Opinions on Flash Websites

I've read a lot of posts relating to website critiques and I am

carefully considering all opinions, since I will be designing a

website for wedding and portrait photography. I'll have a pro

construct the site for me, but I plan to do most of the design myself

and, specifically, I'd like to hear other opinions about flash

websites. Personally, I'm torn, because they can be a huge pain to

navigate, not to mention that dial up users have slow load times as

it is, but these are ridiculous on flash heavy sites. On the other

hand, some of the most impressive sites (high end photographers,

mostly, to which I assume most of us aspire if we're not already

there) I've seen are flash.

So, what do you folks think?

Simplicity is beauty. Put wonderful images on your website and you won't need to whore them up with that annoying 'flash' garbage.

Actually, as I understand it, a mix can be used to keep things simple and downloadable,

while improving the graphic presence at the same time.

 

Some examples touted in other threads here as being great, were quite slow in loading,

and I could imagine a harried Bride just clicking on to the next web site on the list.

I hate flash. The only time I ever want to see flash is when I go to a website for the animations themselves. Otherwise, it just stands in the way of me and what I want to see. Sometimes, depending on how bad I want to see the site, I even leave a site as soon as I see flash because I know it's going to be a pain. To the contrary, I doubt there has ever been a person that has gone to a site without flash, and immediately left because he wanted it to be there.

 

Probably the reason that "high end photographers" use flash on their sites is that they hired expensive consultants to design the sites for them and the consultants have to justify the high price of the work.

"Probably the reason that "high end photographers" use flash on their sites is that they hired expensive consultants to design the sites for them and the consultants have to justify the high price of the work."

 

I suspect you're right about that. I am sure that lots of flash is a better advertisement for web designers than photographers. I hate coming across as so indecisive, but I also hate the idea that I might be taken less seriously with a less flashy site. I appreciate the comments.

I don't like those heavy flash pages, because you can't browse through them at your own speed, no matter how fast your connection is.<br>

So, I chose not to build those kind of sites anymore.<br><br>

 

A little bit of flash on a page however can make a site look very dynamic. But don't do it all in flash. Maybe just the navigation or the galleries.<br>

Flash can definately be overused, for example, if Flash is used for dynamic navigation.

There are some good photographer Websites utilizing flash, and not so good ones. There

are also some very wonderful sites that don't use Flash at all.  IMHO there are

more good sites that DONT use Flash, than who use it.  Before investing

in a Flash website, look for and hire a good Flash programmer who can do some custom

work for you.  (DONT buy a template from a template mill, unless you have enough

money to purchase the exclusive rights to it.)  Don't let novelty clutter your

precious screen space. 

<br />

<br />

<b>Good sites that use limited Flash animation</b>

<br />

<ul>

<li>

<a href="http://www.yervant.com">http://www.yervant.com</a>

</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.davidbeckstead.com">http://www.davidbeckstead.com</a>

</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.davidbarssphotographer.com">http://www.davidbarssphotographer.com</a>

</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.jkhphoto.com/">http://www.jkhphoto.com</a>

</li>

</ul>

<b>Bad sites that use Flash animation</b>

<br />

<ul>

<li>

<a href="http://www.annabelwilliams.com">http://www.annabelwilliams.com</a>

</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.cantrellportrait.com">http://www.cantrellportrait.com</a>

</li>

</ul>

<b>Good sites that DO NOT use Flash</b>

<br />

<ul>

<li>

<a href="http://www.janetklinger.com">http://www.janetklinger.com </a>

</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.keatleyphoto.com">http://www.keatleyphoto.com</a>

</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.douglasweaver.com">http://www.douglasweaver.com</a>

</li>

</ul>

I have an extensive list, but the best thing for you to do is pick up some wedding

resource magazines, and look at the websites of photographers in your area. The bottom

line is that your site must pass simple principles of usability. I have exchanged

emails with bambi Cantrell, explaining how I think her Flash navigation is too complicated

and hard to use. She really liked my website and borrowed some ideas from me, but

she didn't take my suggestion to do away with the Flash navigation.

<br />

<br />

So navigation must be easy, and photos should be organized in a clear and compelling

way, that is easy for the viewer to understand. The gallery and image load time should

not exceed 2 seconds...If it takes longer, the user will click on something else,

and maybe on the your competitors website. The bottom line is that your site's bells

and whistles should not get in the way of a user attempting to explore your style

through your images. Make it easy for the user to contact you on a web contact form.

Don't upload photos to your website if they are too big, too small, or if they are

not high enough quality to reflect the demands of your prospective client.

Correction. I inteded to put the David Barss Website into the cateogry of "Bad use of Flash programing." He uses it sparingly, but it makes me dizzy to look at, and does not add any value to the user's browsing experience.

Great post Steven...

 

Flash is like any other tool. I can be misused, but it has its strengths. To eliminate it out of hand is shortsighted, but to constantly tout hyper animated and un-navigable sites as the height of good work is equally silly.

 

Decide on the image you wish to project, the audience you want to target, then decide on which combination of web technologies (and in what proportion) allows you to hit them most effectively.

Marc and Steve make good points.

 

I was going to re-iterate/add that many of your potential clients may not have high-speed internet and/or new computers. Sites heavily-laden with Flash might operate slowly for such clients. I know that if something online is bogging my computer down too much, I will say "to heck with this" and move on to the next option.

 

On the other hand, a little bit of flair can look professional and be attention-grabbing.

Sorry guys but my web site is not my main tool for getting a prospective client to sign a contract with me. It is just one part of the equation that, when added together, equals a signed contact. There is a lot of ingredients to my receipe of success.

 

The biggest part I believe is me, what I do, how I tell the story with wedding photography that determines success or failure. I want this this key ingredient conveyed with a face to face meeting. It's the only way I'll sign up someone. Sorry.

 

Some folks like what I do, others don't. I sure want to know if I can tell the clients vision of their wedding story before I arrive for the ceremony.

 

My web site is used to tell a little about who I Am and what I do the rest I will accomplish when we meet.

 

It works for me.

 

Thanks.

Flash is very powerful, and in theory could be used to build a really good web site. However, I've yet to see a photographer's site that uses Flash to better effect than what could be achieved with HTML.

 

I visit photographers' sites to find out how to contact them, how much they are likely to charge, what areas they service, what type of work they do, etc. Sample images are important, too - both "all-time best photos" to show their range, and an example portfolio from a single shoot to show the standard a client should expect.

 

Typical Flash sites only use a small fraction of my 21" monitor, only show one image at a time with Next/Previous arrows, have cheesy fades between images that slow down browsing, have cheesy music that is just annoying, have non-intuitive navigation, and load slowly even on broadband connections.

 

I'd stick with HTML until you have a specific reason to use Flash.

Chad,<BR>

I assume you will have this web site URL on your business cards and flyers, ads, etc. If a prospective client on dial up has a hard time, long waits, to view it, she will become a bit irritated or just give up on it. Not a good way to start off.

A couple of thoughts...

 

I have a fairly good HTML website now, but I decided to upgrade to a Flash based

website (custom).

 

My business has grown to the point where I will be charging a min of over $4000, and the

clients who need photographers in that price range LIKE flash, because it gives them more

of an idea of what the photographer wants them see...

 

Do you really think that anyone who does this as their only income would change to an all

flash website without first polling every client that they get about whether or not they like

flash, where they do their surfing, if Flash turns them off of a website, etc?

 

I think not.

 

Here is what I found out after extensive polling of my clients (and other engaged women

who I Wished were our clients)...

 

~99% of them looked for photographers at work, where they have DSL or better lines, and

where their computers are kept up to date.

 

~Most (if not all) said that they LIKE flash websites, and that when they saw a wedding

photographer who had a flash website, they automatically assumed that he "Charged alot

of money"

 

~Most clients LIKE to see photographers sites, and are "Entertained" by slideshows...

 

Seeing a trend?

 

That, coupled with the fact that there are very few GOOD flash websites in my area (and

the ones that do have flash are VERY high end shooters, like www.JVSWeddings.com, who

is actualy in my building) makes it a no brainer to move to a flash website.

 

BTW, in response to this comment:

 

<<<Probably the reason that "high end photographers" use flash on their sites is that they

hired expensive consultants to design the sites for them and the consultants have to

justify the high price of the work.>>>

 

I'm wondering, do you actually make your living as a "High End Photographer"? Because if

not, this is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read on this forum.

 

~brooks

<<<Probably the reason that "high end photographers" use flash on their sites is that they hired expensive consultants to design the sites for them and the consultants have to justify the high price of the work.>>>

 

An good designers charge for the work just like a good photographer does...we are always complaining about clients who want to slash budgets or go to sears for their portraits. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for. And how does flash justify high prices? On its own, not at all. Not any more than using a 4x5 justifies jacking up your prices. Its just a tool. You pick the right one when you need it.

 

And for what it's worth. I've seen more websites ruined by bad html and slow or mis-queried php (or jsp) servers than I have anything else recently.

I think Brooks is absolutely right that flash is perceived as a mark of a high end photographer. To me, that's the deciding factor. As it stands, I am not (yet :o)) a high end photographer, so if I use flash at all, it will be on the entry page only. But when I see it, I do get the impression, "hey, here's someone who is on the higher end of the business." That doesn't mean that an html site makes me think "low rent." An elegant, well designed site (and, hopefully, some great photos) will speak for itself in any format.

 

Thanks to everyone who contributed opinions. I appreciate the input and it's clear to me that there are some sharp individuals around here with valuable insights. Thanks again!

Let's take a break and go take some pictures, guys! :-)

Flash is great when its done correctly. My new Flash site is not quite as sexy as my last one but my last one was coded very poorly and dont in up to 20 .fla files. My current one is only 2 and is optimazed for a fast 56k connection.

 

You get what you pay for. Hire someone who knows what they are doing and it will pay itself off bigtime.

<a href=" http://www.ericmilner.com">I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about my two year old flash site.</a> I'm in the middle of re-doing it and like to hear it.

Eric,

 

The very best photographer Web sites that use flash, IMHO, only use flash for the gallery. I find your navigation titles a little bit confusing, as in, will clicking this display a gallery? Or do I have to click on one of the horizontally scrolling images to view a gallery.

 

I think you should do away with the horizontally scrolling thumbnails, and create 2 vertical panes for viewing. One pane has thumbnails, left or right you choose, and the other pane has the enlarged view of the image a user clicked on.

 

See http://www.davidbeckstead.com for example of what I'm talking about.

 

Otherwise, your photos look great! Keep up the good work!

Thanks Steven. I appreciate you taking a few minutes to look. I agree about the horizontal scroll. It was hard for me to design, and i wanted images that are conected to a series to seperate from the others, but maybe i'll put them parallel underneath the main navigation in a smaller size?

 

The site you listed was slow for me. it's probably a norm for flash, but i hate back buttons with a passion, like being forced to the front door of the grocery store every time you need another item...get milk go back to the front, get bread go back to the front get eggs go back to the front...I think back navigation should be banned? Especially for flash when a good producer can code around the problem?

 

My designer is awesome, and so patient to put up with me and my head scratching...

Think vertical.

 

Try putting thumbnails side by side with your detailed image view. A Webpage should closely resemble a book, where you read left to right, and top to bottom. The horizontal framing is very difficult to use, makes me dizzy, and it's hard to control exactly which image I want to click on to enlarge.

"The horizontal framing is very difficult to use, ..."

 

yer kidding?

No I'm not kidding...what do you mean by "parallel underneath the main navigation in a smaller size?"

 

I'd just caution you against against keeping the thumbnails the way they are. I think you can come up with a better design.

i've never heard difficult to describe my thumbnails Steve. Some have said they like the choice of speed, the farther you go from center, the quicker it goes, to skip or back track.

 

by parallel i ment i have both hori and vert scroll bars. i infered you thought it was confusing to have both. i have no 'galleries' other than the links on the side, faces, mischief, musicians, etc, each opening thier own hori scroll bar. images that i've concluded with a shot open a second vert scroll bar.

 

my goal was to make the site as quick as possible to load and view. most of my target audience just clicks arounds and goes "yep, sure, hire him" and that's it.