TroisCouleurs wrote:
What you just said is essentially "No matter which camera you use: the latest gadget or your grandpa's. If you know the trick, result would be same."
Do you honeslty believe it yourself?
Let's start off with this first before I answer that question. i am my own thinker and I don't based what I think solely off of what others state. That is a question that frankly you should be asking yourself. Seriously because it sounds more like you are a go with the flow type of girl. Nor did I make a generalizing statement.
Now to answer your question. Yes and no. A Nikon f3 via studio can give me the same reults as my digital slr or auto focus camera. That was a poor example that you used to try to make your point.
To answer the main question directly. I've been designing sites for a bit now. One of the things that I do, from a marketing point of view is try to put myself in the consumer's shoes. I see what works and what doesn't work. Html, if not done correct can be overwhelming for any viewer. I know this from using it in the past, when I put up large images, not everyone uses highspeed. Ajax, obviously is larger than html, to a dial-up user, it's going to take sometime to load. As a matter of fact, anything on dial-up is going to take time to load.
Now let's get to the point here. Bottomline, each of these programs have common drawbacks. That draw back is too much content makes it longer for a site to upload.
I've been to plenty of Flash websites where the site just cruise. I did a site in Flash for a client that is a prime example. The smaller the content in dpi/images and graphics, the faster it will load. This applies to html, Flash and Ajax. To answer your final question, the answer is yes. Some people still use manual cameras in the studio, but we aren't talking about a fixed focused camera.
