you upload a picture, they also ask for a "description", which is fine - as it was before actually - but when you want to vote on photos, where is (are) the description(s) ? Other than that, I think this looks a bit more "pro" than the earlier version. Seems to be a bit faster to load as well. All in all, it has definitely improved. Now, one last thing: I need to change that link at the bottom of my signature. It used to send the viewer of this forum directly to my PPG page. Since I am almost computer deficient, how do I do this ? EDIT: I did it !! All OK now. Sorry. JP Last edited by jpzk; 10-24-2011 at 06:50 PM.

10-24-2011, 08:34 PM	#32
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712	When I first loaded the Gallery, I was seeing a different photographer and it took me a bit to find me. I'm not liking the type, or the color of the type, on black it's hard to read with old eyes. Other than that, I like the new look, and the option to upload larger photos. I always thought that my photos looked better bigger, and the smaller height just didn't do them justice.

10-25-2011, 02:55 AM	#33
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by GordonZA Just fixed my link to it... it should now be something like http://pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/username#/grid Actually, it works more nicely as http: //pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/username doesn't need the grid part. Originally posted by Catalana I logged into my account and was extremely disappointed. Images at 600 pixels height, approved from previous submissions are now displayed at 900 pixels height. They all look like crap. Originally posted by ihasa Generally prefer the new look and layout, but the upscaling of old images to fit the 900px format is totally unnacceptable. They should be displayed at their intended resolution at 600px high. Sure, images at their native resolution look slightly better. However, the difference on modern high-resolution screens is almost unnoticeable. A mild loss in perceived sharpness may be noticeable for some subjects. There is no reason why an original 900x600 or 1350x900 image shouldn't be scaled to fill the screen to make a better impact on the viewer. After all, you don't bother to create an image at print resolution, before printing either. What you see is your browser fail to properly scale the image. E.g., Firefox on MacOSX displays the scaled PPG images just fine. PPG sends unscaled images to the browser which must do the scaling and some browsers then don't do a proper scaling (just create a pixelated view). PPG isn't to blame. However, some sites scale on the server side and send dynamically created web pages and images to the browser (like SmugMug does). Theoretically, PPG could double the size of all curently hosted images (which only has little impact on perceived image quality if done properly) and send those to browsers. Could be the easiest solution for everybody.

10-25-2011, 03:21 AM	#34
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Well it prompted me to at last update my profile photo on the PPG! I think it's a much better site overall. Far faster. My only complaint is that once you've clicked on the button to get more information and it's displayed it you can't seemingly go back to the full sized image. At least I can't work out how to.

10-25-2011, 03:29 AM	#35
thoughton Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saffron Walden, Essex Photos: Gallery Posts: 362	Originally posted by Caat Well it prompted me to at last update my profile photo on the PPG! I think it's a much better site overall. Far faster. My only complaint is that once you've clicked on the button to get more information and it's displayed it you can't seemingly go back to the full sized image. At least I can't work out how to. After you click the 'i' to see more information about the photo there should be a red 'X' and 'close' in the top right corner.

10-25-2011, 03:35 AM	#36
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by falconeye What you see is your browser fail to properly scale the image. E.g., Firefox on MacOSX displays the scaled PPG images just fine. As I said, it looks like crap, at least in Safari full screen mode, on my iMac. But then it's a 27" and I just got new glasses for computer work so my vision is too good But on more common screen sizes I agree that it's fine. My laptop is a 15" with 1680x1050 resolution, and it looks very good.

10-25-2011, 03:40 AM	#37
thoughton Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saffron Walden, Essex Photos: Gallery Posts: 362	Originally posted by gazonk As I said, it looks like crap, at least in Safari full screen mode, on my iMac. But then it's a 27" and I just got new glasses for computer work so my vision is too good But on more common screen sizes I agree that it's fine. My laptop is a 15" with 1680x1050 resolution, and it looks very good. Must agree it looks pretty ropey at 2050 x 1250 on my 27" iMac as well.

10-25-2011, 05:11 AM	#38
mickey Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Glad they took the names off the photos in the voting stage. Not that it really mattered, but preferred the anonymity. However, did prefer the old style of listing what equipment had been used to take the pic.

10-25-2011, 07:45 AM	#39
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by thoughton After you click the 'i' to see more information about the photo there should be a red 'X' and 'close' in the top right corner. Thanks!

10-25-2011, 09:29 AM	#40
thoughton Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saffron Walden, Essex Photos: Gallery Posts: 362	Posted this in the wrong PPG thread earlier Quote: Saw an interesting thing today, when I visited an old broken PPG link:

10-25-2011, 09:32 AM	#41
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	One thing that's driving me nuts is that the DA L lenses are at the bottom of the lens drop down.

10-25-2011, 03:34 PM	#42
ragingtornado Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 49	The new design really makes those images look bad on my screen (1920X1200 running Chrome). Downscaling is fine, but I think they should limit the display to the original image size. As a somewhat-computer-literate user I understand that it's the browser's scaling causing the issue, but if I was completely new to photography and/or computers I would stay far, far away from Pentax. The photos in the PPG are supposed to showcase the high-quality images that a Pentax can capture, instead I see pixelated, noisy-looking images in a "premier gallery". I'm a bit disappointed.

10-25-2011, 07:41 PM	#43
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	I have tow monitors: an old 17 inch for "data" stuff and a 22 inch which is, I consider, very good. The PPG pictures seen on the 22 inch monitor just don't do justice to my originals, that's for sure; and I notice some people have similar problems. Will that make a difference when the voting goes on ? JP

10-25-2011, 08:04 PM	#44
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by Adam They're still misspelling premiere Can't tell if this is a joke or not. :O

10-25-2011, 08:27 PM	#45
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	The new interface is a lot faster for me but the upscaling sucks. Using both Firefox and IE (I don't use the latter just checked out what many people would see) I find image sharpness to be lacking. Currently, I don't see the images selling Pentax at all. I believe smaller images should be shown at their original size, with borders as necessary.