ornj.net

Navigation

• Home
• About
• Support
• Tip Jar

Technical Support Forums » Web Album Generator

1. 

   chris
   Member
   Posted 2 years ago

   Hi all, I've started using WAG and love it. I have a couple of questions and was unable to find any specific answers:

   1) My camera produces large 4000x3000 jpgs which can be up to around 9MB in size. When I load these into WAG they look very sharpened, way more than I would like. However when I generate the web album with the images at 1024x768 they look fine. Can I please confirm that the sharpening effect is just a display artifact of WAG rendering the large file in the application window and that no actual sharpening (or similar processing?) takes place when the album is actually generated?

   2) Back to those large photos. If I have say 100 it can mean almost 1 gig of photos. In my pre-WAG days I would resize these down to 1024x768 (or similar) and once I'd done them all and was happy I no longer wanted them I'd bin the originals. Adding a photo was as simple as resizing it and adding the image to the app I used.

   With WAG I'd like to be able to generate my album and then bin the originals. However when I come to add a photo it needs those originals. The only solution I've found is to make a new album using the 1024x768 photos, reorder them correctly again, redo the captions, add in the new photo which has been pre-sized to 1024x768 and generate the album again, this time opting to use original sizes.

   However even this requires essentially two copies of the photos to be retained. One for the published album and one with identical files for the 'masters'. Would it be possible to have a way to tell WAG to use the current album as a set of masters and recreate the parameters from it?

   This would scan the album and pull all the non-thumbnail images back in as 'originals', recreate the order and all titles and captions, and retain the thumbnail geometry and sizes. Then new photos could be added as though the originals had been stored all along. This would immediately avoid the need to store huge originals just in order to add new photos or edit the captions or settings.

   The only workaround I can find is to use WAG to resize all the photos, move these to a new folder, delete the album and start again always using original sizes. This still means two copies but avoids the need to store gigabytes of originals.

   Many thanks for WAG. Once I worked out a clean way to use it I'll be donating as such good software deserves support.

   Thanks again,
   Chris

2. 

   chris
   Member
   Posted 2 years ago

   To clarify, I'm asking two questions. First about the sharpening, and second about how best to manage my albums given the situation described.

   Thanks,
   Chris

3. 

   Mark
   Administrator
   Posted 2 years ago

   Hi Chris,

   Thanks for the questions!

   To make the WAG user interface as fast as possible, the images aren't filtered until it comes time to actually generate the album content. The overall effect is that the images appear "sharper" inside of WAG then they do when they are in the final album. Rest assured, when your album is output, they are resampled in high quality, so they will look much nicer.

   Not requiring the original photos is a very popular request, and something that will definitely be improved in an upcoming release. Of course, WAG should use the originals if they are available, but the next release will use the resized copies if the originals aren't available.

   I don't have a timeframe until the next release, but if you'd like to be notified of new versions via email, please feel free to sign up for the Web Album Generator Announcement List.

   I hope this helps!

4. 

   chris
   Member
   Posted 2 years ago

   Hi Mark, thanks for confirming that the sharpening is just a display artifact, and for the info on the planned updates in future releases. Will it be a simple process to add a new photo to an existing album? For example if I have 50 4000x3000 images and use them to generate an album with the images at 1024x768, that's fine. If I then delete the originals, a future release of WAG will use these resized versions instead, which is great.

   But if I then have 5 new images, these will be at 4000x3000 as before. Will I be able to intuitively pull these into the existing album, have them similarly resized to 1024x768 so I can delete the originals, and have WAG then use all 55 resized images should I add even more later on?

   In otherwords if WAG lets you set the parameters (look, layout, sizes) for an album and then easily add to it, while not requiring originals or recreating the settings each time, that will be fantastic.

   Thanks again,
   Chris

5. 

   chris
   Member
   Posted 2 years ago

   Again, sorry I cannot edit my post - in the above I'm asking more questions, not just making a statement.

   I'm keen to get going and using WAG as soon I can get a clear understanding of how to manage my data. I have hundreds and hundreds of photos which I will be converting to WAG and want to settle on a long term management strategy up front. Hence why understanding how WAG will develop, and how I can use it right now, are very important to me.

   Thanks,
   Chris

6. 

   Mark
   Administrator
   Posted 2 years ago

   Hi Chris,

   A good question. I can't confirm definitively how future versions will behave, but I'll try to keep things as compatible as possible.

   Ideally, it will work exactly as you described. The worst case scenario, on the other hand, would be that opening an album created with an older version without any of the original photos available would require you to manually select the resized photos. All the titles and captions would be kept, but it would probably be a little tedious respecifying the old, resized photos for all the missing ones. But, like I said, that would be the worst case situation.

   Even though it's free software, I always try to make an effort and ensure everything works as nicely as possible without unpleasant surprises.

Reply