login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Why are landscape images so small on Model Mayhem? Search   Reply
Photographer
The Model Zone
Posts: 66
Chicago, Illinois, US


Just want to know why and if llama Mayhem plans on changing anything?

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120229/15/4f4eb519ca1bc_m.jpg
Oct 02 12 05:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,129
Orlando, Florida, US


800 pixels wide.

That's the rule.
Oct 02 12 05:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Desoer
Posts: 148
Cayuga, Ontario, Canada


Oct 02 12 05:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Model Zone
Posts: 66
Chicago, Illinois, US


Good Egg Productions wrote:
800 pixels wide.

That's the rule.

Yeah, but they look soo small when using as an Avatar, or contests?

Oct 02 12 05:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rob Photosby
Posts: 2,275
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


Good Egg Productions wrote:
800 pixels wide.

That's the rule.

and it is attending to problems and limitations like that that separates the long-term winning companies from the rest.

Oct 02 12 06:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Woven Thought
Posts: 329
Petersburg, Virginia, US


Just how it is.  Verticals weight higher for me in MM as they look better here.  On my webpage, a horizontal slideshow is preferable so I only use those.  You have to adapt to your space.
Oct 02 12 06:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,129
Orlando, Florida, US


natural beauties of qld wrote:

and it is attending to problems and limitations like that that separates the long-term winning companies from the rest.

How big and high resolution would you prefer the images here be so that they can be taken and sold elsewhere?

You WANT the size limitation.  You just don't realize it.  Besides, for a website that 98% of the traffic* is images, the bandwidth of larger images would raise the operating costs to the point where I would not be willing to pay, or deal with the advertising that I'd be forced to watch before viewing a portfolio.


If you REALLY want to show off your giant 36MP images, there are sites to do so.  Or, you could have your own.


* I made up this percentage, but I have to assume it's VERY high.

Oct 02 12 06:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,300
Atlanta, Georgia, US


They are small due to piss poor PHP work.  800 pix is fine, but thumbnail system was created with a predefined grid of vertical images in mind.

There is no reason MM could not use masonry layout code for its portfolio function, it's very common now in HTML 5 sites buts its been around longer then that.
Oct 02 12 06:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30,853
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US


Ljs Photography wrote:
Yeah, but they look soo small when using as an Avatar, or contests?

Because it's a fixed width, be it in large view or avatar. So naturally when your photo's Longest side is horizontal it'll look smaller. (it's also why people abuse the crap out of extremely tall images.)

The site is designed for vertical flow/adjust not horizontal.

I do wish MM was like 500px in a way where you can control your thumbnail appearance.

Oct 02 12 06:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Model Zone
Posts: 66
Chicago, Illinois, US


AJScalzitti wrote:
They are small due to piss poor PHP work.  800 pix is fine, but thumbnail system was created with a predefined grid of vertical images in mind.

There is no reason MM could not use masonry layout code for its portfolio function, it's very common now in HTML 5 sites buts its been around longer then that.

Thank you, Flickr is an example if that grid and It's free to start with...

Oct 02 12 09:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,358
Danbury, Connecticut, US


AJScalzitti wrote:
There is no reason MM could not use masonry layout code for its portfolio function, it's very common now in HTML 5 sites buts its been around longer then that.

Can you please point out and example of a site that uses such a layout in a better way?  Thanks!

Oct 02 12 10:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Model Zone
Posts: 66
Chicago, Illinois, US


Lots of sites have a perspective of the way you would like to see your images without sacrificing size especially the ratio difference that MM does between a Portrait and Landscape...
Oct 04 12 08:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jhono Bashian
Posts: 2,428
Cleveland, Ohio, US


Landscapes??  you mean horizontals??  just checking.  I use to shoot film so vertical and horizontal is the old school terminology.
Oct 04 12 09:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,388
Seattle, Washington, US


Jhono Bashian wrote:
Landscapes??  you mean horizontals??  just checking.  I use to shoot film so vertical and horizontal is the old school terminology.

there is landscape orientation and there is portrait orientation.

Oct 04 12 09:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jhono Bashian
Posts: 2,428
Cleveland, Ohio, US


Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
there is landscape orientation and there is portrait orientation.

semantics...  so is also vertical orientation and horizontal orientation

Oct 04 12 09:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Image Works Photography
Posts: 2,890
Orlando, Florida, US


Ljs Photography wrote:
Just want to know why and if Model Mayhem plans on changing anything?

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120229/15/4f4eb519ca1bc_m.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8178/8055682715_690a0044d5_n.jpgThats a question spongebob would answer.

Oct 04 12 09:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,300
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Brian Diaz wrote:
Can you please point out and example of a site that uses such a layout in a better way?  Thanks!

Masonry layout, my site uses it for all the pages past the first.  Here is an example

http://www.ajscalzitti.com/beauty/

It's a Wordpress based site BTW.  Now in this case I can choose S/M/L for the "thumbnails" and sometimes I may need to adjust the order slightly if I mix them (as I have) but it does a decent job on its own.  Nearly perfect if you post all the same size.

Oct 04 12 09:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,781
Olivet, Michigan, US


Brian Diaz wrote:

Can you please point out and example of a site that uses such a layout in a better way?  Thanks!

I don't know anything about the coding part, but this a better way to handle the landscape / portrait thing, both on the portfolio page, and on the individual pages.  (some images 18+)
http://www.modelinsider.com/gallery/11016?limit=0

Oct 04 12 09:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,300
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Doubtful MM will not being doing a code changes any time soon.  Usually they just add stuff nobody asked for or wants.
Oct 06 12 11:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 32,089
Los Angeles, California, US


Why shouldn't they be?

It's a small world, after all.
Oct 06 12 11:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,358
Danbury, Connecticut, US


AJScalzitti wrote:

Masonry layout, my site uses it for all the pages past the first.  Here is an example

http://www.ajscalzitti.com/beauty/

It's a Wordpress based site BTW.  Now in this case I can choose S/M/L for the "thumbnails" and sometimes I may need to adjust the order slightly if I mix them (as I have) but it does a decent job on its own.  Nearly perfect if you post all the same size.

That is a way to reduce the amount of white space on the page, but it does not differ from MM in the relative sizes of the landscape oriented images.  Because the width is fixed, the portrait images are larger than the landscape images.

Oct 06 12 12:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,358
Danbury, Connecticut, US


When sizing thumbnails, you typically have three choices:

Limit the width (which gives the advantage to portrait images)
Limit the height (which gives the advantage to landscape images)
Limit both (which gives the advantage to square images)

Because most images on MM are portrait oriented (which makes sense, as most images of models are to some degree portraits) we give the advantage to those images.
Oct 06 12 12:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 8,045
Olney, Maryland, US


Good Egg Productions wrote:
800 pixels wide.

That's the rule.
Ljs Photography wrote:
Yeah, but they look soo small when using as an Avatar, or contests?

Pick appropriate avatars.  Use portrait orientated images for avatars.  Many images do not look good when reduced to avatar size.

As for the full size images, when members post links to large images, they often brake up the page formatting.  I generally stop reading forum threads or profiles at that point.

Oct 06 12 12:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,300
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Brian Diaz wrote:
That is a way to reduce the amount of white space on the page, but it does not differ from MM in the relative sizes of the landscape oriented images.  Because the width is fixed, the portrait images are larger than the landscape images.

In my example the width is not fixed, any limits are my image sizes.  MM could have code that scales the thumbnails and minimizes white space.  Instead it appears to be based on a static portrait table.

This is not great coding, and worse now that there are far more devices used on the internet now.  The site needs to be updated to a more responsive layout.

Oct 06 12 12:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
1472
Posts: 1,025
Pembroke Pines, Florida, US


I would and could go into a rant about working photographers ...... but i won't
Oct 06 12 12:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,358
Danbury, Connecticut, US


AJScalzitti wrote:

In my example the width is not fixed, any limits are my image sizes.

On the page you linked to, all the widths are the same, and the landscape images show up smaller than the portrait images.  Here is how it looks to me:
http://content.screencast.com/users/raz … 6_1536.png

I also noticed that at least the first landscape image is at its full size wider than the first portrait image is tall.
Landscape: http://www.ajscalzitti.com/wp-content/u … Suri-1.jpg (1024x685)
Portrait: http://www.ajscalzitti.com/wp-content/u … low-12.jpg (533x800)

But at the thumbnail size, the are both 220 pixels wide.

Oct 06 12 12:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CP_
Posts: 310
Seattle, Washington, US


AJScalzitti wrote:

In my example the width is not fixed, any limits are my image sizes.  MM could have code that scales the thumbnails and minimizes white space.  Instead it appears to be based on a static portrait table.

This is not great coding, and worse now that there are far more devices used on the internet now.  The site needs to be updated to a more responsive layout.

I'm not sure what you're talking about because your widths are definitely fixed.

Oct 06 12 01:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Model Zone
Posts: 66
Chicago, Illinois, US


Model Mayhem is the only website that has the Landscape issue, wish they would fix it!
Oct 08 12 05:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DBIphotography Toronto
Posts: 3,148
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Mark Salo wrote:

Good Egg Productions wrote:
800 pixels wide.

That's the rule.

Pick appropriate avatars.  Use portrait orientated images for avatars.  Many images do not look good when reduced to avatar size.

+1

It is what it is. Use images created in one orientation for display where that orientation is displayed best. On here, Portrait Orientated images show better than Landscape, so I use primarily those (http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/1920941/0). On my website, unless I fiddle with the display-settings the Landscape Oriented pix look far better naturally. (http://www.dbiphotography.com/blog/2012 … h-park-zoo) I even have a more squared-off custom sizing I use for images in my Virtual Portfolio on there! (http://www.dbiphotography.com/p761550405/e44906fb2) That's a whole part of how you want ppl to receive your work, right? How they view it? That's the way MM displays thumbnails better; Portrait Orientation trumps Landscape. Oh well.

IMHO alone, as always;

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) 

Oct 08 12 11:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wild Image Media
Posts: 173
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia


It sucks
Oct 09 12 10:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,358
Danbury, Connecticut, US


Ljs Photography wrote:
Model Mayhem is the only website that has the Landscape issue, wish they would fix it!

For images to fit into rows or columns, you'd have to restrict either their width or height (or both).  Any way you do it, some photos will end up looking smaller than others.

For example, Google sets a fixed height for images, which makes landscape images show up bigger and portrait images smaller (as opposed to MM who sets a fixed width, which makes portrait images show up bigger). 

In these examples from Google Images, the top row her shows 2:3 portrait images, and the bottom row shows 2:3 landscape images:

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/evidence_upload/120723/18/500df8f5271b6.jpg

If you don't restrict images to fit into either rows or columns, you end up with a page formatting nightmare.  It would take much smarter brains than mine even to guess at how that could work with images of various aspect ratios.

Because the majority of images on MM are portrait (and so many of them are portraits) the preference is given to those images.

Oct 09 12 11:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Model Zone
Posts: 66
Chicago, Illinois, US


I don't think people want to hear all the technical issues, they just want things fixed! This is broken and can be fixed! Granted, lots of images are portrait, however, those who want to use a landscape for an avatar are limited cause it appears to small on the main page, those images are then put on the shelf and so is creativity and expansion....
Oct 10 12 09:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,811
Buena Park, California, US


Good Egg Productions wrote:

How big and high resolution would you prefer the images here be so that they can be taken and sold elsewhere?

You WANT the size limitation.  You just don't realize it.  Besides, for a website that 98% of the traffic* is images, the bandwidth of larger images would raise the operating costs to the point where I would not be willing to pay, or deal with the advertising that I'd be forced to watch before viewing a portfolio.


If you REALLY want to show off your giant 36MP images, there are sites to do so.  Or, you could have your own.


* I made up this percentage, but I have to assume it's VERY high.

They could max out the pixels to be 800x1200 or 1200x800.  Then it won't impact bandwidth at all.

Oct 10 12 10:23 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers