| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2003 08:20:30 PM · #1 |
Here a little list of some photographers work I'm diggin' these days:
www.asgercarlsen.com
www.peterfunch.com
www.simonhoegsberg.com
www.erikrefner.com
www.ponygirl71.com
I must also note that while the photography is awesome, these sites also exemplify extraordinary design. Take note.
Anyone else have some favorites they'd care to share?
Message edited by author 2003-12-17 20:22:16. |
|
|
|
12/17/2003 08:21:34 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/17/2003 08:30:24 PM · #3 |
Hee hee, 4 people clicked so far! One person clicked twice!
|
|
|
|
12/17/2003 08:33:21 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
Hee hee, 4 people clicked so far! One person clicked twice! |
Very sneaky. I believe that was me who clicked twice. I had to go back and make sure that you really were posting yourself as your favorite photographer! |
|
|
|
12/17/2003 08:36:30 PM · #5 |
| fluxn, all interesting photographers. Also interesting that all but one of them had their site designed by "Adopt". Lemme guess, either you found them by clicking though links from their sites, or you work for Adopt :-) |
|
|
|
12/17/2003 08:38:44 PM · #6 |
Not sure if this site has been mentioned at DPC before, but I find it totally mesmerizing. Some people don't like the added dimensions of movement and sound to the photography, I really do.
//www.jonathan-clark.com/afterlife/index.htm
|
|
|
|
12/17/2003 09:21:10 PM · #7 |
here's another inspiring shooter:
//noahgrey.com/toc.shtml
He's gay, he writes an awful lot and often doesn't just let the photos speak for themselves, and he has an incredible eye.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2003 09:27:14 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by fluxn:
I must also note that while the photography is awesome, these sites also exemplify extraordinary design. Take note. |
Yeah, take note that Flash-based web sites suck.
Just my humble opinion. |
|
|
|
12/18/2003 12:20:06 AM · #9 |
This gentleman came and spoke at our camera club a month or so back...very interesting man
John Galbreath
|
|
|
|
12/18/2003 12:28:12 AM · #10 |
I helped Lonny Shavelson with the design of his first two books; I learned a bit of photography and he learned some graphic layout.
Most of his work is a combination of photojournalism and portraiture, the earlier stuff mostly in B+W; he's been shooting digital for 3-4 years now. |
|
|
|
12/18/2003 12:31:43 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
Hee hee, 4 people clicked so far! One person clicked twice! |
Well you got me too. I am curious about the Mask photo. Are there copyright problems selling that? It looks like a picture of Jim Carey from the movie. A screen capture or a picture of a picture? |
|
|
|
12/18/2003 12:51:49 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by fluxn:
I must also note that while the photography is awesome, these sites also exemplify extraordinary design. Take note. |
Yeah, take note that Flash-based web sites suck.
Just my humble opinion. |
I agree. I DO have cable, never plays on my Safari browser. But, I usually don't care. Ever been to the Macromedia site? It will make you scream with all that crap they have going on. Cable takes forever! |
|
|
|
12/18/2003 12:53:11 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
fluxn, all interesting photographers. Also interesting that all but one of them had their site designed by "Adopt". Lemme guess, either you found them by clicking though links from their sites, or you work for Adopt :-) |
Haha! Good observation. No, I don't work for Adopt. I found one of those sites just recently and liked the design so I checked out the firm that did it and then noticed there were like 3 other sites they did that I bookmarked in the past. So it was really just coincidence that they were mostly designed by Adopt. |
|
|
|
12/18/2003 01:05:50 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by fluxn:
I must also note that while the photography is awesome, these sites also exemplify extraordinary design. Take note. |
Yeah, take note that Flash-based web sites suck.
Just my humble opinion. |
I agree. I DO have cable, never plays on my Safari browser. But, I usually don't care. Ever been to the Macromedia site? It will make you scream with all that crap they have going on. Cable takes forever! |
I agree and disagree. Poorly designed Flash sites suck, and there's plenty of them out there. But I feel these sites do not use Flash in an excessive and unnecessary way or detract from the usabilty. They have very intuitive and creative navigation systems that make them very compelling and enhance the users experience. Although, these apparently did not enhance your experience. But I am a professional web designer so maybe I'm just a sucker for these kind of sites.
I have cable and use Safari as well and have no problems viewing these sites. |
|
|
|
12/18/2003 08:27:38 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by fluxn:
But I feel these sites do not use Flash in an excessive and unnecessary way or detract from the usabilty. They have very intuitive and creative navigation systems that make them very compelling and enhance the users experience. |
I don't find "creative" navigation systems a good thing and they definitely don't enhance my experience. When I visit a website, I want information. Very rarely do I ever go to a web site to be "entertained", and when I do (homestarrrunner.com), I just sit back and watch, I don't "interact".
I like consistent navigation systems. The kind that well-designed HTML sites present. I can only imagine what would happen if the auto industry decided to become "creative" with their navigation systems and replaced the steering wheel, gas and brake pedal, turn signals, etc. with something some designer thought was "creative".
Should I list some of the problems I have with Flash-based sites?
1) flash animations don't respond to my browser's stop button
2) they often make gratuitous noises
3) I can't use my browser's back button or address bar
4) I can't bookmark a specific area of a "flash site"
5) My links don't change color to indicate that I've visited a link
6) I can't search, nor can search engines like Google
7) If I go back to a flash site, I have to navigate through the whole thing all over again to get to the one thing I wanted to see
8) Flash sites are rarely resizable. So if I'm running at 1920x1440 or 2048x1536, the content is miniscule. Similarly, at 800x600, they take over your entire screen.
9) I have a relative who has severely degraded vision. She cannot increase the font size of any flash-based sites, nor can her text-to-speech program "read" the site, because most of it is "rendered" text (i.e., graphics)
10) Nobody uses the streaming features of Flash correctly. They all display a "Loading" bar and make me wait for hundreds of K of data to be sent. One of reasons flash was created was "behind the scenes" streaming.
This Flash vs. HTML usability test might be worthwhile reading.
Flash does have a place on the web. Animated storytelling, such as the weekly cartoons on previosuly-mentioned homestarrunner.com, are a perfect use of flash.
But I really don't want to debate this any more since this web site is about photography. You like flash web sites, I don't. Simple as that.
Message edited by author 2003-12-18 08:27:56. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/08/2025 06:35:37 PM EDT.
