Beta Directory Photos

Anyone having any luck with getting photos on the new Beta Directory that look half way decent?

I've tried following all of the suggestions and guidelines on getting a decent picture uploaded, but whatever processing happens on the web server at upload time really does a number on the photo. I've tired several file formats and being sure I had square dimensions.

I cropped a photo to 1800 pixels x 1800 pixels, then resized it in half, and then in a third to get to 300 x 300. (I realize the third is probably not an ideal jump in resizing, but it was the best I could do; the source image didn't have 2400 on one of the dimensions). I used the .png and .jpg file formats, which I figured PNG would keep the quality up and the source image I uploaded looked terrific. But apparently the Church changed it into a JPG. And even when I upload a JPG that meets all the requirements, I'm still seeing a different, pixelated image from what I uploaded. Are they changing the JPG quality or compression or something?

Then there's the issue where the Church makes a thumbnail of the image you uploaded, and it doesn't look like it's a very clean resize algorithm. I decided on 300 x 300, because it appeared to make a 150 x 150 thumbnail which should be a good resize ratio of one-half.

So I just looked again, and it looks like they are taking my image and resizing it up to 375 x 375, the maximum amount on one of the dimensions. Oh no, don't do that please! If I'm under your limit, leave the image alone please! And then to go from a 375 x 375 to a 150 x 150 thumbnail? That is not a good resizing ratio.

I don't know what I'm talking about! :rolleyes: Trust me, it took me a while to get my avatar image respectable on these forums! Maybe someone can give me some suggestions. Thanks in advance.

Ok, I just tried doing a 2000 x 2000 image, with resizes of 75% (3/4) and then 25% (1/4) to get down to 375 x 375. The 375 x 375 image that is showing is 5.5 KB smaller than the one I uploaded, which was 34.2 KB JPG and it looked good (and it must be the most important 5 KB lost because that's where all the quality was apparently ). And the thumbnail is still 150 x 150, which is a horrible resize ratio from 375 x 375.

Still not sure what to make of it.

mkmurray wrote:Anyone having any luck with getting photos on the new Beta Calendar that look half way decent?

I'm missing something. Photos? In the Calendar?

Something you might check is to right-click and save the displayed image and then check to see what the dimensions of the saved file is.

I've seen some web page authors use image attributes to force the browser to resize the photo. IE is a horrid resizer. I don't know about IE8, but the older versions would downsize by simply dropping rows of pixels rather than re-interpreting the pixels.

RussellHltn wrote:I'm missing something. Photos? In the Calendar?

LOL, Directory I mean. I said Directory in every other place on the page (thread title, thread tags, etc.). I've updated my first post to fix the typo.

RussellHltn wrote:Something you might check is to right-click and save the displayed image and then check to see what the dimensions of the saved file is.

I've seen some web page authors use image attributes to force the browser to resize the photo. IE is a horrid resizer. I don't know about IE8, but the older versions would downsize by simply dropping rows of pixels rather than re-interpreting the pixels.

I've been using Firefox and Chrome, and the images look horrible in all browsers. I'm fairly sure my image is modified by the Church at upload time, despite the fact that I seem to adhere to all the minimum (and maximum) requirements listed.

Still, the Church needs to rethink their resize ratio for thumbnails. Best ratios are derivatives of 1/2. And when I give you a 300 x 300 image (so that the thumbnail should look right), don't resize me back up to 375 x 375!

The upload tool does any needed resizing. In my work with directory (on the dev team) I've rarely seen it do a bad job of resizing.

In my testing, I've simply taken whatever image I have and uploaded, never doing any resizing before hand. I have noticed that if the source image is smaller than the resize limits, it doesn't look too good when it gets enlarged.

My recommendation is just take your original image, crop it to frame the subject, and upload it. Don't worry about resizing before hand.

If you still have bad results, I'd be interested in obtaining your source images so I can use them for testing.

jdcr256 wrote:I have noticed that if the source image is smaller than the resize limits, it doesn't look too good when it gets enlarged.

This is one of the points I'm trying to make though, it's common knowledge that enlarging photos doesn't work well. I'm unsure why you can't accept an image within the limits as is? My last test involved uploading the exact file dimensions that you display on the site, and the quality still was compromised with no resize actually having taken place.

I will preform some more tests on larger non-resized images (only cropped to be square) to see if your resize algorithms perform better when they have more pixels to work with in the source image.

Thanks for your response.

mkmurray wrote:LOL, Directory I mean.

That's what I thought. But I went back an looked again - I can't see where I can upload the photos. The closest I can get is a "coming soon" link that does not work.

jdcr256 wrote:The upload tool does any needed resizing. In my work with directory (on the dev team) I've rarely seen it do a bad job of resizing.
...
My recommendation is just take your original image, crop it to frame the subject, and upload it. Don't worry about resizing before hand.

I uploaded a 858 KB jpeg (3328x2220). The preview window on the main directory shows a 6.6 KB (200x133) picture. Since it's a family picture, at that resolution the quality of that preview is pretty bad, but you still get the idea. After clicking on the picture, I get an enlargement of 28.44 KB (500x333). The compression still means it's not great, but by no means terrible.

RussellHltn wrote:That's what I thought. But I went back an looked again - I can't see where I can upload the photos. The closest I can get is a "coming soon" link that does not work.

It's under the administrator tools. I see the "coming soon" link when I click on the "Member Photos" section, but you can actually upload the photos from the administrator tools.

I agree that resizing small photos to be bigger should not be done, I've entered it as a bug.

mkmurray wrote:I will preform some more tests on larger non-resized images (only cropped to be square) to see if your resize algorithms perform better when they have more pixels to work with in the source image.

Ok, I tried a 2000 x 2000 image tonight, and the results are a bit better with an original size, square-cropped source image (that is, if the Church resizing algorithm must be utilized).

I'm still unsure why my image can't be used as is, if you tell me maximum pixel limits, maximum file size allowed, and any other image quality restrictions (perhaps DPI, etc.) that you need adhered to. But if I meet the requirements, then my image should be left alone, seeing as I've already found the right mix of dimensions, file size, and image quality that I fit best for my image.

mkmurray wrote:Ok, I tried a 2000 x 2000 image tonight, and the results are a bit better with an original size, square-cropped source image (that is, if the Church resizing algorithm must be utilized).

I'm still unsure why my image can't be used as is, if you tell me maximum pixel limits, maximum file size allowed, and any other image quality restrictions (perhaps DPI, etc.) that you need adhered to. But if I meet the requirements, then my image should be left alone, seeing as I've already found the right mix of dimensions, file size, and image quality that I fit best for my image.

We do some compression to keep image sizes as small as possible. We are anticipating storing a huge number of photos, and we need to keep the weight as small as possible to minimize the loading times of the parts of directory that use photos.

We have had some discussion in the past few days about how much trade-off we should have between quality, and image weight.

jdcr256 wrote:We do some compression to keep image sizes as small as possible. We are anticipating storing a huge number of photos, and we need to keep the weight as small as possible to minimize the loading times of the parts of directory that use photos.

We have had some discussion in the past few days about how much trade-off we should have between quality, and image weight.

This is completely understandable. What I'm hoping for is that if you guys are willing to publish some maximum requirements for all of these restrictions, that I can be sure to upload an image that meets your demands, allowing the source image to be left untouched from my original upload.

I feel that some of us users will be able to find a balance of file size, image quality, and dimensions for each individual photo better than an algorithm can. For users who don't want to deal with the requirements, then the algorithm works sufficiently well with fairly decent results.

Originally Posted by n.augusta.wardtech
My ward is starting to get ready to show members how to post their family pictures on the ward directory website. However, when I went to go post mine and my wife's picture, it gives me an error stating that it has to be less than 50K. So I get 2 different pics resized to under 50K. Then I get another error saying that, "Your graphic height or width is too large. It needs to be '135 height X 180 width' or smaller." What gives? If I crop it any smaller, the faces aren't going to be seeable. I'll be cutting my face or the Mrs. face out. Any help would be great and how do I explain this to the rest of ward?

Thank you,
Jamie

Ok...I am using PaintShop Pro to resize the picture and when I finally got the picture to the size that is accepted, it's a very small picture and you can't hardly even see the image. I don't understand why the picture has to be that small?

Thanks,
Jamie

The current LUWS does have very small photos. You'll have to crop them down to the faces with little else. It's not expected to change anytime soon.

Please note that this discussion is about the Beta Directory which allows larger photos.

Ok...I think I have figured it out. I got one that is doable but it took a lot of trial and error to get it to the point that was acceptable.

However, we do have several families that are big in the ward...yes, even in the South we do have big families...so what am I to do when I have pictures of families at that size? Not going to be noticeable as much?

Thanks,
Jamie

n.augusta.wardtech wrote:Ok...I think I have figured it out. I got one that is doable but it took a lot of trial and error to get it to the point that was acceptable.

However, we do have several families that are big in the ward...yes, even in the South we do have big families...so what am I to do when I have pictures of families at that size? Not going to be noticeable as much?

Thanks,
Jamie

I use PhotoShop Elements to reduce the resolution to 40 and then I can make the photo 2x3. Even with the reduced resolution, with a photo this small, it still looks pretty good.

zaneclark wrote:I use PhotoShop Elements to reduce the resolution to 40 and then I can make the photo 2x3. Even with the reduced resolution, with a photo this small, it still looks pretty good.

Well, what I did was I cropped it and used the percentage rather than pixels which I think is where the pixels was confusing me a bit. I used 56 by 53 percent and it worked.

I guess I am going to have my work cut out for me when I go to start working with the rest of the ward.

Thanks,
Jamie

Does anyone know if there is a way to import the photos from the old lds.org directory, or if this will occur automatically at some point?

LDSNYC wrote:Does anyone know if there is a way to import the photos from the old lds.org directory, or if this will occur automatically at some point?

I imagine no one has responded to your question because no one on the forum knows the answer.

If I had to guess, I would assume that the answer is no. The new directory allows substantially larger images (375x500 as opposed to 135x180 in the old directory). So it would be a pity to use those old tiny images, although I suppose one could argue that something is better than nothing. Hopefully the ward website administrator kept the original images and can upload them to the new site.

Also, the new capability for uploading individual images had no analogue on the old ward website, so those images would have to be uploaded separately anyway.

The good news for administrators is that individual members can now upload their own photos, so hopefully members will handle this themselves without the ward administrator(s) having to be in the middle of the process (except for a simple approval of the photos uploaded by the members).

Alan_Brown wrote:The good news for administrators is that individual members can now upload their own photos, so hopefully members will handle this themselves without the ward administrator(s) having to be in the middle of the process (except for a simple approval of the photos uploaded by the members).

I forget. Does the new website automatically resize the photos? If not, then I commend your optimism, but ....

RussellHltn wrote:I forget. Does the new website automatically resize the photos? If not, then I commend your optimism, but ....

It does resize photos automatically. Look back at the beginning of this thread for a discussion of that.

Now I don't even see a place to upload or a coming soon thing. I wonder if they are reserving that right to heads of household or something?

allen.blodgett wrote:Now I don't even see a place to upload or a coming soon thing. I wonder if they are reserving that right to heads of household or something?

My wife can upload photos, so it's not restricted to head of household. To upload photos, you need to:

• Be signed in to https://beta.lds.org/directory
• Select a family for which you have rights to edit the profile (the easiest way is to click on the "My Family" link to go to your family).
• Select Edit Profile.

Then you should see the "Choose File" links by the household and by each individual member.

LDSNYC wrote:Does anyone know if there is a way to import the photos from the old lds.org directory, or if this will occur automatically at some point?

There will not be any import of photos from the old LUWS.

Also, it's worthwhile to mention that our latest release (Apr. 30th) does improve somewhat on the compression algorithm we use. You should see better results now when uploading photos.