4 replies to this topic

[KVHumiston]

I've been starting to get messages when I update my webpage that my file is too large. I then have to go back and decide which photos I will have to delete. I hate this -- I want to add more photos, not delete the ones I've already added! In the webinar, Bruce said that in the future we would be allowed larger files. How close are we to that? Also, is there a way to exclude photos from the web page, without having to delete them from our genealogy files completely? I went through all the trouble of importing photos, captioning them, tagging them (sometimes for quite few individuals), and now I have to remove them from my files because the file for my webpage is too large. Is there an alternative?

[TomH]

An alternative is to find another webhost with greater capacity.

Another is to examine your photos and see if maybe they can be compacted in size. I'm sure there is a batch tool that would help to do this - Picasa does for uploading to PicasaWeb or Google+. You would want to copy your image files first to a safe place.

Actually, one possibility might be to use the RM Create a ShareCD and see if that processes the images. You could then open that database with your main RM to publish the website.

[KVHumiston]

I don't want to find another webhost -- I've been THRILLED with my RootsMagic webpage, and I've been selling it to everyone who I can show it to. So there's no way to just put some of my photos on the website, and mark others not to be posted? (I know I can just go with primary photos, but I would like to use more than one for each person.) Is the only way to keep them off the webfile to delete them from RootsMagic? That would be very discouraging -- especially if two weeks later I find out that we'll be getting more capacity, as Bruce predicted in the webinar!

I do use Picassa, but what you wrote about batch tools to compact them in size goes a bit over my head. I have a love-hate relationship with Picassa. On one hand, it can be so user friendly, especially the photo-editing tools. On the other hand, when I go to the forums to find answers to questions, they might as well be speaking Greek. I don't understand what they're talking about. I guess I need to find a class or something. :-(

[TomH]

I do use Picassa, but what you wrote about batch tools to compact them in size goes a bit over my head.

If you right-click on a folder in Picasa Folders, there is an option "Export as HTML Page" which gives a choice of picture size, from original down to 320 pixels. You might create a test folder with some big images in it and try it out. I don't know if it changes the file names - that would be a deal breaker.

Alternatively, with a folder selected, click on File > Export which opens up a different procedure with controls over file name, image size and quality and watermarking. This might even be better. Again, I have not tried it on a folder with sub-folders, only on individual pictures. So experiment with something safe.

[Don Newcomb]

The individual XML files used in the publish online webpage are actually quite small. I suspect, along with Tom, that the photos are the issue. Many people do not seems aware that picture files come in many different sizes and that using a 4 MB photo may be just as inappropriate as using a 400 byte photo. For purposes of identifying an individual in a head and shoulders shot, 100 kB is more than adequate, 1/2 MB may be needed to see everyone in a large group photo. I suggest you look at tools to resize your photos to a more optimal size and see if that helps. A good test would be to look for any photos over 1 MB. If you have any I'd be very suspicious of them being the problem.