Hi Steven,

apologies for wasting your time.  I've now understood that the problem was a lack of page height.  Adding a few dozen pixels to the page height has fixed the problem, which it seems has always existed on my sites, but I never noticed before, because by chance, it was only a small error and therefore barely noticeable on the smaller iPads. :)

So, thanks again for taking the time to check it out for me and apologies that it was uneccessary.

Grant

Hi Steven.

Thanks for the very full and helpful reply.  I hadn't thought of simply giving people the login details.  That may be the solution.  In the meantime I've found that Wordpress has some themes with 'frontend upload', which may fit the bill, but it's hard with no knowledge of Wordpress, to understand how it all works.  I'll continue to look today if I find the time.  In the end though, it may just be simpler overall to ask people with to send me their images, with their comments and for me to upload. :-i

An update on this, which may persuade SimpleViewer to address this problem more rapidly.

Last week a German photographer (supported by a professional association) won a court case against Facebook, for stripping EXIF and especially IPTC information from uploaded images.

Stripping the data is clearly against German law, and Facebook have not contested the ruling.  I suspect that other EU countries have similar protection, certainly of those that I know a little of copyright law and protection, here in France and possibly in UK

An article on Petapixel discusses the ruling/implication.

http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/german- … -data-won/

I suspect the fact that Facebook hosts on their own servers and handles the data transfer from beginning to end, is relevant and Simpleviewer products don't do this, notably Showkase hosts on client servers, however, it is murky water and I could imagine an EU wide ruling to make the stripping or not, a user decision, because of course, some people actually do want to strip all data, so that they may post anonymously.

I did this Steven, but if I 'save' the gallery, then all the images are deleted from the Small and Large folders.

I don't mind working around this, but are you certain that the gallery will actually *use/deliver* the small and large images when being used by the appropriate devices?

The reason I question it, is because if you make a gallery with 'Resize Images' un-checked, then there are *no folders* made for small and large ... so it would seem logical that the config file would *not* then be looking for the viewport dimensions, or, looking for the appropriately sized images.

Steven,

yes it occurred to me that this is some sort of command line process that is being used.  Is this the same for the Lr plugin?

Just one question about sizing the images myself (un-checking Resize Images):

Do I have to make my images the same sizes as the settings in the 'Change Sizes' dialog, or does it make no difference?

Hi Steven,

thanks as ever for the useful reply and wilco for posting to the feature requests.

I've never known any imaging software, or even basic 'image capable' software, like Apple's Preview.app, that would strip, or rather, 'not retain' metadata.  That said, I know absolutely nothing about the Windows world, so perhaps it's not uncommon there?  Either way, I feel it's a really big issue for anyone interested in their images, amateur or professional.  I'm sure that most users are completely unaware that this data is being removed.  At the very least basic copyright information should be retained.  Basically, if you're publishing the image without any data, as far as the US is concerned, then it's freely available for anyone to use.  This isn't the case everywhere, but ... why even allow the question to be raised?

As for the solution of de-selecting the Resize Images checkbox.  Stupidly I hadn't imagined that the site structure would be created anyway!  So this is what I shall do going forward ... but automatic would obviously be much much better.

Thanks Steven.

After trying the various options, the code below works as before.  The only necessary change was to the Caption size. ".jb-caption-desc" in place of ".jb-caption p".  The list-page-number code was redundant so I removed it:

/* Image Caption size */
.jb-caption .jb-caption-desc {
    font-size: 11px !important;
    line-height: 11px !important;
}

/* Image number size  */
 .jb-cap-frame .jbac-number {
font-size: 11px !important;
}  

/* Image number position */
.jb-cap-frame .jbac-number {
    margin-top: 20px !important;
} 

/* Image Caption position */
.jb-caption .jb-caption-desc {
    margin-top: 20px !important;
}

Ahhh ... of course.  I should have remembered that. 

Thanks Steven.

Hi Steven,

first off ... a very Happy New Year to you and many thanks for all the help you provided last year. :)

The code works brilliantly and I really think it is a feature that should be included in a future version of JBx Pro.

However ... using the

<span class="fixed"></span>

isn't working for me, but perhaps I'm not implementing it correctly?

I'm adding it to the Title in JBx.  I don't use the titles in my galleries normally, only Captions ... but either way, with the titles on or off, it's not affecting the gallery display at all ... although it *is* being ranomized.

http://www.grantsymon.com/Grabs/JBx-fixedImage.jpg