Can anyone tell me what engine is driving this site?

[mattograph]

Thanks.....

http://dedeholmanphotography.com/

[Karl C]

When you click on "Enter Site", you'll see her site loads from Bludomain.com.

[basroil]

When you click on "Enter Site", you'll see her site loads from Bludomain.com.

That's a host, not a service.

Looks like a simple case of "I hired the geek I knew" to me. It's a flash site with very few photos (relatively), and highly customized look makes it seem like a custom job rather than cut and paste. Get Adobe CS3 Web edition (includes flash and dreamweaver), and a flash CS3 for dummies book, and have fun with several days of work.

[Pete]

It's not a custom build.

Parker J uses the same flash template for his site... http://www.pjddr.com/

[mattograph]

It's not a custom build.

Parker J uses the same flash template for his site... http://www.pjddr.com/

Yes, indeed. I have seen it in other places as well.........

[Bob D.]

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

http://www.vbulletin.com/

[mattograph]

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

http://www.vbulletin.com/

LOL!!!

Not POTN......

[Mike30D]

Good ol' Blu Domain Flash Templates. Costing anywhere from $100 to $400, not including hosting with them either.

[tim]

The template is from www.bludomain.com

[cdifoto]

If I see another bludomain flash site, I think I'm gonna regurgitate my cream filled chocolate covered donut. The use of those templates is ironic, to say the least.

[Mark1]

Oooooo I live how they state light is revolutionary for photography!!!

I mean she threw the kids on a Manfroto product table..... thats revolutionary?

[mattograph]

If I see another bludomain flash site, I think I'm gonna regurgitate my cream filled chocolate covered donut. The use of those templates is ironic, to say the least.

I am guessing you are NOT running a bludomain site......

[cdifoto]

I am guessing you are NOT running a bludomain site......
lol Nope. I do use BlueHost.com now though...not sure if they're related. My website is OSC and my blog is WordPress.

[Plant McCloud]

Looks like flash, but I never got all the way in (I clicked "good-bye" the second I heard music - another debate, though).

I will say one thing. They're on an extremely good/fast host. Almost every page loaded in the blink of an eye. That by itself was impressive.

[Mark1]

Thats the beauty of flash. While the inital load may take a few seconds, the entire site is loading in the background. So there is no waiting once it all is loaded. I want a flash site but the cost of Dreamweaver or MX is almost $400 and to pay someone to build one is way to much. Plus flash sites dont do to well on google yet. Getting better but not great.

It is Flash 9 running it. Just right click on anything and it will give you the "about Flash 9" as a choice. Easy way to find out.

[ilantis]

Thats the beauty of flash.
True...but here are some ugly things about full-Flash sites ;) :
- Still slow compared to HTML. You force the entire website to be loaded on every visit.
- Users can't link to a certain page...have to navigate the entire site to get to a specific location.
- Back button in browser doesn't work.
- Many search engines cannot read information contained in Flash, so it reduces your "searchability" especially on more vague queries. (Most users won't look past page 2 of a search).
- Users with special needs are SOL.
- Sounds and moving visuals tend to distract users (or piss them off) from what is really important...THE CONTENT!

While pretty and sexy to look at (sometimes)...every implementation of Flash in a website serves to detract from another, more important function of the site; be it usability, content, page ranking, etc. For many, this is a big turnoff...especially is such a competitive market such as photography. You are much better off using a hybrid site if you are dead-set on Flash but there are still better options like PHP and CSS that will get the job done just as well. My .02. :)

[Mark1]

True points but almost all are easily knocked down.

Only the inital load is slower. after that is is way faster than html. Especially with pages that have lots of graphics. Html makes you wait on EVERY page load. Flash has a slow initial then no waiting.

Unless you have a online catalog. Or a 50 page site linking is not a problem. I dont plan on having mine any more than 6 pages max. all linked off the index. So it is only 1 click to anything I have on the site. If you are to lazy to click a mouse 1 more time......

Flash does not require a back button. Just click the link in the window the cursor is already in.

Have a html landing page. Make it an over view of who and what. Then link to the flash. You can also have blind pages. Pages that link back to the flash page but there is no link TO the blind page. Put them in the site map. Problem solved.

Dont know about special access stuff. I have never even looked at what they can and cant do.

Sounds and movements are not required in flash. When I get mine up it will not have any music. However It will have a lot of motion. But as stated movement is not requirement of flash. You can do it with simple fades or even look like plain html. And the whole flash thing is just a gernishment to the content. By no merans is it supposed to replace it.

Nobody is saying flash is the only way and html is dead. Dieing mabie but not dead. It is all a personal preference. And what you are taking a chance on, to attract customers. If you are trying to impress NON photographers a bit of style will grab them. Where a plain html site may bore them to go somewhere else. We in the industry are not really swayed by the style, we only see the content. However the normal customer does.

I have yet to see a php or css site that is anyware as ( forgive the pun) flashy as a flash site. If you know of any PLEASE leave a link. It will save a lot of people a lot of money if they know they can do a lot of what flash does without flash.

I am not really a Flash advocate I just like what you can do with it better than what else i can find.

[ilantis]

I wouldn't say knocked down per-se...but they are definitely fair counterpoints :)

As to not hijack the thread with a debate, I guess the biggest takeaway from the Flash/non-Flash decision is no different than pretty much any other large investment decision:

Not only fully understand every pro and every con of what you are interested in, but also how each directly affects the goals you have set out to achieve.

We are from the US where there are no bandwidth caps (yet (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080603-40gb-for-55-per-month-time-warner-bandwidth-caps-arrive.html)) but someone in Australia with a 15GB/mo limit definitely wouldn't appreciate eating a 50MB pageload on each visit (especially if they have reason to frequent the site often...which is what we want). This might sound like kind of a silly example, but the linked article definitely shows that it is being seriously considered, and already deployed, over here too (which will be the day I stop paying that company for my access and go back to dial-up in protest). :p

Its those little things that usually sneak in to ruin the day. Here is a post from a user on our boards that ran into an unexpected complication from an issue that they never saw coming. Worst part is that if they paid someone to do the work (which they didn't...a friend helped) then they would possibly have to pay again to remedy the situation:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=536196

Here are some sites that are totally done using HTML, CSS, and probably PHP too (which is performed on the server before a page loads...so it is hard to know for sure). While they might not have quite as much movement as a Flash site, I think one would be very hard pressed to say that they were anything less than beautifully designed. :)
http://www.pixelmator.com/
http://www.emerils.com/holidaytogo/
http://www.squawkdesign.com/
http://variable.cz/

[cdifoto]

I wish you would let the links be links so we could click instead of copy-paste.

[ilantis]

I wish you would let the links be links so we could click instead of copy-paste.
Hmm...they show up as links for me. Do you have something set up so that it doesn't show [.url][/url] tagged things? Also...if you loaded the page before I edited the typo on my URL tag, that might have had something to do with it. :lol:

[cdifoto]

They show up as links now so yeah I guess it was the typo. :p

[Mark1]

I wouldn't say knocked down per-se...but they are definitely fair counterpoints :)

I didnt mean it harshley at all. Glad you didnt take it that way.

As I said im not really a flash guy. However my site will eventually be flash unless I can find an alternative I like as much. Thats the only reason im all over this, as I'm in the middle of it all myself.

The sites you listed are designed very well. And look quite nice. They dont grab my attention as soon as they load like flash does. Remember we are marketing to non photographers. When I go to a fellow photographers site i dont look at anything but the gallery page. I want to see if I can learn anything from this person. A normal customer hits the gallery last ( other than contact page). You have to hold thier attention some how. And true a well designed site will do that to a point. But if something different happens each time you click a link.... well curiosity takes over and they end up clicking everything.

And I agree if you are going to spend the money, know about what you are spending it on. And I hope we did shead some light from our different opinions. IF the OP knew all of this they probably would not of posted.

[ilantis]

I didnt mean it harshley at all. Glad you didnt take it that way

Of course not. That is the cool thing about POTN...I have yet to see an uncivil post by anyone; a rarity on internet boards!

Also, while I admit that I am borderline anti-Flash it also needs to be added that (assuming the user has the plugin installed) a Flash page is going to look exactly the same no matter what internet browser is being used...something that will not happen with HTML/CSS... :shock:

[Mark1]

Here is one template for flash. Not one I would use, but it grabs you right away. It has stuff than just cant be done with anything else. And it will hold a customer on your site longer.

WARNING it has stupid music. But you can turn it off on the intro page.
http://www.downloads-templates.com/GalleryAdmin/vision-portfolio/

[cdifoto]

I'm not anti-flash. I'm anti-originality. People are trying to say they're a better photographer or have new ideas compared to the rest - then they all go out and buy the same website.

[Mark1]

I'm not anti-flash. I'm anti-originality. People are trying to say they're a better photographer or have new ideas compared to the rest - then they all go out and buy the same website.


He he he its true!! Or varrients of the same template. There are places you can buy the template and they no longer sell it. Others re sell it till everybody has a copy.

[cdifoto]

Don't get me wrong...bludomain sites are nice...the first 150 times.

Personally, I chose OSC for its price (free!), its functionality, and my familiarity with its code. I knew it'd make a good proofing system with some tweaking. The design is ugly to start but you choose it for its function, not its style. It's meant to be changed to fit your style...ie it's not a template you're installing but rather a system.

[ilantis]

That site has:

- A cursor trail that requires me to focus on it everywhere I click...even on the relatively larger images in the portfolio. The lens flare effect really throws off perception, something that I didn't even realize I used while browsing until just now.
- Autoplay music...bane of the internet since about 5 minutes after they made HTML able to play MIDI files. :lol: Music is fine...but c'mon, let the user turn it on!
- Small font that I can't read on a 22" monitor at 1600x1200 and can't make bigger.

Don't let flashy annoy your users (even the stingy ones)! ;)

I see your all-Flash site, and raise you a site that uses Flash "properly" (imo):
http://www.jsphotostudio.com/albums/monica-david/album_monica-david.html

* Done by POTN member jsanz11 no less

[Mark1]

OOps double post.

[Mark1]

something that I didn't even realize I used while browsing until just now.
FLASH IS EDUCATIONAL!!! That trumps all. Doesnt it?

That is a great combo site. A bit to plain to me. But I am not currently looking for a wedding photographer. If I was it would be great i think!.

They seem to have a technical problem. The dropdown menues are going UNDER the flash instead of over it.

[ilantis]

Yeah, I noticed that and posted on his critique page. But wait...did you notice what was burying them?! Oh yeah...a Flash animation! (Couldn't resist) :lol:

P.S. I think we are so far off topic now that we have scared the OP off...come back! Reclaim your rightful thread!

[mattograph]

Scared? Hell NO!!!!

CDI was taking all comers, and I was just watching and smiling.

I am beginning the though process of "what comes after smugmug" which has proven valuable for soliciting photos for sale on an event by event basis, but is seemlingly useless as a business marketing tool.

Having a conversation with a prospect client and sending them to smugmug doesn't seem to be getting it for me.

I seek easy solutions. My question is would your normal "Hey, come take my portrait" kind of customer be impressed or depressed by a bludomain site? I understand all of CDI's points, but he is very unlikely to hire me to take pics for him -- he isn't my audience.

[Mike30D]

Yeah, they'll be impressed by a flash site up to a certain point. The only problem with flash is if you get a possible client who is still using dial-up (yes, they are still out there).

Just remember, you can have the best site out there and it won't matter if your work doesn't grab them.

The biggest debate out there right now is whether to put music on it or not. If you do, make sure you have an off button or design it so it loads with the music off and then let the user decide.

Personally, I like BigFolio templates better. The downside is they are more expensive. BigFolio also has a custom design team so you can hire them to design one for you if you don't want a pre-made design. I believe LiveBooks does this too.

Just a few of the big flash site design companies:
BigFolio (http://www.bigfolio.com)
BluDomain (http://www.bludomain.com)
FloSites (http://www.flosites.com)
Into The Darkroom (http://www.intothedarkroom.com)
Flash Palette (http://www.flashpalette.com)
LiveBooks (http://www.llivebooks.com)
Photo Identities (http://www.photoidentities.com)
Tafota (http://tafota.com)
Winklet Web Design (http://www.winkletwebdesign.com)
Creative Motion Design (http://www.creativemotiondesign.com)


Here are some of the ones that Big Folio has custom designed...

(some of the best photographers in the world)

Joe Buissink (http://joebuissink.com)
Jeff Ascough (http://jeffascough.com)
Bambi Cantrell (http://cantrellportrait.com)
David Beckstead (http://davidbeckstead.com)

[Mark1]

There are literally thousands of web designers. If you google for them you will have no shortage of choices. Flash or html, or any other format you like. You can even find many of them are free. Sure they are nothing overly "WOW", but you will find many that get the job done. TIll you know what you want permenamtly. That is where I am right now. I have a free template up that I have edited for me. But at the most It will only be up till fall. By then I hope to have a final site finished. My site us ugly at the moment,I only put something up as a temp place marker.

[basroil]

I wish you would let the links be links so we could click instead of copy-paste.

But flash can and does have links that open in same page and in new pages... Harder to do it now because adobe decided to beef up security at the cost of destroying massive amounts of flash files (mine included.. used to work fine, now the damn thing only works when there's www. in front of the address...). And flash can have an actual address for each page, just requires the use of javascript and possibly some server side scripting too... just too much of a pain for most people to deal with.

As for the site being a template... shame on that photog... If you claim to be creative, at least do something original, not a copy-paste job...:rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

But flash can and does have links that open in same page and in new pages... Harder to do it now because adobe decided to beef up security at the cost of destroying massive amounts of flash files (mine included.. used to work fine, now the damn thing only works when there's www. in front of the address...). And flash can have an actual address for each page, just requires the use of javascript and possibly some server side scripting too... just too much of a pain for most people to deal with.

As for the site being a template... shame on that photog... If you claim to be creative, at least do something original, not a copy-paste job...:rolleyes:
I was referring to the thread post above mine (not flash itself). The URLS mentioned weren't clickable at the time.

[Mike30D]

As for the site being a template... shame on that photog... If you claim to be creative, at least do something original, not a copy-paste job...:rolleyes:

Here's the thing that bothers me with that...

You really think that because you're a photographer you are also supposed to know how to use flash, php, or html?

Just because someone is creative doesn't mean they are creative in all things, there are tons of pros out there using templates. Why? They don't know all things about websites so they buy a template so they can get their work in front of people and get their name out.

If you've got the money, then you hire someone to do it for you and not worry about it. You know darn well that people like Joe Buissink and Yervant didn't go out and learn how to make a website just so they could satisfy their photographic peers. They plopped down a grand or two and said "Here, do this for me would ya?"

Besides, do you really think that the pros out there have the time to learn flash and php?

Flash is not the easiest thing in the world to learn.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be original, I'm saying not all photogs can be all things creative.

[basroil]

Here's the thing that bothers me with that...

You really think that because you're a photographer you are also supposed to know how to use flash, php, or html?

Just because someone is creative doesn't mean they are creative in all things, there are tons of pros out there using templates. Why? They don't know all things about websites so they buy a template so they can get their work in front of people and get their name out.

If you've got the money, then you hire someone to do it for you and not worry about it. You know darn well that people like Joe Buissink and Yervant didn't go out and learn how to make a website just so they could satisfy their photographic peers. They plopped down a grand or two and said "Here, do this for me would ya?"

Besides, do you really think that the pros out there have the time to learn flash and php?

Flash is not the easiest thing in the world to learn.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be original, I'm saying not all photogs can be all things creative.

Not saying that at all. I just simply mean that they should have thought about the website image more carefully. Like I said earlier, a creative contract job would have been good. Just because you don't know how to use flash doesn't mean there aren't people who have a hobby in flash page design... much like photographers can be hobbiest or pro. Never said it was the photographer's job to make a website, just his job to have it reflect him rather than just another template. Most templates can also be customized enough so you don't know what the original template was, and free flash code is available in many places too. Bit of guess and check, copy and paste, screw up and try again.

[Mike30D]

Not saying that at all. I just simply mean that they should have thought about the website image more carefully. Like I said earlier, a creative contract job would have been good. Just because you don't know how to use flash doesn't mean there aren't people who have a hobby in flash page design... much like photographers can be hobbiest or pro. Never said it was the photographer's job to make a website, just his job to have it reflect him rather than just another template. Most templates can also be customized enough so you don't know what the original template was, and free flash code is available in many places too. Bit of guess and check, copy and paste, screw up and try again.

Well, I should hope that if a photographer buys a template that he/she would at least customize it as much as they can. That would be just silly....

I think a lot of people (myself included) start with a template and as soon as the business gets off the ground then they look to have a site designed. Not always true though...

[Gatorboy]

What engine? I think it's a hamster on a wheel. ;-)

[mattograph]

What engine? I think it's a hamster on a wheel. ;-)

Gerbil. People always confuse the two.