| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Should I Flash You Or Not?
Jody Gomez, Photographer
 |
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> I want to update my website and can't decide on what to do. The more I research, the more confused I get because there is so much conflicting information. I'm bleary eyed from looking at a zillion photographer's sites and the only thing I have figured out is that I have no preference as long as the site is clean. Therefore I thought the best thing to do would be to ask you all the $64,000 question:
Should I use flash or not?
Jody |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 5:20 PM on 05.28.09 |
| ->> not |
|
Alex Witkowicz, Photographer
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 5:23 PM on 05.28.09 |
| ->> not. Won't even get through some corporations firewalls. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 5:37 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> It depends.
I like NeonSky. Its simple and easy to update. Its not 'fancy flash' rather pretty basic flash galleries. No music or sound effects.
Flip side is that it takes a little time to load.
Personal preference i suppose. |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 5:47 PM on 05.28.09 |
| ->> I wouldn't, tried the flash thing, too slow for some people. Like Alan stated, some can't through corporate firewalls. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 6:02 PM on 05.28.09 |
| ->> Yes. oh wait, you were asking about a computer program, I thought you were axing me something else....nevermind...... |
|
Andrew Fredrickson, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | United States | Posted: 6:17 PM on 05.28.09 |
| ->> I would say no. Simple clean cut site. Although you can do this in flash too, people tend to get carried away and start adding unwanted effects, noise, and animations. |
|
Kirby Yau, Photographer, Assistant
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 6:17 PM on 05.28.09 |
| ->> Chuck, check my member page and the main photo caption. =) |
|
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 6:24 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> There are a ton of bad flash websites out there. There are also some good ones. There are also tons of awful HTML sites out there.
My flash website by liveBooks has done very well for me. My SEO is great and my site is clean and easy to navigate with no crappy effects, noise, or animation. I also have a kick-ass searchable archive all under one roof:
http://www.manginphotography.com |
|
Kirby Yau, Photographer, Assistant
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 6:48 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> Jody, it all depends on the look you want to achieve and whether it can be better completed using HTML or Flash.
On top of athetics, there is user experience. How you want people to navigate through your galleries.
Flash has an advantage of preloading (thumbnails, fullsized images)upfront so once that user clicks the next image there isn't any lag or load times.
Also flash allows for galleries with MORE images.
Flash also can read from XML files, making swaping out images and captions easier when more images are involved.
Drop me a line to discuss further. I'm in a middle of my redesign using flash. |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 6:51 PM on 05.28.09 |
| ->> I have had a LiveBooks website almost since they first started in business. Best thing I have ever done. Works perfect always, great people, great service. Paid for itself many times over. |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 6:53 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> Im using NeonSky and I like my site. Its flash and I think it works just fine.
-Todd
http://toddspoth.com |
|
Ric Tapia, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 7:17 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> This question is like asking: Canon vs Nikon (Canon, cough, cough). Flash is a tool, just like html. If you use the tool properly you will get great results. I currently have a html site which I will be changing to Flash in the next couple of weeks.
http://www.tapiaphoto.com |
|
Patrick Smith, Photographer
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 8:34 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> Who doesn’t like a Flasher …ahem… I mean Flash.
I would say go for Flash, but no Flash intro. The latter is a personal preference.
Also, some sites like SiteWelder and NeonSky are template Flash sites and typically don't rank very high on search engines. Alas, that’s just what I’ve discovered.
I'll echo what Brad said and give props to LiveBooks. It's a custom design, all Flash based and most importantly, the SEO is fantastic.
I guess I'll plug my site, too: www.patricksmithphotos.com
Good luck. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 8:47 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> In the French Quarter, hell yes. On your website hell no.
At least half of the traffic that I get on my site during the day is from parents surfing from work. There are way too many filters and roadblocks to have to get through. Also remember that in many cases users on a an employer's network may not have permission to install a plug-in or upgrade one. It's one thing to not be able to see a slide show but if your whole site is flash based you could be putting up a roadblock for a decent number of surfers. |
|
Brian Tietz, Photographer
|
Fort Myers | FL | USA | Posted: 9:14 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> I recently redid my site with Photobiz.com and added an HTML mirror site as an option on my splash page. However, I call it an "iPhone friendly site" and my flash site as the "main entrance". The HTML site I have mirrored is very basic and "no frills" so my goal was to funnel the majority of visitors to the flash site.
I did this for 2 reasons, first just in case someone really wants to see my site on an iphone or other mobile device, they can. Secondly from what I understand an HTML site can help improve SEO over just a flash site.
So far I am very happy with photobiz. The HTML mirror site cost an extra $45 (one time fee) and is built and updated seemlessly in the background with my Flash site. The Flash site cost $125 (half price deal they are running) one time fee and is only $15 a month for hosting.
www.briantietz.com |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 9:40 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> Forgetting for a moment all of the thinly veiled pitches for Livebooks everytime this question comes up, the question of Flash is not one in and of itself. If Flash aids you in presenting your work in a simple, easy to navigate manner, then use it. If not, then don't. It drives me crazy the "award winning" websites that I have to sit and try to figure out; the tiny, and I mean microscopically small nav arrows and portfolio links that have to be decrypted like Egyptian hieroglyphics. How does a site like this win awards? For complexity and user confusion?
Your web site is supposed to do one thing; show your work in an easy to navigate style, attractive and visually appealing, yet quick and concise. Again, if flash can be made to facilitate that goal then fine. If not, then don't use it. |
|
Max Gersh, Photographer
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 10:27 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> The old argument is that too many people don't have Flash on their computer and a lot of people won't download and install when prompted to do so. That being said, more and more people have Flash now or at least have high-speed internet to get it quickly. It is certainly becoming more common.
I use Flash on my site — not for my site. My site was built in HTML but I use Flash for my photo galleries. This gives me a little more peace of mind since it prevents people from right-clicking and saving my images. I also use it for video playback since its video compressor is fantastic.
Whenever I change a component of my site, I consider how it will affect the user. Google Analytics is great for this. It tracks the screen res., browsers, internet speed, Flash version, etc. of everyone that visits your site.
For example, I know that over 80% of my visitors have high-speed internet and that over 65% of my visitors have Flash 10 or higher. Over 95% of my visitors have Flash 9 or higher.
This being said, if you choose to use Flash, you can save to a previous version to accommodate a majority of your visitors.
I do all my own site design. I find Flash to be a very useful tool. Just be cautious how you use it and don't go overboard. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:26 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> If you do SEO properly and design the flash interface so that everybody understands how to use it (not as easy as it sounds), then flash is fine.
The problem is there are lots of designers who decide to do zoomy zippy navigation that is hard to use, requires the absolute latest version of flash, and is slow.
Keep it simple and flash is great...as long as you do proper SEO. |
|
William Hallstrom, Photographer
|
Pasadena | CA | USA | Posted: 11:45 PM on 05.28.09 |
->> If you use a properly designed Flash service or app. like the ones mentioned that incorporate SEO you should be fine. Its probably not something to try yourself by following some tutorial unless your like a programmer or something.
Most everybody your probably interested in having look at your stuff has the ability to see it regardless it's flash or not. Unless your clientele is like grandma who is still using the browser that came with her 1994 Dell or some guy in some mud hut in some bedraggled place.
The estimate is that 80-90% of people have the flash plug-in installed.
Of course it is easier for most folks to make their own gallery sites these days using just some html and maybe a little javascript and they will automatically be SEO-optimized etc. as long as they are coded properly.
But just making sure to have links from and to a site like sportsshooter will probably do more for your searchability than worrying about using flash or not. and having as many other links, especially from "major" sites like flickr maybe. i remember brad and grover talking about this in a web seminar they did, too.
i suppose it comes down to asthetics, though. you can get more custom stuff and a slicker interface in flash then you would to do the same stuff in plain html, but it also tends to require a bit more bandwidth and thing don't always work so well with non-standard devices like mobile. |
|
Francis Specker, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 1:44 AM on 05.29.09 |
->> I used to have a flash site. Got rid of it. Way too many problems with pages loading quickly and Google saw my site as only one page.
SEO with my html/java script site is much easier and I can integrate my blog, photoshelter search and my portfolio under one virtual roof. Page load times are super snappy.
Most flash sites are not easy to change on the fly. I can totally re-design my site with a few mouse clicks. I'm using squarespace.com as my hosting/design solution where my domain name is unchanged.
I can even see my website on my iPhone, which doesn't support flash. Squarespace.com has plans to support a mobile version which hopefully will be like the currently wordpress mobile plug-in.
I know you can make a flash site SEO friendly, but good old html sites are by nature SEO friendly, especially blogs.
Flash sites for photographers are going away like animated gifs and blink tags of ten years ago.
http://francisspecker.com for my squarespace.com website. |
|
Andrew Dolph, Photographer
|
Akron | OH | USA | Posted: 2:31 AM on 05.29.09 |
->> Hmm ... I think a lot of us on SS could beat around the bush, and wax theoretical nonsense, a la Marshall McLuhan, until we're blue in the face. Ultimately, the message of your work, I think is going to be defined by impact and quality, not by the medium.
If you choose Flash, do so in a manner that doesn't upset the message. |
|
Todd Spoth, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:39 AM on 05.29.09 |
->> Amen Andrew.
I can sit at my computer for hours researching how much better embedding keywords into java vs flash is or whatever, but in the end Id rather be out someplace being creative.
On one hand its good to have a knowledge of the website technie stuff since it IS one of the most important marketing tools, but on the other hand it just reminds me of the hoards of hobbyists that sit on other message boards and argue about edge to edge sharpness and the number of blades the diaphragm on your lens has.
I think my website looks decent, it has an automatic iphone version that is viewable by mobile devices, it has keywords, it has pictures, it loads when you type it in your browser.
the end. |
|
Geoffrey Bolte, Photographer, Assistant
|
Spencer/Worcester | MA | USA | Posted: 7:41 AM on 05.29.09 |
->> I use a little bit of both. Flash for the galleries and html for the other information such as the about me and contact. I made it real simple to work with and my galleries are powered by Slideshow Pro and SlideshowPro director. A great set up load the images into the galleries/albums youd like them to be in and director creates the xml/database for the flash slideshow.
www.atlanticexpressions.com
With flash just make sure load times aren't long that way you don't push people away from your site. |
|
Grover Sanschagrin, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 10:41 AM on 05.29.09 |
->> @Francis: "Flash sites for photographers are going away like animated gifs and blink tags of ten years ago."
Yes, indeed. It's already started happening.
What matters in the end are results - and a pretty animating interface with nifty transitions aren't the things that bring results (money in your pocket.)
Flexibility, simplicity, and the ability to be indexed by search engines are what every photographer should be thinking about before they even start to think about what it looks like.
Flash is a very limiting. Be careful how you use it. |
|
Allen Murabayashi, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 10:45 AM on 05.29.09 |
->> I dispute those who say "it's about whether flash gets your message across."
This is a very 20th century view of a website.
Your website isn't only for those who see it. It's for the search engines that will crawl it and bring you unsolicited traffic.
1. You have to consider SEO as a primary foundation of your website because it is a marketing technique and your website is a marketing vehicle.
How many people know Jody's URL? Are they more likely to type in "Jody Gomez" or "senior portrait photographer"?Flash-based photography websites cannot be indexed, therefore, if you use Flash, you need to make sure there is an HTML version behind it.
2. You need a call-to-action.
Once a visitor is on your website, what is the point? If all you're doing is showing pictures, how does that improve your business? If you don't have some type of call to action (whether it's a contact form, a newsletter, e-commerce, etc), you're losing the potential to convert visits into dollars.
Doesn't matter if you should weddings, youth sports, stock, sports, etc -- the fact is that you're a business, and therefore you need to understand that the website is there to promote more business, not show pictures.
This isn't a theoretical rant. You're not an artist with a patron. You're a photographer with a business, and the more barriers you have on your site to enabling you to make money, the less successful that marketing channel will be. |
|
Brian Hollingsworth, Photographer
|
Austin | TX | USA | Posted: 11:01 AM on 05.29.09 |
->> Can you upload multimedia and video pieces onto most flash template providers like Livebooks, Neonsky etc?
Not being able to do this would be a deal breaker for flash. I'd stick to making my own site in html. |
|
Grover Sanschagrin, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 11:12 AM on 05.29.09 |
| ->> Brian - that gets right to the problem with Flash - it is inflexible, and always playing catch-up to the functionality that's possible with HTML-based sites. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 05.29.09 |
->> If I go to a site and it tells me that I need to update Flash, I leave the website. First of all, my company laptop is so locked down for security purposes I can't install programs.
Secondly, I don't want the hassel of having to download something just to view a website. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:29 PM on 05.29.09 |
| ->> Consider also if the site is viewable on Mobile devices. If nothing at all shows up on an iPhone or Blackberry, that is a problem. |
|
Colin Lenton, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 6:14 PM on 05.29.09 |
->> Flash is slow and outdated, and as Grover has already pointed out is always playing catch up.
I firmly believe that Flash is on the way out.
Don't use Flash for two main reasons 1. SEO 2. Speed. |
|
Ric Tapia, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 6:31 PM on 05.29.09 |
| ->> For flash being "outdated" I seeing a lot of photographers that I look up to using it for their sites. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 9:35 PM on 05.29.09 |
->> My vote would be no. Two very basic questions to ask yourself (among others):
1) Will I lose any potential clients by NOT having employed Flash?
2) Will I lose any potential clients because they couldn't easily access my site?
Yes, I'd say MOST people can view flash sites with little to no trouble. But those one or two people who you miss out on could be huge, and it seems more likely to me that you'd lose someone due to the second reason than the first. |
|
Richard Favinger Jr, Photographer
|
Pottstown | PA | USA | Posted: 4:46 PM on 05.31.09 |
->> A clean CSS layout would load much nicer, and likely faster... I don't care if you have 10mb cable, not every one else does.
Most flash sites are also inaccessible to visually disabled people.
Creating Accessible Flash Content
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/flash/ |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:48 AM on 06.01.09 |
->> Jody:
I think the deciding factor(s) as to whether or not to use flash is the client base you are trying to attract.
If your main line of work will be editorial and commercial work, like most of the advice above, I would say a resounding no. Not so much for the ever so important SEO, but for the fact that a busy buyer and potential client does not want to spend the time waiting for images (or the site) to load.
If the work you want is seniors, weddings and family photography then using flash would be okay, but not necessary. Design, color scheme and functionality are far more important factors to consider. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|