So, looking at a bunch of the professional photographer websites--what's the deal with using Flash?
My own view is that flash bites and it's very annoying to encounter in just the website itself. Cartoons are different--that's FINE. But the site itself? Navigation is a pain, loading time is a pain...
I don't get it.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I'm right there with you.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I think using flash makes it more difficult for people to gank your images off the web.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
animation is woot. i just hate it when people use it in a stupid manner or they use more than is needed.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
ladyday is most correct. Also, there appears to be a bunch of amateur web developers that think they are cool because they can make "professional" web pages in Flash AND get paid for it. At least, that's my take on it all.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yeah - I think it is what Ladyday said -- you can't really right-click on a Flash image and choose "save as".
Or it could be that while good photographers, they happen to also not be very knowledgable about web design, and just think it looks "cool" without thiking of possible drawbacks.
If they are actually hiring someone to create their sites, however -- that person should be punished.
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That's the thing. NONE of these guys are doing the pages themselves, they've hired folks to do them.
And gotten flash.
I understand the not grabbing photos things, but jeez.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
You're right.
I was just looking at this one, and at the bottom it does indicate the site was created/designed by a supposed "professional".
However, maybe the customer (the photographer) wanted it that way. If they are appealing to high-end clients only, maybe they figure they are people with the systems to handle Flash okay.
Farmgirl
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Hm, that site looks pretty nice to me, and the loading times aren't bad at all.
I like flash. I don't think that any page should be made exclusively with flash, but a bit of it can help a lot with visual appeal. I think the attraction of flash is that it's really easy to use. The action script is a piece of cake, and it's fun to make flash movies if you have a decent program like Flash MX.
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
It is not like using Flash is a walk in the park. It takes a lot of work to learn it, and those layouts have effects I cannot even begin to know how they are carried out. So much of that program is alien to me.
That being said, I do not like them either. They are often needlessly over complicated and animation usually annoys me.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Austin! Finally decide to visit the 'Rack for a day, did you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love the site that Farmgirl linked. Very clean, and showcased the images well.
The presentation of the text needs some serious work, as well as a static navigation bar, but I like the gallery.
[ April 28, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
By the way, Jamie -- when I saw the thread title and that is was started by you, I came in assuming it would be a debate about using flash or natural lighting in photographs...... Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
As someone who is working with videographers to provide streaming media servers, I agree that Flash is the newest way for would be Web Designers to promote thier skills, so it has become the "in" thing to do.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've visited three sites in the past three days designed with Flash. They are so user-unfriendly, I want to kill them! Posted by larisse (Member # 2221) on :
I actually see no problem using Flash for some effects on the web. Navigation and a splash intro (a short one that can be skipped if you want to) being two of them. The web photo gallery linked was nicely done. I am not a big fan of a site entirely done in Flash. I am pretty sure that most navigation effects that can be done in Flash can be done using CSS nowadays.
Incidently, the first thing I thought of when I saw this topic was the song by Queen. Now that's a theme song.
Flash....ah-ah... Savior of the Universe..
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Graphic design is a weird field. It's 50% fine art and 50% computer skill. (Print design is probably more like 90%, 10%, but we'll stick to web design here)
Professional designers more often than not come from a fine arts background and are into making things pretty. Flash is pretty, and not as code-intensive as CSS. It's not so practical, but art majors have never cared for practicality.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'm fairly practical (now), but I don't think it's because I have a prosaic soul. It's because if I don't, no one will. Rather, someone else will, and I can be impractical and unemployed. I love art and design and cool effects, but if I want an attractive and usable site, the essential qualities have to balance.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
linky doesn't work for me, mack. I mean, it takes me to Mad Owl, but to some page that says "you do not have permission to view this topic"
FG
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
o_O
That's odd. I wonder if I have it so that you have to register to see it. Lemme check.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay, try now.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Katie, when I have a business I am making millions at and decide to re-design my website, I'm going to buy you so you can do it for me. All you will have to do will be design my website and maybe some other projects now and then, and I will buy you a house and give you an annual stipend. Just because I like the way you think and work. You can spend the rest of your time holding down another job, or starting your own business, or whatever. And you won't have to live in that scary stairwell.
I have such an active fantasy life.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I woke up the sound of cop cars this morning. No gun shots, though. Still safe! Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort*
Last night someone was setting off firecrackers. Nathan wanted to know if it was some sort of celebration day.
"No."
"Well, then it isn't good to set them off."
"Just be glad it isn't gunshots."
Nathan=o_O
Actually, the problem around here is modified motorcycle pipes. They're incredibly loud and really get LOUDER with all the buildings around. Ear-piercing. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Flash is one of the funnest programs I've ever had the pleasure of playing with. The fun part is figuring out how to do something. Putting it up on the web is just a byproduct. I think the use of Flash as a straight design medium is in decline, and a big cause of that is that many of the cool tricks have been figured out and put to use in websites already. There's nothing more to one-up.
I personally love a well-made website done in Flash. I agree that little pop-up windows and counter-intuitive navigation are a big negative. But that's the designer, not the program. I've seen many more straight HTML pages that suck much, much worse. I love a site that is more of an experience than just a collection of more or less static pages. I like it when the designer takes time on the details that make the site seem alive and responsive. Most of the best-designed sites I've seen in the past 5 years have used Flash as a significant element. Flash offers so many ways to really personalize what goes up on the screen and to rethink the whole presentation paradigm of the web. It appeals to my more adventurous side.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Flash is the nickname of Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade
GO heat! Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
mack.
I don't know if I'm registered at MadOwl forums or not (it doesn't seem to like anything I try). So I'm going to post my question here in response to your thread there on ambient light vs. flash.
I like your tip about slowing the shutter speed to allow natural light to also affect a flash photograph.
But I was always told we can't "hand hold" below 1/30th of a second due to shutter shake (from our own heart beat and breathing, etc.) So how can you use 1/15th and still get decent photos?
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I know, I got the same advice as well. I shot experimenting awhile before I used the technique at bobndana's wedding.
*shrug*
I wonder if it has to do with the combination of flash/shutter speed/ISO?
The other thing could be when you look at the photograph VERY CLOSELY you'd be able to see the blur that reveals camera shake.
Except that's what I used to get into arguments with my photography professor with (for the one entire semester I took photography). She'd put her nose TOUCHING the photograph and then look at it. I'd say she was breaking the rule and you're supposed to look from it as far away as the diagonal length of the picture.
We got into a number of spats. I swore at her once when she committed a darkroom sin by walking into the darkroom and FLIPPING ON THE LIGHTS without checking to see if anyone was there. It exposed an entire box of my paper. She replaced it.
Another time we brought in prints for her to grade. She looked at my set and told me, "It's too dark. You exposed it too long."
"I want it that way."
"It's wrong."
"I can produce prints the way YOU want them, but I'm the artist and this is my expression."
"They're still printed too dark."
Whereupon I brought out my second set from my folder that I had printed the way she wanted them.
She was very upset that I didn't take another course, but I couldn't fit any more photography into my schedule.
I should email or or something, now that I think of it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I'm definately going to try your tip next time I'm in a low-light situation and see what I get.
I'm not as good yet on my new digital camera, as far as figuring how to make it let me adjust things manually, like the shutter speed, than I was on my old SLR -- but I know it can do it. I just need to get around to reading that darn manual that came with it (I hate reading instructions).
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I found it so very hard to change from an SLR to a point and shoot digital that I ended up selling the point and shoot and investing in the dslr. Best investment I've made I think. Well, one of them.
Reading professional photography boards is crazy though. They're Very Against the Canon Digital Rebels and thinks anyone who uses them is an amateur no matter what. *mutter* Well, if I could afford a better camera, then I'd get a 20D or a Mark II, but I can't. Yet.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
They are so user-unfriendly, I want to kill them! ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
linky doesn't work for me, mack. I mean, it takes me to Mad Owl, but to some page that says "you do not have permission to view this topic"![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)