<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: New HTML Photography Websites Worth Checking Out</title> <atom:link href="http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out</link> <description>Video Blog for Creative Professionals</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 22:35:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Gus Munoz</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25515</link> <dc:creator>Gus Munoz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:05:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25515</guid> <description><![CDATA[Hi Fstoppers. I just took another look at Creative Motion Design. Not much difference of functionality between them and only 11 templates to choose from. Thats not much of a selection considering how many photographers there are in the world. Are we all gonna end up with a similar website ? Not sure it&#039;s really worth the $300 either. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Fstoppers.<br /> I just took another look at Creative Motion Design. Not much difference of functionality between them and only 11 templates to choose from. Thats not much of a selection considering how many photographers there are in the world. Are we all gonna end up with a similar website ? Not sure it&#8217;s really worth the $300 either. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Gus Munoz</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25516</link> <dc:creator>Gus Munoz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:05:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25516</guid> <description><![CDATA[Hi Fstoppers. I just took another look at Creative Motion Design. Not much difference of functionality between them and only 11 templates to choose from. Thats not much of a selection considering how many photographers there are in the world. Are we all gonna end up with a similar website ? Not sure it&#039;s really worth the $300 either. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Fstoppers.<br /> I just took another look at Creative Motion Design. Not much difference of functionality between them and only 11 templates to choose from. Thats not much of a selection considering how many photographers there are in the world. Are we all gonna end up with a similar website ? Not sure it&#8217;s really worth the $300 either. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Gus Munoz</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25511</link> <dc:creator>Gus Munoz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:01:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25511</guid> <description><![CDATA[Hi Fstoppers I&#039;m looking into a flash website as well, but what are the pros and cons of Creative Design V&#039;s the free versions out there. Why pay ?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Fstoppers<br /> I&#8217;m looking into a flash website as well, but what are the pros and cons of Creative Design V&#8217;s the free versions out there. Why pay ?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Gus Munoz</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25510</link> <dc:creator>Gus Munoz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:01:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25510</guid> <description><![CDATA[Hi Fstoppers I&#039;m looking into a flash website as well, but what are the pros and cons of Creative Design V&#039;s the free versions out there. Why pay ?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Fstoppers<br /> I&#8217;m looking into a flash website as well, but what are the pros and cons of Creative Design V&#8217;s the free versions out there. Why pay ?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Joel Skingle</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25293</link> <dc:creator>Joel Skingle</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25293</guid> <description><![CDATA[Hi Guys. I know it has probably been suggested a million times but with a bit of easy short code implimention the pro photo blog site can become quite a tasty yet simple wedding photography website.( I believe fstoppers used to use this templete here). I know i know there will be about a million people saying that its a boring template etc but its so so adaptable. I bought this template about 12 months ago and have since changed my site twice for &quot;better&quot; full screen wordpress versions but after many hours messing about I went back to Prophoto. I learnt some shortcode (5 mins online!) and I am really happy with it now it has flash based galleries which look tasty and smooth but in ipad and iphone it auto changes the view to a lightbox style view simple! Most importantly it allows me to bulk upload full sided images saving tones of time.  I dont know of any other wordpress template that does this. Ive had such a great increase of traffic as people spend longer on my site because its easier to use and much less bounce traffic and the seo its crackin! . my site is http://www.joelskinglephotography.co.uk if you want to see whats possible. nothing revolutionary but clean and simple enough to get a bride to book and clients friends and family all over my blog!Just my 2 pence worth Joel]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Guys. I know it has probably been suggested a million times but with a bit of easy short code implimention the pro photo blog site can become quite a tasty yet simple wedding photography website.( I believe fstoppers used to use this templete here).</p><p> I know i know there will be about a million people saying that its a boring template etc but its so so adaptable. I bought this template about 12 months ago and have since changed my site twice for &#8220;better&#8221; full screen wordpress versions but after many hours messing about I went back to Prophoto. I learnt some shortcode (5 mins online!) and I am really happy with it now it has flash based galleries which look tasty and smooth but in ipad and iphone it auto changes the view to a lightbox style view simple! Most importantly it allows me to bulk upload full sided images saving tones of time. <br /> I dont know of any other wordpress template that does this. </p><p>Ive had such a great increase of traffic as people spend longer on my site because its easier to use and much less bounce traffic and the seo its crackin! . my site is <a href="http://www.joelskinglephotography.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.joelskinglephotography.co.uk</a> if you want to see whats possible. nothing revolutionary but clean and simple enough to get a bride to book and clients friends and family all over my blog!</p><p>Just my 2 pence worth<br /> Joel</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Alfonso Pajares</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25292</link> <dc:creator>Alfonso Pajares</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:03:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25292</guid> <description><![CDATA[Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I pretty much stay clear of flash sites if I can. They simply take up too much memory. On Vimeo I pretty much always choose the html5 player. I also tend to like HTML sites more since I find them cleaner. While you call them boring, I call flash sites gimmicky. They look nice the first time but after they get frustrating really fast. They simply don&#039;t load fast enough for me. I also think that most photographers (not saying you don&#039;t) don&#039;t know what good web design is. If the website has music when it starts or takes me into a full screen mode then it sucks.Also as a programmer I understand that to most users fast matters. Try giving up google for msn? Even if they gave the same results people would choose google since it&#039;s just a lot faster to work with. Look at the new search that microsoft did with bing. Think it&#039;s a coincidence that they made it load so fast and didn&#039;t make it a portal like msn.com?Most clients that go to a photographers website want to quickly get to the prices page. After they see if your even in their ballpark they&#039;ll look at your work. I see flash has it&#039;s place and is useful but I don&#039;t see the benefits out weigh the drawbacks to make a full website out of it. A portion of the site o.k. but most of the things that flash does you can do with html and javascript.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I pretty much stay clear of flash sites if I can. They simply take up too much memory. On Vimeo I pretty much always choose the html5 player. I also tend to like HTML sites more since I find them cleaner. While you call them boring, I call flash sites gimmicky. They look nice the first time but after they get frustrating really fast. They simply don&#8217;t load fast enough for me. I also think that most photographers (not saying you don&#8217;t) don&#8217;t know what good web design is. If the website has music when it starts or takes me into a full screen mode then it sucks.</p><p>Also as a programmer I understand that to most users fast matters. Try giving up google for msn? Even if they gave the same results people would choose google since it&#8217;s just a lot faster to work with. Look at the new search that microsoft did with bing. Think it&#8217;s a coincidence that they made it load so fast and didn&#8217;t make it a portal like msn.com?</p><p>Most clients that go to a photographers website want to quickly get to the prices page. After they see if your even in their ballpark they&#8217;ll look at your work. I see flash has it&#8217;s place and is useful but I don&#8217;t see the benefits out weigh the drawbacks to make a full website out of it. A portion of the site o.k. but most of the things that flash does you can do with html and javascript.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: photo393</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25271</link> <dc:creator>photo393</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:27:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25271</guid> <description><![CDATA[Any site that forces my browser to go Maximum is a turn off and is against ALL usability rules. They failed.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any site that forces my browser to go Maximum is a turn off and is against ALL usability rules. They failed.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Anonymous</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25267</link> <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:36:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25267</guid> <description><![CDATA[Ummm why don&#039;t you have flash player installed on your Droid device? Its free and one of the main points of buying that type of device. They promote that on basically every commercial. Install the software, problem solved.  Windows Phone 7 along with blackberry is getting flash also. Everyone is except the iphone. I just went to that Google site, then I left it faster than I arrived at it. My point is most all modern devices support flash now, most major companies STILL use flash even after Apple influenced them not to because html5 produces boring sites and EVERYONE can see the huge difference between flash and html5.  Code your site what ever way you please but just recognize how low budget it looks next to a flash site that is well constructed.With the exception of a few here, many are trying to break into bigger parts of the industry. I don&#039;t know why you would focus on whether your site can be brought up on an Ipad or not when other major players are not.  In Pats case his client likes to use their phone, so it makes sense. My clients don&#039;t do that and if I am telling them I can shoot their commercial projects and build them a dynamic site, its not going to be anything looking like an html5 site. Have you visited the Adidas website? Yo]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ummm why don&#8217;t you have flash player installed on your Droid device? Its free and one of the main points of buying that type of device. They promote that on basically every commercial. Install the software, problem solved.  Windows Phone 7 along with blackberry is getting flash also. Everyone is except the iphone. I just went to that Google site, then I left it faster than I arrived at it. </p><p>My point is most all modern devices support flash now, most major companies STILL use flash even after Apple influenced them not to because html5 produces boring sites and EVERYONE can see the huge difference between flash and html5.  Code your site what ever way you please but just recognize how low budget it looks next to a flash site that is well constructed.</p><p>With the exception of a few here, many are trying to break into bigger parts of the industry. I don&#8217;t know why you would focus on whether your site can be brought up on an Ipad or not when other major players are not.  In Pats case his client likes to use their phone, so it makes sense. My clients don&#8217;t do that and if I am telling them I can shoot their commercial projects and build them a dynamic site, its not going to be anything looking like an html5 site. Have you visited the Adidas website? Yo</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Motti Bembaron</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25265</link> <dc:creator>Motti Bembaron</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:35:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25265</guid> <description><![CDATA[Hunter, the problem with Graph Paper Press and others is their &quot;need&quot; to keep getting paid every month or a year. And it&#039;s not cheap either. Themeforest offers the themes for one time payment ($40 at the most). I have my blog and site running with templates from themeforest. After two years of happy using I am just in the process of changing my blog to a new and fresh one (Brick + Mason theme bought at Themeforest) and I am looking for a good stand alone site preferably HTML which I did not find yet.The one thing that Flash sites do well is the ability to have passoword protected galleries for clients. That is one place where WP does not shine. There aren&#039;t any good password protection scripts and WP password protection is a joke. Also,many of the WP themes work with the default WP image uploader that really sucks.As a wedding photographer I need to upload hundreds of images really quicly and have them in a neat looking gallery for clients to view. Another option that Flash has is the ability for the client to choose images from their gallery and e-mail me their selection. Great when designing an album based on client&#039;s suggestion.Any good HTML sites that can provide those features out there?Just my two cents.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hunter, the problem with Graph Paper Press and others is their &#8220;need&#8221; to keep getting paid every month or a year. And it&#8217;s not cheap either. Themeforest offers the themes for one time payment ($40 at the most). I have my blog and site running with templates from themeforest. After two years of happy using I am just in the process of changing my blog to a new and fresh one (Brick + Mason theme bought at Themeforest) and I am looking for a good stand alone site preferably HTML which I did not find yet.</p><p>The one thing that Flash sites do well is the ability to have passoword protected galleries for clients. That is one place where WP does not shine. There aren&#8217;t any good password protection scripts and WP password protection is a joke. Also,many of the WP themes work with the default WP image uploader that really sucks.</p><p>As a wedding photographer I need to upload hundreds of images really quicly and have them in a neat looking gallery for clients to view. Another option that Flash has is the ability for the client to choose images from their gallery and e-mail me their selection. Great when designing an album based on client&#8217;s suggestion.</p><p>Any good HTML sites that can provide those features out there?</p><p>Just my two cents.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Alfonso Pajares</title><link>http://fstoppers.com/new-html-photography-websites-worth-checking-out/comment-page-1#comment-25256</link> <dc:creator>Alfonso Pajares</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:27:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://fstoppers.com/?p=12687#comment-25256</guid> <description><![CDATA[Funny thing is that I tried to pull Mario&#039;s site on my Samsung galaxy S running android and it said I needed flash to run it. So even that 52% is off since not all android phones have flash installed. Also Windows 7 phones don&#039;t have flash installed and can&#039;t have it installed. Simple website designs don&#039;t mean blah. Look at  the google+ design. It&#039;s really simple but nice with no need for flash.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny thing is that I tried to pull Mario&#8217;s site on my Samsung galaxy S running android and it said I needed flash to run it. So even that 52% is off since not all android phones have flash installed. Also Windows 7 phones don&#8217;t have flash installed and can&#8217;t have it installed. Simple website designs don&#8217;t mean blah. Look at  the google+ design. It&#8217;s really simple but nice with no need for flash.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>