Ideas on photo categories for website?

[skallen_z]

<p>Hi, beginner here. Started in March 09 with a Nikon d40 and recently started posting pictures on a website. I'm looking for ideas on how to better categorize my photos as I'm starting to think there's just too many in one randomized bunch. What type of categories might work with these types of pictures or how do you tend to categorize your shared photos? Any other ideas on how to make the site more user friendly/easily navigated are welcome.<br>

<A HREF="http://hipposrunsuperfast.com/">hipposrunsuperfast</A><br>

Thanks alot,<br>

S.Z.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Any other ideas on how to make the site more user friendly/easily navigated are welcome.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't use Flash.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Flash is pretty common for websites and most people who will view your photos are fine with it. Flash is now installed on over 99% of machines with a web browser. <br /> <br /> I would consider separating the people photos from the non-people photos as a start. Then look for more creative ways to categorize. You can check my site (click on my name here) for one way to look at them. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>S.Z., I fixed your hyperlink - it was linking back to photo.net, a common bug when an incomplete URL is used with the href tag.</p>

<p>Yup, Flash is very common nowadays and nothing will make me close a browser window in a flash like poorly implemented Flash. I know, I know, I'm a dinosaur and so unhip my pants fall down unless I wear suspenders.</p>

<p>As soon as your site resized my browser window I closed it. I always instinctively associate that with browser hijack attempts. I also set up my browser to automagically block certain types of Flash behavior to avoid lockups, since I often have other applications running that cause conflicts (such as old reliable legacy audio processing software that doesn't like conflicts with Flash). Fix that and you may get more visitors.</p>

<p>I usually appreciate sites that offer both Flash and plain vanilla HTML as options before automagically launching a slideshow. I also look for options to enable viewer control over the slideshow - pause, speed up or slow down, skip over certain photos, etc.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>"Flash is pretty common for websites..."<br /> Unfortunately, you're right. And so are slow, awkward websites with flash. I know a few ways to get out of a site quickly, and use them.</p>

<p>"...and most people who will view your photos are fine with it."<br /> Maybe not. At least this one isn't, and there might be plenty more. IMO, it's annoying, as are most MM presos. The fluff-to-meat ratio is key. I just want to see the pics. They should convey the mood on their own merits. Many flash shows are lipstick on a pig, as far as the pics go.</p>

<p>"Flash is now installed on over 99% of machines with a web browser."<br /> While that might be true, I don't run an app just because it's there. I allow it to run if I think it's useful. The tail shouldn't wag the dog - my time and computing resources are valuable to me. YMMV</p>

<p>Oh yeah - on the categorories: categorize them to tell the story you want to tell. Make the site serve the photos, and not the other way around, and you'll have something worthwhile.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>There's nothing wrong with his implementation of Flash. Looks good. Doesn't run slow on my machine.</p>

<p>Everytime Flash is in a website you're gonna get these people who decide they just don't like it. They happen to be wrong</p>

<p>anyhow, Jeff's advice is pretty good.</p>

<p>I personally would have two categories....black and white....and color. But nobody seems to agree with me on that...lol....so i make categories the best I can.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>Your portfolio has a lot of what I would consider urban/city life type, some macros, some abstracts, and portraits. I'd categorize the few soccer pics as urban. </p>

[william_supko]

<p>I know it's a matter of personal taste but I don't like slideshow style sites. I would rather see decent sized thumbnails and pick and choose what I want to see bigger. I don't have a problem with flash as it does prohibit people from easily hijacking your photos. I like to seperate my photos into three catagories living things (people, animals, etc), Places, Things. Then I break them down into sub catagories. </p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Everytime Flash is in a website you're gonna get these people who decide they just don't like it. They happen to be wrong</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you very much, but I know my feelings better than you. A website that sees <em>every visitor</em> as a potential "thief" (of small digital images no less!) can stuff it. Keep your precious pics protected in that flash file, but I won't see them anyway. The web is all about openness and open standards, in my humble opinion.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>We're getting a bit off track here from the OP's original request, but to clarify my personal biases...</p>

<p>The vast majority of slideshow type Flash presentations are indifferently implemented. A good implementation, besides being compatible with all commonly used computers, OS's and browsers, would include specific choices in presentation made by the photographer. Just like a well prepared conventional slideshow using two or more projectors. The duration of each photo should be chosen by the photographer, along with the order of presentation and transitions between photos.</p>

<p>Photographers who use video on YouTube, Vimeo or other sites to present their still photography routinely put a lot of thought and effort into these presentations. Photographers relying on the defaults for Flash seldom do, and the results show.</p>

<p>So my objection is as much to the aesthetics as to the compatibility problems. Flash is too often just that - flash, no substance. Just a haphazard assemblage of photos, each shown for exactly the same duration. Might as well just use HTML and, as William noted, allow the visitor to pick and choose what he/she wants to see.</p>