Fluffytek wrote:
Most photographers dont know anything about web programming. Thus they get it done by someone else. Some are good, some bad.

Some of us are never satisfied and are always looking for improvements that balance simplicity with impact.

There  are some sites that I think look great, but are a pig to navigate, and others that look simple yet you can navigate easily.

Finally, the quality of the shots bares no resemblence to the quality of the site any more than the BHP of your car indicates your ability to drive it.

I wrote my own site. Its easy to navigate but lacks punch I think and I'm not happy with the gallery at the moment. However, I woudl rather shoot than edit web pages so it does the job for now.

www.makiclan.com
I just used coffeecup.com to make the above  'test' website
about $40.00 and no experiene of Web Programming is all it takes
never underestimate the power of the Dark side

David Maki wrote:
www.makiclan.com
I just used coffeecup.com to make the above  'test' website
about $40.00 and no experiene of Web Programming is all it takes
never underestimate the power of the Dark side

I'm glad you like it, its very ...... Flash.

JoJo Suicide wrote:
I find most photographer's sites more than lacking and less than attractive.

And just as many model's sites suck too.

ChrisHughes wrote:
Im an amateur photographer (hobbiest), I often find myself looking at other photographers websites both amateur and pro and seldom find a decent looking website.

How can a photographer with a great eye for photos be so poor in designing a site to showcase their great work?

I wont state any examples, but does anyone notice this trend?

Web design and photography skills don't necessarily coincide. Most photographers, myself included, know web design on a need-to-know basis. We master just what we need to and no more.

A analogy could be made to a professional web designer who's duties include taking images for their sites. Most likely they use a digital P&S and know photography on a need-to-know basis.

Photographer and model sites should let the images be the star. That means simpler design, neutral background colors, and for the love of God, no music! In some cases being less web design-oriented can help in this regard, in other cases it can hurt.

For photographers, models, and MUA's, perhaps it can be said that a little bit of web design knowledge can be a dangerous (or good) thing.

Legacys 7 wrote:
www.legacys-photo.com

Holy cow...I got through 10% loading and clicked back...

The average web user has less than 6 seconds of attention span before they need to see something.

James Jackson wrote:
Holy cow...I got through 10% loading and clicked back...

The average web user has less than 6 seconds of attention span before they need to see something.

Well, I never had anyone address that issue to me at all when they view my work. Not unless they are non broadband users. speaking of websites, your website crashed my browser.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Well, I never had anyone address that issue to me at all when they view my work. Not unless they are non broadband users.

Nope, I'm a broadband user, I just don't like black screens with white lettering and nothing going on.

Legacys 7 wrote:
speaking of websites, your website crashed my browser.

Well that's a first for me as well , what browser are you using, I compatibility checked in a lot of different browsers (even Lynx)

James Jackson wrote:

Holy cow...I got through 10% loading and clicked back...

The average web user has less than 6 seconds of attention span before they need to see something.

Me too.

If you want it to load, load it in the background while you show me something nice.

Fluffytek wrote:

Me too.

If you want it to load, load it in the background while you show me something nice.

Me too...  If you sit through the loooonnnng load time, it's pretty flashy... I didn't see any navigation... just a slide show (or a long intro)... I didn't give it time to do anything else!  Great images though!

dissolvegirl wrote:
10MB websites for the lose.

could you clarify?

Legacys 7 wrote:

Well, I never had anyone address that issue to me at all when they view my work. Not unless they are non broadband users. speaking of websites, your website crashed my browser.

Somthing like 75% of the country is still on dial-up. I always have to tell people that when I'm making them site. Us broadband+ users always forget that.

James Jackson wrote:

Legacys 7 wrote:
Well, I never had anyone address that issue to me at all when they view my work. Not unless they are non broadband users.

Nope, I'm a broadband user, I just don't like black screens with white lettering and nothing going on.

Well that's a first for me as well , what browser are you using, I compatibility checked in a lot of different browsers (even Lynx)

Preference for you. Like I said, it's a first for me that I got this feedback like this. To answer your question, I was using Firefox when it happened to me. It crashed it and I had I restart the brower again.

A.Fox wrote:

Somthing like 75% of the country is still on dial-up. I always have to tell people that when I'm making them site. Us broadband+ users always forget that.

I know, which is best to have a html site as a backup for dial-up users.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Like I said, it's a first for me that I got this feedback like this.

It's always good to have feedback.  Perhaps a load movie with low rez previews of the great work they'll see inside would be helpful?

Legacys 7 wrote:
To answer your question, I was using Firefox when it happened to me. It crashed it and I had I restart the brower again.

Strange...I tested in Firefox as well.  Were there any other sites open at the time?  Did it give you any error?  Are you tabbed browsing or windowed browsing?  Did it crash when you went to the home page or when you clicked to enter the site or on one of the gallery pages or on the contact or bio page?

Are there any other Firefox users who crash when going to http://www.raveneyes.com and using the site?

Thanks for the feedback!

Legacys 7 wrote:

could you clarify?

I'm on broadband, but the load time on your site is still really substantial. Plus combining that kind of load time with an intro is just more time your potential clients spend sitting around waiting to get into your site.

James Jackson wrote:
Are there any other Firefox users who crash when going to http://www.raveneyes.com and using the site?

Thanks for the feedback!

Tested in firefox...works for me.

dissolvegirl wrote:
I'm on broadband, but the load time on your site is still really substantial. Plus combining that kind of load time with an intro is just more time your potential clients spend sitting around waiting to get into your site.

I have to agree... on business class DSL, it was taking approximately 1 sec per % loaded which puts the load time at around 1 and 1/2 minutes!!!  Then I noticed the intro with the bird and what I assumed to be a slideshow of images....  In my humble opinion, that's simply too much.  If I were a client I would not wait.  Web viewers are fickle.  I would have made it through about 10% of the load and closed it if I were just casually viewing.... But like I said earlier.... Great images!!!

Legacys 7 wrote:
could you clarify?

10MB is too damn big.

Aein wrote:
Hm, I'm a model so I guess I don't count... but I did design my own portfolio and I don't think it's crappy. ( http://heartography.com/la )

Looks nice, I'd like to offer a word of advice, if you wouldn't like any, please don't read below:



I only learned this lesson a couple of years ago myself. Web browsers can only make up to 8 connections to your web server at a time so the more efficient way to do a site is to have larger images with image maps unless you need to do all the cutting for rollovers or the like.  It's also faster for a browser to render a more simplistic layout than all those tables you have to make up your navigation scheme.  To make it faster and load more seamlessly, consolidate the graphics and use image maps for your navigation.

James Jackson wrote:

Legacys 7 wrote:
Like I said, it's a first for me that I got this feedback like this.

It's always good to have feedback.  Perhaps a load movie with low rez previews of the great work they'll see inside would be helpful?


Strange...I tested in Firefox as well.  Were there any other sites open at the time?  Did it give you any error?  Are you tabbed browsing or windowed browsing?  Did it crash when you went to the home page or when you clicked to enter the site or on one of the gallery pages or on the contact or bio page?

Are there any other Firefox users who crash when going to http://www.raveneyes.com and using the site?

Thanks for the feedback!

it crashed when i pushed the enter page.

Louis Cayle wrote:
Ok as of the flash thing..............awsome fun and cool however I say keep it simple..............  www.caylephotography.net and let your work do the speaking                         on the other hand I am thinking of adding flash to this design        what do you guys think

Ditto here.  I like it simple but maybe would like to add some simple flash.  Sill under construction.  I think it is loading too slow.  Comments welcome.

Lee Dowse wrote:

I have to agree... on business class DSL, it was taking approximately 1 sec per % loaded which puts the load time at around 1 and 1/2 minutes!!!  Then I noticed the intro with the bird and what I assumed to be a slideshow of images....  In my humble opinion, that's simply too much.  If I were a client I would not wait.  Web viewers are fickle.  I would have made it through about 10% of the load and closed it if I were just casually viewing.... But like I said earlier.... Great images!!!

Actually, speed is going to vary for different reasosns. I use broadband and my site cruises. But remember not all broadband users are going to have the same speed expeirence. Example, at school we use a T3 connection fast as hell but slow as dial-up when school is in because of traffic. Once school clears out, it's like turning a page in a book. what I'll do is do a preload on each page. This will make it easier. As for navigation, my navigation is very simple. I'll do a preload for each page.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Actually, speed is going to vary for different reasosns. I use broadband and my site cruises. But remember not all broadband users are going to have the same speed expeirence. Example, at school we use a T3 connection fast as hell but slow as dial-up when school is in because of traffic. Once school clears out, it's like turning a page in a book. what I'll do is do a preload on each page. This will make it easier. As for navigation, my navigation is very simple. I'll do a preload for each page.

I'm sitting at work on a T1 line.  It took 1min 20 sec. to load.  At 75% I lost interest but in the interest of this thread I waited while doing other things.  I thought the site was nice but a little over the top with the flash.  The wait time is a killer though.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Actually, speed is going to vary for different reasosns. I use broadband and my site cruises. But remember not all broadband users are going to have the same speed expeirence. Example, at school we use a T3 connection fast as hell but slow as dial-up when school is in because of traffic. Once school clears out, it's like turning a page in a book. what I'll do is do a preload on each page. This will make it easier. As for navigation, my navigation is very simple. I'll do a preload for each page.

That may be true, but regardless... many "high-speed" users are complaining about your load time (including a T1 user).... Rather than be defensive, maybe just take the constructive criticism and simply revamp the site to make it more user friendly.  I personally can't speak for the navigation because I never even got to the navigation.  The slow download/long intro were simply too much to sit through.  If several people are saying the same thing, think about how many potential clients feel the same way.... You could be losing business without even realizing it.  Just tryin' to help.  Oh... and did I mention.... Great images!!!

:-)

ChrisHughes wrote:
How can a photographer with a great eye for photos be so poor in designing a site to showcase their great work?

I don't know if hey go hand in hand.  I have seen good and bad.  Perhaps one reason for a good photog with a bad website is this.  Photography takes some creativity; web design takes detailed (some say nerdy) knowledge of html, java and all that.  Crativity on the one hand and exactitude with scientific knowledge of website design, on the other hand, don't always go together. 

By the way, I like your work.  But don't let that be an excuse for a lousy website. ok?

Lee Dowse wrote:

That may be true, but regardless... many "high-speed" users are complaining about your load time (including a T1 user).... Rather than be defensive, maybe just take the constructive criticism and simply revamp the site to make it more user friendly.  I personally can't speak for the navigation because I never even got to the navigation.  The slow download/long intro were simply too much to sit through.  If several people are saying the same thing, think about how many potential clients feel the same way.... You could be losing business without even realizing it.  Just tryin' to help.  Oh... and did I mention.... Great images!!!

:-)

Whoa,

hold up, instead reading way too deep into my posting, perhaps you should ask if I'm taking any defense. But I'll answer that question for you, I didn't take any defense at all. Sometimes I think that some of you need to step back from the computer for a week or two. But now back on the subject, I went in made the changes by adding a preloader to the longer pages. Big difference.