Comments on: A Photo Folio- New Website Design Company For Photographers

By: Web Designing Company New York

Web Designing Company New York — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:46 +0000

Thanks for sharing this informative post.

By: Investing in a variety at the amount

Investing in a variety at the amount — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:32:45 +0000

[...] want to trade like a forex trader. There are a career Made by a forex trader. You do not need to be this type or have special knowledge to make it in classes. Only when I understood an education [...]

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:44:58 +0000

@ Ryan: The hosting price includes updates to the admin control panel and your design as we make them. Additionally you can switch designs once for free and $100 thereafter. That, a bit of markup on a top shelf server and our great customer support (try calling customer support on a cheap server and you find out quickly why it’s cheap) is the reason why the hosting cost is not the same as just buying hosting yourself.

Not sure why your emails would bounce but that wouldn’t be an issue with us.

By: Ryan Schude

Ryan Schude — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:27:39 +0000

This looks to be the solution to my image size cap problem that other templates have. Without rushing into and setting it up tonight, maybe someone can address a few questions. Why is the hosting $17 a month when godaddy’s is around that price for a year? I assume it is because it is better, but I don’t know. For example, I get a lot of people telling me their emails to me bounce back to them. Is this a hosting issue I wont have to deal with through APF? Would I be able to switch designs as new ones are created or as new features are offered or old kinks worked out? Or do i have to buy a whole new setup?

By: Keith Green

Keith Green — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:26:05 +0000

@49 – I believe there may be a miscommunication or misinterpretation here (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Richard – It appears that what you are referring to is the final layout and page design featuring the final selects of a photographer who was initially commissioned for that particular assignment/campaign.

I believe what Debra is referring to is the use of “comps” taken from one photographer’s work – appropriated via online screen grabs, books requested for review, previously published work etc. – used as a “template” then recreated either blatantly (or a variation of the original), by commissioning another photographer; often for substantially reduced fees – two totally different scenarios.

By: Debra Weiss

Debra Weiss — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:38:00 +0000

Well yes, Richard, I do. Just because a practice is commonplace, that does not make it legal. The imagery belongs to the photographer and before any image can be used legally, one needs the permission of the author. It is not yours or anyone else’s for the taking. Photographers in the past were actually paid comp fees, but this too fell victim to their long laundry list of eroded rights. More often than not, especially in the assignment arena, the photographer whose work has been used in the comp is not the one that is hired. This has always been a problem and still continues to be so.

To further understand my point, an awareness campaign was launched in the 90’s called ASK FIRST, which can be found here: http://www.gag.org/about/ask_first.php

That most photographers don’t object is fear based, and no wonder in light of your statement “But if you consider it stealing just show us your URL then I’ll just tell my art directors to stay away from your site when mocking up comps”. What that statement boils down to is “you’ll never work in this town again”, and offers the photographer grounds for a lawsuit as it constitutes blacklisting.

Photographers are every bit as important to agencies and publications as the agencies and publications are to the photographers. Please treat them and their imagery with the same respect you would want for your work.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:24:54 +0000

Debra, you don’t even know what you’re talking about. If you’ve ever really worked in the ad or editorial industry, it’s all about the comps before licensing images. Rarely would someone license an image would first being able to see what it looks like in the context of the finished product. There is nothing being stolen for that purpose. But if you consider it stealing just show us your URL then I’ll just tell my art directors to stay away from your site when mocking up comps.

By: NAME IRRELEVANT

NAME IRRELEVANT — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:59:25 +0000

“Unauthorized use”? What? Naaaah… Never. This is America, dude.

By: Debra Weiss

Debra Weiss — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:11:07 +0000

@45 – You are correct. This is an Orphan Works nightmare in the making.
@46 – Upside? This is illegal and rarely do they use the photographer whose work they have stolen for the composite.

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:31:29 +0000

No, the screengrab function on all computers makes it impossible to prevent that from happening. The upside is that creatives will use your images for composites and the clients will select you to shoot the campaign because the composites look so good because they could clip a huge image off your site… maybe.

By: Mark Tomalty

Mark Tomalty — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:25:57 +0000

Hi Rob

I was just directed to check out your new venture as I am
in the market for a site makeover.
Really love a lot of what you are offering and,in
particular,the large images as available in the Design2/Manhattan template

One major issue I can foresee is that when I view,for example,
on a 30″ display I’m able to grab a screen image that is of
sufficient quality to do a very decent 6 x 10 inch print.
As well,being a screen grab, all image metadata is stripped
out,including copyright info, and thereby creating a potential
orphan work.

Obviously,this process can be repeated for every website
portfolio but given the huge size availability you make
possible the potential for unauthorized use moves into
some modest print applications.

Is there anything that can be done,short of watermarking,
that might help address this potential?

Mark

By: Tim Olsen

Tim Olsen — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:28:47 +0000

Awesome, Awesome, Awesome! Very clean, very tight, very hip. I want one!

By: Wolf189

Wolf189 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:57:36 +0000

Hello Rob

I enjoyed your photo essay section (in your own portfolio) very much.

The design is clean, simple and to the point.

Wish you guys the best of luck.

Cheers

Wolf189

By: th

th — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:07:51 +0000

@37&39:

While most people seem to have 23″ displays, would it be a jpg @ 2560 x 1600 to take advantage of full screen on a 30″ Display? I am guessing not many people use anything larger.

By: Brooks Ayola

Brooks Ayola — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:57:46 +0000

I wish I could zoom in on the images on the iPhone.

By: stikman

stikman — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:56:02 +0000

iPhone loading some crazy overlapping txt here and how do I toto next image in portfolio, it appears I am stuck on lance and laird

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:54:29 +0000

@ 37. Curious: Upload size as in, how many k the files size is? There isn’t any that I’m aware of. The size of the images that will fit in the designs is D1: 878×585 and D2: up to 1860×1140. I just loaded new 1800 wide images on the Bill Cash site and think it looks pretty good.

If there’s something specific you’re looking for in a design just let me know.

By: Vittore Fotografo

Vittore Fotografo — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:21:54 +0000

I really like the project.
I was already thinking about it for my wedding busines (BigFolio.com)…
It’s nice to know that it would be really easy for us to upload our pictures.

By: curious

curious — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:52:16 +0000

Rob, Would you please give an honest and straight answer on upload sizes? Everyone(LB, etc) use different limits and I’m curious to how yours are defined. Curious to see your other styles. Brooklyn looks way to much like LB to me. (but it is better) Manhatten is good but curious what Queens, Statin Island and the Bronx will look like

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:06:48 +0000

Hey Rob-
Really cool venture.
Love the full screen option, most AD’s here have 23″ cinema displays, so pixelation doesn’t seem to be a problem at that size.
Try blowing up a Getty comp to that size… The big thumbs are nice too. Overall load times seem fast, much faster than LB.
I agree with some of the above comments-mouse over folder opening and arrow key page turning would be a bonus but it sounds like your on it.
I see so many bad photog sites, I hope I see more of yours in the future.
Chris

By: th

th — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:56:51 +0000

The design is nice and clean. The Cash link under demo/manhattan has the Rob Haggart logo (just sayin’ bro!) and the full screen on brooklyn is too bright imo. Perhaps a black background instead of light gray.

By: Marshall

Marshall — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:24:33 +0000

Ohhhaha this is great. Will you be doing all tech support right here on APE? You’ve got your work cut out for you mister.

Good luck with everything here. You’ll need it – I can already feel the madness.

Is a thumbnail-based gallery on the horizon? Perhaps you can create an APE thread to shout on when new designs are released?

Best!

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:50:32 +0000

Looks like there’s a need for a self hosted solution so we’re looking into that. We have a centrally located admin that allows us to update everyone at once when we make improvements, so we need to turn that into a single user admin.

I’m working on the Bill Cash site to see if there’s a sweet spot between image size and load time but the other design has a fixed image size to avoid the problem of trying to make your images look good at 14 and 30.

We don’t have video yet. I expect it to be implemented within a couple months and activated on all the accounts and designs. It’s another reason why a central admin is cool. We can can give everyone video capability at once.

Visit http://www.robhaggart.com on your phone to see how the iPhone/html is working.

By: Tom Benedek

Tom Benedek — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:18:03 +0000

Congratulation, Rob. I had been debating between Livebooks and Cliickbooq. But now… things have changed.

Best,

Tom

By: Joe Holmes

Joe Holmes — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:46:58 +0000

I’ll add my vote to those who love (or at least like a lot) the designs but would like to run the whole shebang on my own host…

By: Erik Dungan

Erik Dungan — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:47:30 +0000

@ Giulio (27)

Sorry, the demos were setup before we launched and didn’t include the iPhone/phone detection.

I’ve added it to the robhaggart.com demo. It will auto-detect the iPhone or you can visit robhaggart.com/iphone/

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:04:46 +0000

Brilliant!
I purchased a bigFolio site several months back and was never totally satisfied with the navigation and look. You’ve provided the answer to my web-prayers.
I’ve heard so many livebooks, bludomain, etc. customer service horror stories that I must commend you on your choice of business partners-the folks at bigFolio are tremendous. I’ve needed Erik and Mike’s help on numerous occasions and they’ve been not only quick to assist-but super-sharp on their tech direction.
I’m really looking forward to seeing your new designs because so far-A Photo Folio is a cold rope out of the park.

Cheers

-Nicholas

By: bird.

bird. — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:46:23 +0000

@ 25…

yeah Reader, I hear ya. There has to be give and take on the whole size vs. quality. I just despise poorly optimized images that pixelate. Isn’t the point to make your images look as good as they possibly can? Deteriorating images are like cutting an overmatte out of old cardboard for the big show. Clean. Clear. Crisp. Those are my priorities. Solid reproduction. Having an image that will fill up my 30″ screen is not.

By: Giulio Sciorio

Giulio Sciorio — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:13:09 +0000

I thought the portfolio sites were also iphone compatible? When I load them on the iphone I get the usual ‘download flash’ error.

By: Will

Will — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:32:28 +0000

1k setup fee? Damn.