Need help? Check out our Support site, then

Too many galleries?

  1. I have been adding a gallery of 6-8 images for each roll of film I shoot. These galleries are all on the same page. I'm wondering if there are problems with having too many galleries on one page. Other than the fact that the page takes a long time to load, when I try to view the images in the carousel mode the browser (Chrome) will sometimes lock up.

    See the page here:

    The blog I need help with is

  2. That page is an absolute no no! If a visitor doesn't have a very fast connection, the browser will lock up, or time out before loading all the images. If you have a very fast connection, again you've got too much loading time and too much scrolling down.
    One option is to split the page into a series of numbered pages:

  3. Thanks for the helpful info. And the pagination is so simple. It took all of five minutes to insert the page breaks and update the whole thing. I decided to limit each page to ten galleries. Do you think that is still too much?

  4. You're welcome.
    "Too much" is relative. I have a fast connection, so for users like me the pages are (almost) ok, but they won't be ok for every visitor. The fewer the images on any given page, the better.
    Loading time also depends on the file size of the images. So, for future pages at least, you should try optimizing the images for the web before uploading them.

  5. The images are all downsized to 900 pixels on the long edge and pretty small file sizes. But when you load one of these pages does it actually load all those images? I thought it would just load the thumbnails for initial display. And even in the carousel display they are displayed slightly smaller than 900 pixels.

  6. I checked one of your 715x900 images, and it's 460KB: for the web, that's not "pretty small"! I mean, it's fine if you've got one image, or a few, on a page, but it's certainly not fine when you've got 60 of them, even if the page displays the thumbnail versions.

  7. What would you suggest? More aggressive compression? Smaller dimensions? More page breaks? I just want to make it easy for people to view without compromising image quality.

  8. What are the exact steps you follow till you come up with the versions you upload? (I'm asking this because you publish a lot of images, so the answer to your question depends on practical issues as well. For example, if you already scale down before uploading, then it's no big deal opting for smaller dimensions.)

    One thing to keep in mind: you don't get best quality when you upload/insert large files, you get best quality when they display in real size. See this post of mine:

  9. Dear Revdocjim you never upload very large image file like 20.MB please read the word press posting guideline.

  10. Thanks for the good link. I resize them in LR so that the long dimension is 900 pixels and the resolution is 240 pixels per inch. I'm not sure how to check the main column width of the WP theme I'm using, but I think it might be less than 900 pixels. And then there is the question of how WP displays images in the carousel view. Is that also determined by the main column width? And then I guess you are saying I should export the images from LR at a much lower resolution than 240. When you mentioned a resolution of 72, is that pixels per inch or centimeter? LR can be set for either.
    Thanks again.

  11. a) Sorry, I don't know what "LR" is!
    b) 72 = per inch.
    c) The main column width on 2010 is 640px.
    You can find such info in the Theme Showcase site:
    Also in my blog:
    (Often more accurate and more detailed, but I no longer update for newer themes.)
    d) No, the carousel view depends on the dimensions of the browser window, so it depends on the visitor's screen resolution and size. 900px is too large for most screens.

  12. OK. Thanks.
    LR is short for Adobe Lightroom, my primary editing app.

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic