Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,807   Posts: 1,581,423   Online: 1148
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63
  1. #11
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,194
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by bmac
    I'm in the planning stages for a much needed redesign of my website. It's been over two years since I put it up, and want to add a lot of new stuff to it. I've spent the last few days clicking around the web checking out photographers sites and have been really disapointed for the most part. It seams that a lot of photographers think they are web designers... most arent

    What are your favorite photographer website? what do you like about them? What do you look for when going to a photographers website?

    Brian
    Sites I like:

    Chris Jordan
    Keith Laban
    Christopher Burkett
    Michael Smith & Paula Chamlee

    What I like about them:

    All of these sites are mostly about the pictures. The menu penetration to the pictures is never more than two clicks from the homepage, and in Keith Laban's case is zero clicks; he hits you right between the eyes on the home page. I hate these sites which force you endure endless bios and mindless blather about their "philosophy of art" or their technical details just to get to some pictures. If it takes me more than 3 mouse clicks to see a piece of the photographer's work, I just click out.

    I look for, in order of importance:

    Spectacular work.

    Any easy, short route to that work from the home page.

    E-commerce ordering of prints from the website. A lot of photographers neglect this. If all your efforts are focussed on getting people to go to your website, follow through by providing them with an opportunity to buy before they click away. Don't make them pick up the phone or email you. Allow them to buy right now.

    One feature of many websites (and not just photography ones) which I detest is the use of framesets. They are a holdover from the early days of the web, and cause far more trouble than they're worth. They predispose the pages to a cluttered look, they're difficult to maintain, and they're a pain for the end user because you can't bookmark individual target pages inside the frames. Avoid them like the plague. I've worked for a lot of places where they were outright banned.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    The site is good, but I am bothered by the artist's use of blurring. It is as if he thinks his compositions are not strong enough without literally dictating the viewer's focus. Many a good picture ruined in my tiny opinion.
    Funny, I kind of liked the way he printed with the blurr. My problem is that it was done in too many of the prints. In some it added to the quality of the pics, in others I found myself saying " I wish he had printed everything sharp on this one."

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,243
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    what about mrcallow.com
    Images are sized based upon browser size (hit reload if you resize your browser). Photography is the best on the web and I have absolutely no affiliation with this site.
    All I get are a bunch of pictures of you and question marks where the images are supposed to be when I look at the catalogues. I get to see the pictures you have on the pages before the catalogues though. I'm using Safari.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  4. #14
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    I have had several people tell me that my site doesnt work on Safari either. Sounds like Safari is using technology from the mid 90's. Javascript doenst always work, flash, etc.
    hi!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    44
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    The site is good, but I am bothered by the artist's use of blurring. It is as if he thinks his compositions are not strong enough without literally dictating the viewer's focus. Many a good picture ruined in my tiny opinion.


    Iwanted to comment on Tucker's work as well, but mainly to say that I wonder what he is using to get the DOF trickery. Almost the same affect one gets reversing a 55mm lens in lieu of a macro lens. Is he a Lensbaby user? No "how I dunnits" on his site, though the work is quite strong.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    My tastes are not for frames, but I can accept that others will go for it. Also, I am not a big fan of wasting space on diaries and musings, but I suppose some might find that entertaining. I really like the ability to move from a small to a large view of a photograph (not many like this extra effort). I have never felt secure about secure servers - e commerce on small sites are tenuous at best. But I certainly would like to know the costs of purchasing a photograph without having to email first. I also prefer to minimise the amount of items in one page in order not to hassle the viewer with having to scroll down for too long (I like to put a "next page" button instead).

    The preceding are some subjective reasons why I like a site or not. The objective reasons which I find are important are: ease of use, clarity of scans, focus on the photographs and less on Dreamweaver bells and whistles, consistent updates (makes me feel that the photographer is still around), and of course speed of upload.
    Francesco

  7. #17
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by hither
    Iwanted to comment on Tucker's work as well, but mainly to say that I wonder what he is using to get the DOF trickery. Almost the same affect one gets reversing a 55mm lens in lieu of a macro lens. Is he a Lensbaby user? No "how I dunnits" on his site, though the work is quite strong.
    Check out http://marktucker.com/plungercam/
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  8. #18
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcallow
    what about mrcallow.com
    I'm not sure that the site is to my taste, but the photography is really stunning! Great work!

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    With Jorge and David, don't like all of the flash, wiz-bang stuff. Simple is good. One that I do like is Michael Johnson - http://www.michaeljohnsonphotography.com , does have thumbs that are big enough to see something - plus with a dial-up line (28.8) you find sites that load quickly or learn a lot of patients.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,651
    Several web browser technologies available:
    1) Flash. A Macromedia proprietery technology that is available for most browsers that support incorporating objects into a web page. Readily available as a download. Most available Flash photo viewers(freeware/shareware) have a high-tech appearance & lack easy configurations for image size, color, etc.. Flash seems more appropriate for the cell-phone, snapshot user or digital graphic artist than traditional photography.
    2) Frames. Very "old" web techonology started by Netscapeback around 2.5-3.0 version. Is supported on most browsers. Does enable a menu system combined with thumbnails with photos appearing in one frame ( good technology for when most people had dial-up connections). Main problem with frames is fault of unoriginal designers ( ubiquitious top-banner with left-side menu & center display space, scroolbar & frame visibility, etc.).
    3) Javascript. Lack of a standard of support among all browsers - have to design for MS Internet Explorer, then do work-arounds for Netscape/Mozilla, etc..
    4) IFrames. Exclusive to MS IE, I believe. Similiar to frames but with more dynamic control.
    5) Photoshop Web publishing. Uses very rudimentary HTML . Need some HTML coding knowledge to customize the web-site to get away from one-size fits all design. With most users in US & many other countries now having high-speed connections, some of drawbacks are reduced (separate pages for each image). Mr Tucker's site listed above ( as well as mine) use this technology.
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin