ok, skipping to the end from page 10, but I just thought I need to add this in here.
I dont have a site yet, mainly cause I've been lazy, but also getting some decent hosting and ideas for a classy simple fast site. but this is what I think a site should have.
fast hosting - in South Africa we have a huge bandwidth problem. it costs big bucs for bandwidth and most home users are still on 56k, those browsing from work are very restricted.
quick downloads - the more flashy stuff you have the longer it take to load, the faster the better.
easy navigation - once again, because of the badnwidth here I dont want to have to go through 100 photos and there are only 3 that I like, having thumbs makes life easier, but I also want to be able to click on next instead of having to go back to the main page to get the thumb for the next image.
browser compatibility - I use firefox, if I come accross a site that wont work in FF because it is using some or other I.E. loophole or propriotory thing then I close it and move on.
Size of images - I'm running 1024x768, sometimes images are too small and other times they are too big. I think that 800x600 is a good standard size.
wcbert wrote:
Come to think of it what is the criteria used to judge. The Flash/HTML appearance of the website? How the photos are presented? The photos themselves and the website appearance second? The unique appearance of the website?
The person I nominated is using PBase, boring website, fanatic photos. So again what is the criteria?
Also is anyone that nominated themselves, I will say I think they have a big ego.
Bill
I was a theatre major in college, and when I was taking scene design, the professor tried to teach us that theatre wasn't about us, it was about the show. The phrase he used, which sticks with me to this day, was, "If the audience comes out of the theatre talking about how great the scenery was, it's because the show stank."
Translated to our case, that means if people are talking about how great the web site is, the photos stink.
Well, not necessisarily true, but I don't believe I want a potential client hiring me because he loves my web site. I want him hiring me because he loves my photos. Likewise, I don't think I want to work for someone who is swayed by a bunch of flashy stuff (pardon the pun).
This is not to say that a web site can be sloppy and unprofessional. Clean, easy to navigate, all the information germane to the subject at hand clearly presented and easily available, fast loading. These are the things that, to me, make up a great web site.
I don't know if this has been discussed past the first 4 pages, but to those who knock the flash sites.... get over it. The internet has grown up a little, we're no longer telnetting in DOS. Flash is a standard. Flash galleries like SimpleViewer add an incredible amount of simplicity and style, and its extremely easy to use. Telling people to keep animations to blockbuster movies is just... stupid.
If anyone wants to take a look at mine, its a work in progress. I don't get a lot of time to update it so there are still problems. Let me know what you think.
Wonotch wrote:
Unfortunately the billing for my hosting just went loopy, so my site, www.ekphotodesign.com, will probably be down until tomorrow! (As you can see my avatar is busted)
Just FYI.
EDIT: Oops, youve also got albouyphotoart on there twice! Not that it really matters unless there is a poll...
Ripple wrote:
I think I know more about web design than I do about photography at the moment. I don't believe you can rule out the use of Flash. More recently, Flash files as small as 30K have been created to handle photos which can now be loaded as .jpg files from a folder. If it's done right, downloading photos in Flash does not take any longer than downloading from an HTML page. And who crops all their photos to exactly 640x480 anyway?
This is a project that I have been working on. I know the thumbnails are too small and I am still working on the code. But all I do is drop new photos into a folder and update a page in Notepad with the name of the file and its dimensions. It doesn't get any easier than that.
I couldnt get the sub pages to come up either, but regardless I thought it was really smart. Youve caused me to simplify my site, I wish I could do the whole click and the image slides over to the side but Im just a stumbling idiot armed with dreamweaver
I love you're site and would love some details on what you used to do it, I am wanting to create my own for personal use nothing commercial, just to display my work.
Kara wrote:
I couldnt get the sub pages to come up either, but regardless I thought it was really smart. Youve caused me to simplify my site, I wish I could do the whole click and the image slides over to the side but Im just a stumbling idiot armed with dreamweaver
kara
your site is actually very nice and simple already
but you might like to have 3 columns pics rather than
the 2 column now,,,,,it is just too spread out horizontally
I didnt see a wedding portfolio....it there one i missed?
could you try my website again, www.tommyleong.com
and see if the "VIEW" button works now
I have been having some strange problem
Technical support says it takes 2-3 days for DNS to propagate
ie: changes only reflected after 2-3 days ? ?
I still couldnt reach the sub pages in your folio though, when I click view, it takes me back to the same image at the beginning of your portfolio, like I have just arrived at your site.
Im redesigning and simplifying at the moment, thanks for the info.
ilegales wrote:
I also did not find at first the extra galleries within your site -
The site looks and moves around very nicely indeed -
But i could swear that i have seen this as a - Buy Template - somewhere??
I dont know if it is a template, but when I was learning ActionScript I came across a source file or two for it in which could one could change the photos.
I approached this method at one time but gave up because it was annoying when the page repositioned after moving the scrollbar (before all the photos downloaded). It still is slick though. Very simple and well done, and you have some very fine images.
(shameless self promotion...) here's my snappy site
I've handrolled it in php. The only images on the site are the photographs themselves. It does some automatic importing and scaling, and has some album/date management stuff. It's really more a photojournal than a folio site though.
I think the best thing to do if you want something on the cheap is check out some similar free php album packages. Many can be found on sourceforge.
Great photos too!
