Web Gallery ? image size

[Margie]

How do you control the size of an image in an HTML gallery?. In the Web section of Lightroom, I have selected the default HTML gallery. In the thumbnail view, I click on one image and the main page view displays of that image. I'd like to make that image larger. In the right panel, Appearance Panel, Image Pages, Size slider, I can make the image larger or smaller by moving the slider. However, after the gallery is uploaded to the web, the image is small and does not match the Lightroom view. In the Output Settings Panel, it is set to ?Large Images?, Quality 8'. What is the correct procedure to control the image size?

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Can you show us a link to an example Margie?

 

[CarlinPhoto]

Image size challenges

I am wondering if Margie's post is similar to the challenges I am facing.
If not, Margie, forgive me for posting on this thread, but I think answers to some of my challenges may be solutions to yours as well.

I have output a Flash Web Gallery from Lightroom. The gallery creates the Flash movie and embeds it in a file called index.html. I have inserted this index.html in a file called shell.html (using an IFRAME) at a set size of 8''x564.

I am finding when I view the gallery in both Slideshow View and in Gallery View, the scaling of the images is creating quality loss in the images, and jagged lines on angles within the photos. The problem is much worse in Gallery View, because the images in the flash movie are being scaled down even more.

The gallery creates four different sizes for each image
Large: 975 x 65'
Medium: 78' x 52'
Small: 675 x 45'
Thumbnail

And then picks the "best match" for the gallery being viewed.
I am attempting to find the perfect flash movie size (or perfect size image) to cause the least amount of scaling of the images.

If you look at http://www.naturalabstractions.com/galleries/QuietHours/shell.html and look to the 7th image (On My Street), you'll notice the edges of the lightpost are extremely jagged in both Gallery and Slidshow view. On the 11th image (Jupiter and Anteres), you'll notice the same effect. The star trails should be smooth lines without breaks.

My initial thought was to go in to the final output images from Lightroom, and manipulate the size by making the smaller, thus reducing scaling. The results were not effective.

You can see more examples of this problem at http://www.naturalabstractions.com/galleries/NaturalAbstractionsSand/shell.html
(images 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 )

In trying to identify what to do, it seems I would need to know - In an 8'' x 564 movie, how large is the display of the image in Slideshow View, and how large is the display in Gallery View? It seems if I knew these answers, I could resize the images in the output folder, and have little to no scaling on the images. Right?

I suppose the other approach would be to change the size that I am constraining the flash movie to within the IFRAME shell.html file. Is there are recommended size? (I think the the way I have it now may be too large for some monitors anyway).

Am I on the right track, or approaching this wrong? Any (constructive) advice is welcomed, and thank you in advance.
Scott

 

[Mick Seymour]

Hi Scott

I suspect that with a frame size of 8'' x 564, Flash is already selecting the smallest photo size you are producing of 675 x 45' and scaling that downwards. IIRC from testing I have done in the past, you can check which size is being selected by renaming, say, the medium and large rendering of one photo and see if you get a blank view area for that one.

From the dimensions you mention, it looks like you are picking Large for the Large Images size in Lightroom's Appearance panel. Try Medium which will give you 78' x 52', 675 x 45' and 45' x 3'' for the gallery's large, medium and small photos. I'd also suggest choosing a Quality value of 1'' as that may help if Flash does want to scale things.

 

[CarlinPhoto]

Thanks so much, Mick. You pointed me in the right direction. First, I chose the different output sizes, and then took a look. The small images were too small for me this time, so I did the Lightroom output, and then did a batch process on the images in Photoshop, and set all of the images in the small folder to a width of 574. Perfect; no scaling, and still big enough to look good.

Thank you!

 

[Mick Seymour]

Thanks so much, Mick.

You are very welcome.

The only problem you are likely to encounter by replacing the images with different sizes is if the user right clicks the view area of the gallery and chooses Zoom In then works out (which is nowhere near intuative enough) how to zoom back out again. In the gallery directory under resources\mediaGroupData is a file called group.xml which holds the maximum sizes Flash can expect and dimensions of every photo. I used to change the photo sizes then script the changes to this file so they matched but that became tedious so I just stick with the different sizes Extra Large gives me and suffer the odd scaling problem on my 16'' x 8'' monitor and my wife's 1'24 x 768 if we use a browser that takes too much screen real estate.