On 12/23/2010 7:24 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Just a quick reply to Moose on some of the matters he commented on;
>> Where in the name of all that is good and true are the forward and back
>> buttons in the galleries?
> They are a real pain to write
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<P><CENTER>
<TABLE border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="200">
<TR>
<TD width="80" align="center"><A href="previous.htm" ><IMG
src="../images/previous.gif" height="30" width="30"
border="0" alt="Previous"></A></TD>
<TD width="80" align="center"><A href="../index.htm" ><IMG
src="../images/home.gif" height="30" width="30" border="0"
alt="Home"></A></TD>
<TD width="80" align="center"><A href="next.htm" ><IMG src="../images/next.gif"
height="30" width="30" border="0"
alt="Next"></A></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</CENTER></P>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous, home and next GIFs are left, up and right arrows.
Previous, home and next HTMs are those for the previous image, home/index page
and next image.
I prefer automated galleries, but do know that this kind of function isn't
hard, just tedious. Copy in the code and fill
in the correct names for the HTMs.
> , and for the life of me I don't see what the problem is in using the<back>
> button of the browser.
Nor was it clear to Ford why nobody much liked the Edsel. The simple point is
that what the purveyor thinks the buyer
should like is almost entirely irrelevant in a market with many willing sellers.
I could go on at great length about this. I spend decades working in a huge
mass market retailer, and I can tell you
it's not possible to sell what people choose not to buy.
If you are trying to sell photographs on the web, potential buyers should find
your site attractive and convenient by
THEIR standards. Personally, I am irritated by both sites like yours and sites
that are so fancy that they make it hard
to just look at the images.
> I do it all the time with Opera and it is just a simple movement of the
> wrist,<click>.
Or, at least on FF & IE, CRTL-right arrow. Nevertheless, it's not your opinion
that counts. I make this statement on the
assumption, based on your prior posts and the site set-up, that you do wish to
sell images. If it's simply a display
medium, and you don't care whether viewers find it appealing to navigate, it
doesn't matter.
> Yes I know the program you use has multiple methods of doing this built into
> each page ( I counted them once and was totally amazed at the multiple
> duplication ( is that good English?)).
I only count three in Singapore, and only if you count the thumbnails at the
bottom and the labels under them as two
separate ways. The ones at the top right are for moving between galleries, not
individual images in one gallery. They
are confusing and I've meant to find and fix their text one day.
> Why write something that is already catered for?
Sigh . . . Because you aren't writing it for coding ease and simplicity. You
are writing it for the vast array of
different folks who may try to use it.
>> Q: How you can tell when a photographer has decided to sell images on the
>> web? A: When the images on their site suddenly get so small that they are
>> hard to enjoy and one can't tell whether they would be worth buying or not.
> Because when they are big enough to enjoy, they are big enough to be worth
> copying and re-using without paying. Many sites use this technique.
Yes, they do. But is it the right way to market images? Are the people doing
that selling anything? Following the
lemmings off the cliff is not a good strategy for survival. It is a good one
for ending up like almost everyone else.
I would ask myself what the loss is from someone copying one of my images.
Until I've sold at least one, it is $0. Until
I know that the copier would have bought it if it weren't free, it's still $0.
So I need to balance potential losses of
little to nothing against sales lost by not presenting my images in a way that
will attract those who might actually buy
them.
Bricks and mortar retailers face similar problems. If they make procedures and
security tight enough to stop all
shoplifting and employee theft and errors, they inconvenience and/or offend
customers enough to lose more in profit from
lost sales than they save through cutting those losses. Everybody in such
businesses puts up with some theft in order to
maximize profit.
How about those who can't afford my prices, steal an 800 pixel image, print up
a crummy version, hang it on their wall
and enjoy it? I don't know about you, but I'm OK with that. If I've gifted them
with some enjoyment, all the better.
>> An active site area of more than 840x600 pixels might be worth considering,
>> too. Most gallery and gallery design software sizes to fill the browser
>> window, which is much more attractive that a small gallery in the corner of
>> a sea of blank blue.
> I'm aware of this issue, and I haven't redesigned because my monitor does not
> conform to the current wide-screen fashion. Don't have a better answer for
> this one yet. There's no space on my computer desk for a wide screen (
> and I dislike them a lot).
"Sorry, I couldn't find a way to make the seats comfortable. I hope you won't
buy someone else's car with comfortable
seats."
>> So why NOT just find and use a canned solution? You drive a car somebody
>> else built, live in a house somebody else built, wear clothes someone else
>> made, use a computer . . . you get the idea.
> Haven't seen a canned solution yet that I like.
Like for yourself, or like for making the visit enjoyable for others?
> Nor do I know how to get them (basically have never looked as I haven't seen
> this road as one I want to travel on).
If you should change your mind, recent posts in this thread and those likely to
come in response to Nicholas' post
present several alternatives. Many of them provide 'skins' that make possible a
vast array of different appearances.
>> The few people actually making money from their art photography are spending
>> time making images and promoting them, not coding HTML. You may recall Bob
>> saying that he has a web site because it is expected by those
>> who buy his images - but almost all actual sales are in person in galleries
>> or restaurants.
> Where I live, galleries and/or restaurants and not really an option for
> photography. Most galleries *will not* host any photography.
How hard have you tried? What you say is generally true in many places, but
exceptions exist. One common outlet is
artists co-ops. It helps, of course, if you are in a tourist area and your
images appeal to them. I suppose that isn't
the case in central Otago. Beyond that, getting images displayed for sale is as
much a matter of salesmanship as
anything else. Keeping them there is a matter of their selling.
>>> I seem to be losing my focus (excuse the pun) on photography.
>> If that's a real shift in your interests, it's natural and shouldn't be a
>> problem. If you mean that the overhead of creating a web site to sell it is
>> overwhelming the enjoyment of photography itself, see last comment
> It's a result of me getting myself into the life situation I now am in. I did
> not anticipate that getting a partner and all the domesticity that comes with
> that (versus the single life) would cut into my photography time so much.
[Sound of Moose falling down on the floor and laughing himself silly.] In the
time between college and my fifties, I
took few pics that weren't family gatherings, kids school or vacations.
> That's the short version of the answer. I *will* be working on fixing this.
> So here I am at 4.20 am writing this - woke and couldn't sleep, at least I
> have time totally to my self at 4.20!
Ah well, different strokes. I didn't get to bed last night until about 4:30,
but slept well 'til time to be up at 10:30.
;-)
> Thanks for writing.
My pleasure.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|