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, and for the life of me I don't see what the
problem is in using the <back> button of the browser. I do it all the time with
Opera and it is just a simple movement of the wrist, <click>.
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?)).
Why write something that is already catered for?
> 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.
> 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).
> 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. 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).
> 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.
> > 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. 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 !
Thanks for writing.
Brian Swale.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|