Flash site (ala Scott Kelby)

[jdlloyd67]

I've been wanting to update my site for a while now. Last week I read a blog entry from Scott Kelby showing off his new portfolio site that RC created for him. It looked simple and effective so I decided to pick one up for myself. For $40 it's a real bargain for those not wanting to hassle with creating one from scratch. It was easy to setup, most of my time spent resizing images to fit within the template, and implement. Anyways, here it is...

DL Digital Images (http://www.dldigitalimages.com)

[darksike]

very nice. btw just one question. I checked your site and does the images usually take a while to load? it may be just high traffic atm.
do you mind linking the blog?

[10megapixel]

Good looking site but the Images were slow to load, and I have a fairly fast connection.

[jdlloyd67]

very nice. btw just one question. I checked your site and does the images usually take a while to load? it may be just high traffic atm.
do you mind linking the blog?
You know, I was concerned a little about the loading times on the images since the template asks you to size the images 1400 px (72 dp) on the wide side. That makes for images roughly 1 mb in size. The site loaded ok at home and here are work. Hopefully this doesn't become too much of a problem. Here's the template that I purchased...

Flash Component.net (http://www.flashcomponents.net/component/flash_xml_template_photography_with_color_theme.ht ml)

[Hikin Mike]

Honestly, I hate it. I tried to click on one of the thumbnails and it started moving around and I could never click on it. I left.

[jdlloyd67]

Good looking site but the Images were slow to load, and I have a fairly fast connection.
Crap! I'm going to have to do something about that!!! :(

[jdlloyd67]

Honestly, I hate it. I tried to click on one of the thumbnails and it started moving around and I could never click on it. I left.
Hmmm...mouse sensativity may be set a little high?

[Hikin Mike]

Hmmm...mouse sensativity may be set a little high?

Not that I know of. I'm using Firefox 3.5.7 on a XP machine.

[Drozz119]

You know, I was concerned a little about the loading times on the images since the template asks you to size the images 1400 px (72 dp) on the wide side.

You should be able to go about 500k for a 1400px on the wide end.

I just tried 2 jpegs @ 8-9mb each.. resized to 1400(wide) and 11 quality and they were both at 500k.

[kona77]

I like the full screen and the set up. But I HATE the movement of the picture with the mouse. I would lock it down, I found it extremely annoying. I do like everything else. Do you mind sharing the where you purchased the template.

Thanks

[Celtic Tiger]

Everything kept moving on me as well. Surely this isn't an intentional feature of the template/site. See if you can keep it from moving as others have suggested.

[jdlloyd67]

I got the template here...

Flash Component.net (http://www.flashcomponents.net/component/flash_xml_template_photography_with_color_theme.ht ml)

[jdlloyd67]

You should be able to go about 500k for a 1400px on the wide end.

I just tried 2 jpegs @ 8-9mb each.. resized to 1400(wide) and 11 quality and they were both at 500k.
I was using 12 as my Quality Setting in PS. I'll try 11 and see what that gives me. Thanks!

[Hikin Mike]

I was using 12 as my Quality Setting in PS. I'll try 11 and see what that gives me. Thanks!

That's still a lot. I use '8' on my images. :D

[darksike]

sometimes I getaway with 6 if the image is not big enough just to make sure they load up fast. for printing I usually set it 10-12

[jdlloyd67]

Thanks everyone for the input on the IQ setting for the images. I'll make the adjustment that works best to maintain descent IQ with a smaller fie size.

[10megapixel]

sometimes I getaway with 6 if the image is not big enough just to make sure they load up fast. for printing I usually set it 10-12

Just curious, why 10-12 for printing? Don't you want the best quality for printing? I always set quality to 100 when converting and saving for print in PS.

To the OP- You must have done something because the pics are loading much faster now :)

[darksike]

between 10-12, 12 being best in cs3 jpeg import. imho I really can't tell the difference. I tried it using 8x10 through mpix with the same image.

[10megapixel]

between 10-12, 12 being best in cs3 jpeg import. imho I really can't tell the difference. I tried it using 8x10 through mpix with the same image.

Ok, I understand what your saying. I was referring to the quality settings when saving/converting the image for web or print.

[lauderdalems]

I like the large size and had no problem clicking on the smaller moving pictures on the side. But I also did not like the wait time which vary from one picture to the next.

[FlyingPhotog]

Wait times were not excruciating here (COX Cable) but at 1920x full screen, your images do not come accross as being "razor sharp."

[photoguy6405]

I thought it was too big and too overwhelming. I felt like I needed to back up. At first glance I didn't know where to navigate... though the blue text on black background could be part of that.

[jdlloyd67]

Wait times were not excruciating here (COX Cable) but at 1920x full screen, your images do not come accross as being "razor sharp."
The images are a max of 1400 px on the wide side.

[jdlloyd67]

I thought it was too big and too overwhelming. I felt like I needed to back up. At first glance I didn't know where to navigate... though the blue text on black background could be part of that.
What size monitor are you using? Mine is a 24" and although the images are displayed quite large I didn't find it overwhelming.

[danameless]

I like the large size and had no problem clicking on the smaller moving pictures on the side. But I also did not like the wait time which vary from one picture to the next.

Yeah, I like the site but the wait time got a little annoying after the 3rd pic. I can deal with the scrolling film strip, but I was almost able to count along with the percentage loaded each time I switched pics. Plus, I didn't like how you can't do anything else while the pic is loading.

[Prairiemaiden]

Great photos, I felt like I was in the wack a mole game with all the movement going on. The picture that loads when you land the bubbles is it just the bubbles and hand or is there more? I am on a 26 inch monitor so not sure if I was having size issues or not. I think with some tweaking it will be a great site.

[photoguy6405]

I thought it was too big and too overwhelming. I felt like I needed to back up. At first glance I didn't know where to navigate... though the blue text on black background could be part of that.What size monitor are you using? Mine is a 24" and although the images are displayed quite large I didn't find it overwhelming.
Mine is a 22" with a 1280x960 setting. But, now that you mention it, you might be doing a disservice to viewers with smaller monitors. You don't have to factor in all the old 14" monitors, but I would think that most don't have 24" either. If all you're doing is showcasing your work, it's not a big deal. If you're marketing yourself and your work to sell, there should be some consideration for the majority of viewers, and people hate scrolling.

[stargazer77517]

Very nice site, Hmmmm maybe I need to look into this also.


I've been wanting to update my site for a while now. Last week I read a blog entry from Scott Kelby showing off his new portfolio site that RC created for him. It looked simple and effective so I decided to pick one up for myself. For $40 it's a real bargain for those not wanting to hassle with creating one from scratch. It was easy to setup, most of my time spent resizing images to fit within the template, and implement. Anyways, here it is...

DL Digital Images (http://www.dldigitalimages.com)