great photography web site

[phillip_ott]

Check out this web site: www.hipnotika.com. The pictures and web

design are simply breathtaking.

[l_a_k_h_i_n_d_e_r]

Thanks! Great site!

[david_kelly1]

Atually, the web design sucks. Yet another Look-How-Clever-I-Am flash

site. Anybody without a fast institutional connection will grow old

and die before any actual content loads. I did get a kick out of the

dancing "Please Wait" page -very apprpriate.

[david_kelly1]

Actually, the web design sucks. Yet another Look-How-Clever-I-Am

flash site. Anybody without a fast institutional connection will grow

old and die before any actual content loads. I did get a kick out of

the dancing "Please Wait" page -very appropriate.

[michael_meyer1]

<p>i sadly tend to agree with the last poster. the site is really slow-- i am on a fast t3 line at my school and it is still incredibly slow. anyone slower than dsl is going to leave before the loading message comes up.

 

<p>also, the design is kinda lame. the content is sort of weak too. the imagery and the galleries aren't focused enough. there is a lot of tengents in the imagery. there is no real tight concept here.

 

<p>finally, i do admire the time spent to put this together and envy the trip that this gentleman went on. this is obviously a travelog and smacks of the slide show that so many of us are accused of forcing our families and friends to sit through.

 

<p>for those who want to flame me for my poor web design, visit <a href="http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~mnm207">my site</a>. i would love feedback and any problems or suggestions you might have.

 

-m

[brian_c._miller]

Too much flash. Too big. Too long to load.

 

That said, it is a great job with flash. I just couldn't hang around while it loaded up.

[Marc453]

See There! You guys ticked the web master off and he closed the site.

Remember Photography is mostly art. So in the words of the great professor Smith, Be kind as art created even by a deranged mind is still art.

[Robin Smith]

Urgh! This site is what gives the web a bad name. Pretentious and time wasting I call it. The photos are OK but fail to live up to the fancy and infuriating presentation. Next time I suggest the author just shows us the photos without all the annoying flash.

[doug_brightwell1]

I would second the comment about "being kind." Any opinion can

be expressed in a gentle or harsh way, and I'm not sure what's

gained by dialing up the rhetoric.

 

I enjoyed the Flash effects. I have DSL at home, which, IMHO,

everyone should have if they're involved in graphics or

photography. The site was clearly not conceived and designed

for a low-bandwidth connection. Perhaps the site could have

been a little faster. But that could have been expressed in the

form of positive feedback that the designer could have put to

good use (although, he may not even be on this list for all I

know).

 

As I see it, the designer was attempting a web version of a coffee

table book. The site itself attempted to evoke a mood and tell a

story, not just be a repository for photos, and I don't see that

attempt as a bad thing.

 

I would be interested in seeing what others think are well

designed photo sites. Some examples would give me a better

feel for why people felt so strongly.

 

Doug

[Spearhead]

Photography web sites should be for photography, not fancy effects. The simplest web sites are almost always the most effective at showing off images.

 

And the images weren't all that exciting.

[brian_c._miller]

<p>

My home connection is faster than my work connection. I think that my comments still stand. Too big. Good flash though. (I still went through the pictures faster than they took to load.)

</p>

 

<p>

There's a good web site called <a href="http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/">Web Pages That Suck</a>, run by Vincent Flanders who published a web design book by the same name. I think that he would call this site an example of what he calls "flashturbation". There's more glitz than necessary, but it is good glitz. There is no mystery meat navigation, and it's easy to go where you want -- with an extremely fast connection. The real problem with a site like this is that it encourages other people to make sites like it.

</p>

 

<p>

The Hipnotika web site isn't a commercial web site, so it really doesn't matter if the viewers go and do something useful instead of hanging around while the site loads. If it was a commercial venue to sell prints, then the site would really suck.

</p>

 

<p>

I have 768K (1/2 T-1) DSL, and I think it is just barely adequate for that site. That site is way too big.

</p>

[tony_armstrong]

Personally I disagree with most of the postings, I enjoyed the site as an experience, it created a mood aided by photography and built on with the music and the authors writings.

 

People seem to have jumped to the conclusion that it is a photography site, well after going through the entire site I certainly see no claims to that effect, more that is the claim of the original poster.

 

The author has done a fantastic job of incorporating literaly all the avaliable net medias to form an insight in to what was obviously a memorable and magical time spent in africa.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that todays netizens are so pushed for time they cannot wait 5 minutes for a download ... even when the author of those downloads has obviously spent hours waiting to capture the moment for us all to enjoy. Wonder if those same netizens would wait more than the 5 minutes for the chance to capture the images the author has ?

 

I applaud the artist for what he has provided.

[brian_c._miller]

<p>

Tony, would you enjoy a movie if you had to wait five minutes for every three minutes of viewing time? I went through each segment in about two minutes.

</p>

 

<p>

Flash is best in a movie type format, like <a href="http://www.hipnotika.com/">Hipnotika</a>, or <a href="http://www.joecartoon.com/">Joe Cartoon</a>. The problem with this is that a person reasonably expects a certain amout of flow to a movie. Hipnotika doesn't deliver that. Also, "optimized for a high-speed connection" is a contradiction in terms. Optimization connotes that steps have been taken to make something smaller and more efficient. Hipnotika isn't small or efficient.

</p>

 

<p>

The only time this site flows is with a high-speed connection and a very fast computer. You might as well say, "To enjoy my site you need to spend $1500 on a computer and $200/mo for a DSL connection." I don't think that is reasonable. There are other sites which flow much better with just plain HTML. Much of this site could have been done more efficiently with XHTML, DHTML, and JavaScript. And all of the movie elements would have remained.

</p>

[joel_collins]

Too bad the photos don't live-up to the hype of the web page. The horizon is crooked in almost every shot in which it's visible.

[michael_meyer1]

<p>alright, since i posted a scathing review of hipnotika, i will step out onto a limb and post what i think is a better designed website that incorportaptes both a travelogue and photography. this way we are on equal footing with hipnotika.

<p>

<a href="http://www.word.com/place/guyana/flipbook.htm">the page</a>

<p>i will now also add a few things, i ordinarily don't like frames, but this site uses them to great effect. or i think so. anyway, this is what might be considered a better design page that has similar goals to hipnotika. (does that name, hipnotika, even fit the page? seems to modern and hiphop to really fit the feel good vibe the vibe site tries so hard to give off.)

<p>a final note, does this post really fit into the mf digest? might it fit better in the philosophy of photo forum?

<br>

<br>-m

[phillip_ott]

i'm actually very sorry that i posted the site hipnotika here because

there seems to be too many stiff necked photographers here who seem

to work more like technicians than artists. i don't know the

photographer in this site but i came accross the site while surfing

and thought it was a really cool site that i should share with the

photo and design community. instead when i hear comments like the

photos weren't good because the horizons in some of them didn't line

up and so on it makes me sick. is there a rule in photography that

says that the horizon in any shot should always line up? i expect to

hear this kind of crap from amateur photogs not from people in a

forum of this calibre. people who make comments like that spend more

time fiddling with their cameras and setting up their tripods while

an amazing shot goes by in front of their eyes. for me photography is

an art and not purely about what camera gear one owns or how to align

it perfectly against the horizon. people that make comments like this

should be working in a camera store selling cameras and not as a

photographer.

 

as far as the web design goes, personally i really think it's

amazing. simple and elegant delivery of content. i could not believe

the post someone made saying that this is the kind of site that gives

the web a bad name. when someone tries to show beauty and educate you

with his experiences i don't think this kind of comment is warranted.

but i guess whoever made that comment probably thinks pornography is

enlightening the web. the one site someone did post about a good

photo website (about guyana or something) really truly sucks!! what's

so good about a boring html site taht is so static and has no

feelings. but perhaps that's what these people prefer.

 

go take some pictures and stop whining!

[jacob_stiller]

I am bewildered why this site has received these comments. I am a photographer and I also develop multimedia concepts for the web so my knowledge in the internet and photography is extensive. That said, I find this site to be one of the best sites on the internet! There must be a reason why it won all those awards and is listed as one of Yahoo's top sites on the internet.

 

It is clearly not a photography only site but a site about the author's experiences in Africa. This is where the site design really makes the difference. The graphic design along with the music really creates the mood perfectly for telling the story. Obviously this is not a site for wimpy computers on a 28.8 connection. It is intended for high end computers which most people in the graphic arts do have. So those of you bitching about the speed of this site and its size, I think it's time for y'all to upgrade from your Commodore 64's. With a DSL line the pictures load very smoothly and the whole site is fluid. If you're running at a high resolution, the pictures really look magnificent. Since the site is not selling anything- it doesn't matter if it doesn't reach the lower bandwidth population. It is clearly intended for a specific audience.

 

When comparing this site to photo.net, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Photo.net is a great robust site but it's design looks like it's from the early 90's. It's the 21st century folks!! wake up!! This is the future. The web will be more and more geared towards entertainment as the line between tv and the internet blurs. So in a sense this site is revolutionary. Therefore in conclusion, instead of knocking a site like this that's pushing the boundary of what's possible on the web, we should be praising it. Obviously, most of you who have posted these comments probably haven't seen too many flash sites, otherwise you'd know that most of the sites have fancy animations and screwed up navigation systems. ans that's more the reason why this site is a gem because the use of flash is very restrained. It is simple and to the point.

 

I don't know if the author of this site receives this thread but if you do, i commend your for your beautiful work.

[jeffrey_lonergan]

great site indeed. this is how and why the web should be used. i don't think there are any gimmicks or glitz to it. actually i find it quite conservative and it does a great job of evoking a certain mood. makes me want to get up and go to africa. it's more of a travelogue than anything else. the author has used all the available media tools to create this feeling and he succeds. if u want to see a very glitzy site devoid of any substance and with lousy photography- then go see www.johnmarksorum.com. the flash design is great- the pictures... well i'll let you judge.

 

all in all a very elegant website. i hope we see more stuff like this instead of the usual thumbnail and jpeg HTML sites.

[scot_murray]

As a user of a wimpy 28.8, you might imagine that I'd be busy ravaging the hipnotika site... but since I haven't bothered to look at it, that would be silly.

 

Instead, I'd like to suggest that this thread be gently laid to rest on this forum and perhaps revived elsewhere more appropriate. The thread seems to have little to do with photography, and nothing (that I have seen) to do with the medium format. Unless we're talking about the Medium being the Message. :P

 

-Scot

(User of lynx when I can get away with it. Sadly, less and less often. Had to get *some* real opinion on web philosophy in here, now, didn't I?)

[david_zileris]

NICE PICTURES. NICE STORY. AND GREAT SITE.

 

But I think it's in the wrong forum.