Reading mode: Light Dark

flash: the big lie

Go to last post
I think blaming the technology for a bad website isn't very smart.

It's perfectly possible to build a nice Flash based website that is indeable via search engines, fast, usable, and at the same time more engaging than a plain html website. The problem is that the people with the skillset to build flash (or even hybrid html/flash) sites generally charge more than the average photographer can pay, so you end up hiring the cut-rate developers who just want to finish it up quick with as little effort as possible and get paid.
 
bm bradley said:
Tom Ferguson said:
Wow, that Tucker site is terrible. Plain and simply unusable on a Mac
and Firefox.
Click to expand...
yeah and I love his work, a real inspiration to me... over the
years his site has gotten worse and worse...
Click to expand...
Yea, it's bad alright.

I haven't seen his photos before, but I was surprised at the use of fake DOF on most of them. Which makes the images look stupid, and fake. He seems to blur whatever he wants to in post, regardless of the distance from the camera. So there may be sharp and blurred areas that are equidistant from the camera -- or even worse, two different planes of sharpness or blurriness (for lack of a better way to explain it). I didn't look much beyond the first group of photos -- the Flash was so bad, I couldn't bear to waste the time needed.

I guess some people like, and pay for, his use of extreme and impossible blurriness.
To each his own.
 
Mr Steve said:
bm bradley said:
Tom Ferguson said:
Wow, that Tucker site is terrible. Plain and simply unusable on a Mac
and Firefox.
Click to expand...
yeah and I love his work, a real inspiration to me... over the
years his site has gotten worse and worse...
Click to expand...
Yea, it's bad alright.
I haven't seen his photos before, but I was surprised at the use of
fake DOF on most of them. Which makes the images look stupid, and
fake. He seems to blur whatever he wants to in post, regardless of
the distance from the camera. So there may be sharp and blurred areas
that are equidistant from the camera -- or even worse, two different
planes of sharpness or blurriness (for lack of a better way to
explain it). I didn't look much beyond the first group of photos --
the Flash was so bad, I couldn't bear to waste the time needed.

I guess some people like, and pay for, his use of extreme and
impossible blurriness.
To each his own.
Click to expand...
--

mark tucker invented putting a loop over his lens...aka the lensbaby. that's what you are looking at and that is a small part of his work :)
 
Just to clarify, I said the "Site" was terrible. I said it didn't work on a Mac/Firefox. I never saw the work. I'm on a DSL line, and after at least a minute it was still loading and wouldn't let me move anywhere. So, I wasn't commenting on his photography (I could only see one and one-half portraits and a few tiny thumbnails before I gave up). We were discussing over-use of flash and slow sites.
--
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
 
Joe Federer said:
Why do people dislike music? Sorry if it's off-topic, but I just
don't get it.

When I'm looking at someone's (wedding) portfolio, I feel the
experience is very much enhanced by well selected music.

--
JOE FEDERER
Websites:
Misc personal stuff: http://www.joefederer.com
Minneapolis / St. Paul Wedding photography @
http://www.federerphotography.com
Click to expand...
--

I listen to commercial classical music at home when I'm working.... do I really wanna hear something else suddenly start blasting away?
 
I have great background images and awesome art on the walls... do I really want other images getting in my way? I think all sites should be semi-transparent so I can still see my images behind. (ok, it's a stretch... but hopefully you get the point)

Photography is an artistic medium. Part of that is setting the mood. I feel apropriate music helps set the mood. I mean, our sites do all sorts of things that 'set the mood'; otherwise we'd all just have an open directory of jpg's for people to click on. Music is just another layer.
bm bradley said:
Joe Federer said:
Why do people dislike music? Sorry if it's off-topic, but I just
don't get it.

When I'm looking at someone's (wedding) portfolio, I feel the
experience is very much enhanced by well selected music.

--
JOE FEDERER
Websites:
Misc personal stuff: http://www.joefederer.com
Minneapolis / St. Paul Wedding photography @
http://www.federerphotography.com
Click to expand...
--
I listen to commercial classical music at home when I'm working....
do I really wanna hear something else suddenly start blasting away?
Click to expand...
--
JOE FEDERER
Websites:
Misc personal stuff: http://www.joefederer.com
Minneapolis / St. Paul Wedding photography @ http://www.federerphotography.com
 
Joe Federer said:
I have great background images and awesome art on the walls... do I
really want other images getting in my way? I think all sites should
be semi-transparent so I can still see my images behind. (ok, it's
a stretch... but hopefully you get the point)
Click to expand...
yer site is confusing and the images aren't readily available to me... if I want to see your work I must sit and wait for a slide show to load and then wait while images are presented to me. poor concept in my opinion. I want the option of seeing a selection of thumbs, selecting the one I want presented and on to the next.

forcing visitors to sit and wait then not allowing viewing options is poor design $.02
 
bm bradley said:
look what they did to marktucker.com.... it's pitiful. the images
won't even open full size... you have to scroll around a frame to see
the images.... super poor design
Click to expand...
Wow. I loved it. Navigation is intuitive, the design doesn't distract from the images. It's great.
 
I didn't realize I sent out a site critique request (though I have done that in the past), but I appreciate the feedback. (even if it is off-topic)

I do agree my site needs some work. It hasn't been updated other than for 2-3 images in about a year (and even then, was never truly 'exactly as I wanted it')- the plan over the next month or so is to work on it a bit. So I 100% agree, it has some flaws. But it's more or less what I want. (flaws I intend to fix: to wordy, I want slideshow speed control, converting images to full-screen, and some music to give a better feel (I think the current site is too sterile) )

I want to present my portfolio in a certain way. I don't WANT to allow people to 'select from thumbnails', skipping images, etc ... effectively 'remaking' my portfolio to what they want. Not only do I feel this presents an poor view of a persons work (a 60x60 thumbnail doesn't give any clue as to how an image really looks), but it also changes what the clients see in your body of work (and thus think you create).

I want to present my work in a way that will attract clients who like my work the same way I do. Someday I might change my design to allow more easy perusal of my portfolio... but it will always be done with what I want to present and create in mind.

If I was designing a sight to allow people to see as many images as fast as possible... my site would be designed with thumbnails, controls, etc... However that's not my goal.

Display your art and advertise in a way that perfectly represents what you want to create and you'll get clients that like what YOU like... thus removing a whole littany of possible issues with 'taste differential'.

though I certainly offer thumbnails on completed weddings for clients so they can more easily find their images. There is a different end goal between advertising (portfolio) pages and product (client images) pages... and the design of each reflects as much.
bm bradley said:
Joe Federer said:
I have great background images and awesome art on the walls... do I
really want other images getting in my way? I think all sites should
be semi-transparent so I can still see my images behind. (ok, it's
a stretch... but hopefully you get the point)
Click to expand...
yer site is confusing and the images aren't readily available to
me... if I want to see your work I must sit and wait for a slide show
to load and then wait while images are presented to me. poor concept
in my opinion. I want the option of seeing a selection of thumbs,
selecting the one I want presented and on to the next.

forcing visitors to sit and wait then not allowing viewing options is
poor design $.02
Click to expand...
--
JOE FEDERER
Websites:
Misc personal stuff: http://www.joefederer.com
Minneapolis / St. Paul Wedding photography @ http://www.federerphotography.com
 
Joe Federer said:
I didn't realize I sent out a site critique request (though I have
done that in the past), but I appreciate the feedback. (even if it is
off-topic)
Click to expand...
well it just sort happened :)

I want
Joe Federer said:
slideshow speed control, converting images to full-screen, and some
music to give a better feel (I think the current site is too sterile)
)

I want to present my portfolio in a certain way. I don't WANT to
allow people to 'select from thumbnails', skipping images, etc ...
Click to expand...
that certainly will pre-qualify your client base for you
 
Bill McLeod said:
bm bradley said:
look what they did to marktucker.com.... it's pitiful. the images
won't even open full size... you have to scroll around a frame to see
the images.... super poor design
Click to expand...
Wow. I loved it. Navigation is intuitive, the design doesn't
distract from the images. It's great.
Click to expand...
--

there is good stuff and bad stuff.... having to scroll though an image to see is a bad part I would say $.02
 
bm bradley said:
Mr Steve said:
bm bradley said:
Tom Ferguson said:
Wow, that Tucker site is terrible. Plain and simply unusable on a Mac
and Firefox.
Click to expand...
yeah and I love his work, a real inspiration to me... over the
years his site has gotten worse and worse...
Click to expand...
Yea, it's bad alright.
I haven't seen his photos before, but I was surprised at the use of
fake DOF on most of them. Which makes the images look stupid, and
fake. He seems to blur whatever he wants to in post, regardless of
the distance from the camera. So there may be sharp and blurred areas
that are equidistant from the camera -- or even worse, two different
planes of sharpness or blurriness (for lack of a better way to
explain it). I didn't look much beyond the first group of photos --
the Flash was so bad, I couldn't bear to waste the time needed.

I guess some people like, and pay for, his use of extreme and
impossible blurriness.
To each his own.
Click to expand...
--
mark tucker invented putting a loop over his lens...aka the lensbaby.
that's what you are looking at and that is a small part of his work :)
Click to expand...
Ah-ha -- I thought it'd be too much effort in Photoshop. So he deserves some credit for innovation and creativity. His models and composition are professional and fine. If people like and pay for the focus distortion loop thing, that's fine with me. I found it effective in a few shots, and not effective in others. My first impression was "what the hell is this?"
 
bm bradley said:
there is good stuff and bad stuff.... having to scroll though an
image to see is a bad part I would say $.02
Click to expand...
if you click on the "thumbnails on/off" words on the bottom right you can view images by clicking on thumbnails any time you want. Maybe it wasn't as intuitive as I thought.
 
Mr Steve said:
Mr Steve said:
mark tucker invented putting a loop over his lens...aka the lensbaby.
that's what you are looking at and that is a small part of his work :)
Click to expand...
Ah-ha -- I thought it'd be too much effort in Photoshop. So he
deserves some credit for innovation and creativity. His models and
composition are professional and fine. If people like and pay for the
focus distortion loop thing, that's fine with me. I found it
effective in a few shots, and not effective in others. My first
impression was "what the hell is this?"
Click to expand...
--
I think the site has personal work as well as commercial work
 
Bill McLeod said:
bm bradley said:
there is good stuff and bad stuff.... having to scroll though an
image to see is a bad part I would say $.02
Click to expand...
if you click on the "thumbnails on/off" words on the bottom right you
can view images by clicking on thumbnails any time you want. Maybe
it wasn't as intuitive as I thought.
Click to expand...
--

I saw that however you still have to scroll through an image to see the whole darn thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top