|
Forums >
General Industry >
Photographs = poor web designers?
Jun 02 06 03:34 pm Link ChrisHughes wrote: I think it's safe to say that a photographer is not necessarily going to have the skills or knowledge to implement a good website. Web design/dev is my day job, and there's definitely a reason why I can keep myself fed in this profession... because there's a lot to know! Jun 02 06 03:39 pm Link Ibarra Photo wrote: Nice work! I'm not a big fan of Flash, but you've made pretty good use of it. Jun 02 06 03:42 pm Link Legacys 7 wrote: That was said with a smile... no need to be testy. The changes did make a big difference, and certainly gives the viewer something to look at while it loads. Much better, but when you click on Enter, you're still left with the residual download (for me was at about 45%). This still leaves pretty close to a minute left for the rest of the site to download (in my case) after I "enter". Granted, your work is great and the samples given in your pre-load may be enough to keep the viewers attention, but there is still a long wait time. Jun 02 06 03:45 pm Link  http://davewright.org a lot of "designers" use flash to fancy up their websites, with the unfortunate result of making the site 10MB, or unable to be viewed by the great majority of people who don't have flash+broadband. welcome to the internet. bad design is not limited to photographer websites, by any stretch of the imagination - but a lot of photographers think they're also graphic designers. Jun 02 06 03:48 pm Link To Legacys 7 - I have to admit, I bailed too. Very nice images (the ones I saw). A preloader is great, but still not what will keep people when the page flash load gets too long. Also, for image or gallery sites, I'm more of a fan of keeping the images small enough (height) to fit on a 1024X768 screen res - the most popular on a PC - without the need to scroll in either direction. This would help download time. I'm also on a high-speed connection that habitually acts like dial-up. A lot of problems contribute to it, but that's what we have to deal with. - Josh Jun 02 06 03:53 pm Link To Legacys 7 - I have to admit, I bailed too. Very nice images (the ones I saw). A preloader is great, but still not what will keep people when the page flash load gets too long. Also, for image or gallery sites, I'm more of a fan of keeping the images small enough (height) to fit on a 1024X768 screen res - the most popular on a PC - without the need to scroll in either direction. This would help download time. I'm also on a high-speed connection that habitually acts like dial-up. A lot of problems contribute to it, but that's what we have to deal with. - Josh Jun 02 06 03:53 pm Link Sorry about the double post; with the overtly busy site this is, and my poor connection, it took about 60 seconds to transfer back to the forum from the "reply" form! Jun 02 06 03:56 pm Link Lee Dowse wrote: I wasn't testy at all. You got offended by over reading what you thought was there. I simply addressed that somethings happen often from browser to bandwith nothing else in between the lines. If people just take the time to read or just ask, it makes things easier in life. I like to ask question instead of jumping the gun, unless it is something is very obvious to me. Jun 02 06 04:01 pm Link Michael Romeo wrote: that's funny... i need to say that you should probably use your own images on your website, and not steal images from other photographers... Jun 02 06 04:01 pm Link Legacys 7 wrote: Nor was I offended.... Let's try this again.... Jun 02 06 04:09 pm Link Josh H wrote: No sweat. I took a preloader and added to the longer pages only. Jun 02 06 04:14 pm Link Sean Armenta wrote: interesting.... Jun 02 06 04:16 pm Link no... not interesting. fucking shameless. to claim someone else's work as your own?!? interesting is not the word.  Jun 02 06 04:19 pm Link and for the record I had no wait time on legacy's site. It had a preloader for about 2 seconds - thats it. Jun 02 06 04:19 pm Link Sean Armenta wrote: Good job Sean now how do we get rid of this image stealing creep???? Jun 02 06 04:19 pm Link Thanks everyone for pointing this out. Jun 02 06 04:20 pm Link flesh and color wrote: Yeah, he made some changes.... much smoother now!!! Jun 02 06 04:21 pm Link Lee Dowse wrote: Hi my name is Legacy, I am a alcho err uh photographer. I'll go back and do more modifyng to get the speed up more. I'm glad that you cats address this to me, it made me do something that I hadn't got around to and that is add the preloader to the larger end. Jun 02 06 04:26 pm Link Experimental Photoworks wrote: its interesting untill i see proof that it was stolen. Which has now been posted. Jun 02 06 04:27 pm Link >> www.Nedjetti.com I'm Blessed my girlfriend of 7.5 years is a webdesigner, her name is Brenda and her website is www.Mireku.com She's a student at Art Institute of NYC and getting her degree in Interactive Media Design (she created and is the president of the IMD club). Her business has parlayed into a Studio and she's shooting my educational hairstyling dvd in a couple of months. 4 out 5 callers (calling to book a hair appt with me) always comment how FAB my website is!! They get so excited, you'd thought I sent them a check, lol maybe it's me, but I adore websites with information other than the obvious on it, but that's just me hair artist, Nedjetti and YES i styled EVERY hairstyle in my hair gallery MYSELF, yes, I sure did... people stealing work, how scandalous!!!! Jun 02 06 04:32 pm Link another side of it is often the poor production graphics. Photog's often take amazing pics and no how to color correct them for print but I think many photogs, if they know PS at all, still don't know any of the web production techniques or just graphic arts tastes to accomplish their vision. Subtle desires often can be big production if you don't know how to achieve it...But taste is a subjective thing and often one mans gold is another mans lead. But I hear ya, I've seen quite a few good sites, with bad text, or great pictures with terrible buttons... But if it serves the purpose and gets you work or your message across, bueno! Jun 02 06 04:45 pm Link flesh and color wrote: What more proof do you want, than Sean showing you the photographer's site ( striffler.com ) with the image? Are u blind ? Stupid or both ?? Jun 02 06 04:47 pm Link Sean Armenta wrote: That is scandalous forreal Jun 02 06 04:48 pm Link Sean Armenta wrote: Uh oh, did someone just get outed? Jun 02 06 04:49 pm Link Ibarra Photo wrote: that looks like a template or very similar to my friend's site www.andreshernandez.net He DOES design websites! Jun 02 06 04:50 pm Link Sean Armenta wrote: Sean.....I am confused.....the name on that site you uploaded is different from the person you were quoting....I am so stupid....but let me know who it is so I can look through his site to see if I recognize any more stuff he lifted Jun 02 06 04:55 pm Link i remember a London hair site stole one of my hair images and I made them take it down, it's not a good feeling when one's work is stolen  Nedjetti Jun 02 06 04:57 pm Link Thomas B wrote: it's michael romeo -- MM #107209, but it looks like the mods already deleted his ass. Jun 02 06 04:59 pm Link Just a quick reminder: MM does not tolerate image theft of any kind for any reason. I don't care if you're VIP; I'll ban a thief with the quickness. Jun 02 06 04:59 pm Link Dax wrote: none of that was posted when i said interesting dipshit Jun 02 06 05:08 pm Link flesh and color wrote: Uh...I have to disagree...the guy who owned the website was named Michael Romeo...the name plastered on the image for all to see was Eric Striffler. I think that's proof enough that Micheal didn't take the picture. Jun 02 06 05:18 pm Link Sean Armenta wrote: So who is that Eric Striffler guy? Or is the same person. I am such an idiot....I feel like the guy in Mallrats who could not see the hidden sailboat in the 3-D picture. Well....I am glad he got booted but di*ks like that will show up again with some new photos from other people. Jun 02 06 05:18 pm Link Kaitlin Lara wrote: nope that doesnt proove anything. Anyone can take a pic and slap a copyright on it and say it was stolen. Jun 02 06 05:20 pm Link Thomas B wrote: Eric Striffler is the guy who actually took the picture...the guy who stole the picture was retarded enough to leave the name of the photographer right there on the picture. Jun 02 06 05:20 pm Link flesh and color wrote: Why would a 3rd party put someone else's copyright on an image and call the person who owns the site an image thief? That seems awfully pointless. Jun 02 06 05:24 pm Link hahahaha....I am even dumber than I thought.....I did not notice that Eric Stiffler was the Eric S on MM....ok...i am going to go dunk my head in the toilet and wake up. sorry Eric....glad to see that other guy go. Ant that shot we are all talking about is bad ass! At least the thief has taste right? Jun 02 06 05:25 pm Link like i said - i never saw the image on the guys site, just what was posted here. Im not saying the image wasnt stolen. I was defending my use of the word interesting instead of going off and calling him all sorts of names. Because all that was posted here was an image with a copyright on it that doesnt proove anything. it has now been edited to be a screenshot of the website of the owner now. Jun 02 06 05:28 pm Link Template Monster may the the real guilty party here. We're sorting it out. Jun 02 06 05:28 pm Link whoah whoah... hold on LOL i edited my original reply to include a screen capture of eric's website so everyone could see that it was eric's image. if i'm not mistaken, eric shot this at least a year ago, maybe two. if you go to http://michaelromeostudio.com you will see that this guy actually photoshopped out eric's copyright notice. so cut flesh&color a break LOL you guys came in a bit late  Jun 02 06 05:29 pm Link |
