liveBooks Websites: Your Opinions Please

I'm really bored with my website and not happy with the way my images are presented in the galleries, not to mention some other issues I've been having with the provider.

liveBooks is offering a KILLER deal on custom website design right now and I'm seriously considering pulling the trigger. They can also integrate my Wordpress blog so it's all seamless, which is cool.

I'm hesitant only because the sites are designed in Flash and in the past I've heard people comment that photo editors don't like Flash sites. This was 4 or 5 years ago. In reviewing the liveBooks portfolio they've built sites for National Geographic, Jimmy Chin, Richard Avedon, Art Wolfe and several other very well-known photographers/brands. Given that maybe the perception of Flash has changed and is more widely accepted.

So, what I'm asking is this: What are your thoughts on a website that makes limited use of Flash? I'm not talking about a bunch of stupid and pointless Flash animations. Rather, liveBooks uses Flash to create the galleries which are elegantly presented. SEO is a non-issue since they use an HTML mirror site with all the SEO stuff built-in.

Your thoughts, comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated!

Flash has come a long way in the last couple of years. Security issues, search engine issues, navigation issues ... most of these have been overcome - if implemented correctly in a website. But there is still a large number of people who still have a disdain for Flash. I was one of those people, until recently. (I still leave Flash websites that load music automatically, go full screen automatically, don't allow any browser navigation, and don't let me bookmark pages.)

I've actually heard the opposite about photo editors ... that they like the ease/speed of viewing images in Flash portfolios. And that many like seeing LiveBooks portfolios - and that it's why they're so popular now. But Flash is still somewhat polarizing.

I took a good look at LiveBooks recently. My overall impression: Good looking portfolio presentation, not so intuitive process for buying photos. It seems better suited to commercial photographers who want to be hired based on a portfolio - and not so good for selling stuff online. Even Art Wolfe ditches his LiveBooks portion when it comes to selling his products. And I wasn't too impressed by the HTML mirrored websites. Make sure you see a working HTML demo. Now doubt they seem to have overcome the SEO issue, and you can bookmark the individual pages. They seem to make website updates very easy - which can be another problem for Flash websites.

I personally like Flash when it's done well. And like I said, most of the complaints about Flash have been overcome in recent years. I look forward to using Flash for my new "hybrid" website (100% Flash for a Portfolios feature) ... the rest of the website will be traditional HTML/PHP. There's no reason to avoid Flash. It's built in to virtually 100% of browsers now. It just has to be done well. But I'd still reconsider a 100% Flash-based website carefully, depending on your goals for the end user.

Some other considerations:
- Flash websites cannot be read by mobile devices (even iPhone)
- Flash/ActiveX is often disable by users who hate Flash, and by corporations who don't allow Flash for employee use
- It's a dead end for dialup users, and anyone with disabilities
- If you go with Flash, make sure your text is big ... because your grandma can't increase text size in the browser

Certainly don't finalize your decision based on the technology used for the implementation. Websites can be done well, or very poorly, using any technology.

As Jesse said, Flash has come a long way recently. And it is changing even more as the Adobe Flex language matures. For instance, Flex has, or is, addressing the considerations Jesse mentioned. The push into mobile devices has already started. Many companies are now developing Flex/Flash applications for the browser instead of HTML/Javascript/PHP/Etc because it is MORE secure. Controlled corporate/government systems are much more likely to disable java_script than Flash. And Flex resolves Section 508 (disability) and text sizing issues. But these are just details. The big picture is that Flash is already ubiquitous and is spreading into new niches. This is not a technology that currently warrants viability or usability concerns, if implemented properly.

Those who "hate Flash" are akin to those who (used to?) "hate digital" - likely opinions based on bad experiences with poorly implemented and/or infant technology. And these days, if you disable Flash in your browser, its likely that you'll not be able to view at least some content on half the websites on the internet.

If I were to redesign my website today (oh, if I had that kind of time...), it would be done entirely in Flex (which creates Flash).

Flash does not work on iPhones, possibly some other devices.

Scott, that is awesome. I hadn't even heard about Flex. The push into mobile devices is good news too.

Very timely... I've also been redeveloping my web presence and, like Jesse and Scott, will only use limited Flash for Portfolios (which will also be available as downloadable PDFs).

Re: LiveBooks - the photographer sites I've seen from them look great. But they are performance nightmares. This is what drives people to "hate Flash". That, and music that starts playing automatically! SEO is still a problem too.

In general, I think it's a mistake to put all your web-eggs into one basket. Every independent photographer (or every business!) should cover all the bases. I know, it's a lot of work, especially getting everything set up at the beginning. But once some maintenance processes are in place - and many of these services are being hooked together - it gets a lot easier.

Here's my updated web strategy in a nutshell:
1. Having my own web site, on my own hosting account, that I manage the code, is essential. This site needs to be almost all server-generated HTML (PHP; Drupal with Gallery2 to be more specific) with bits of "new media" content - some Flash, some QuickTime etc. but just for special content - not the meat of the site.
2. Posting my work on other "affiliate" sites with high visibility is a strong priority #2. I'm simultaneously developing my Photoshelter account to handle licensing etc. Photoshelter will house the exact same stock archives as can be found on my own site, minus the multimedia "Portfolios".
3. Putting up galleries on sites like Flickr, SmugMug, PBase etc. can also drmatically effect web visibility. Even Facebook and Twitter posts can drive traffic to your own sites, where the funnel is set up to help customers through the purchase process.

Also, I should mention that there are Lightroom 2 plugins for most of the web gallery services out there today. Set up Collections in Lightroom for the images you want to go to the site, configure the plug in, and with a couple of clicks all your photos are sent to that web gallery. In my case, the LR plugins for Gallery2 and Photoshelter are lifesavers.

I'm launching my new site in early 2010... followed somewhat coincidentally with a "Web Sites for Photographers" class I'm teaching through Illuminate Workshops in Denver.

Larry wrote:
Flash does not work on iPhones, possibly some other devices.

Not true. Developing for the Apple iPhone using Flash This is not Flash running in the iPhone browser, but that is coming, too.

And here are demos of Flash running on other mobile devices.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies.

Nat: I'm hitting social media hard these days and I am seeing an increase in traffic to my blog and websites. However, there is no way in hell I'm able to do what you're doing with your website. I'm not a web developer and never will be. So, I'm forced to either hire one to constantly maintain and update my site (too much money) or use a company like liveBooks, Photoshelter, Foliosnap, etc.

I agree 100% with those who hate music on websites. It just ain't cool.

Scott: Thanks for the information, dude. A big part of the attraction w/ liveBooks is their site design. Even their templates are simple, clean and generally easy to navigate. Their custom sites are even slicker. My website has for the most part done the job from a user standpoint but I'm just tired of the boring design and several back-end issues I've had. Time for something new.

Hey Bret,

Here is a recent article that compares several of the "One-stop-shop Websites-for-Photographers".
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/business/your-total-website-solution.html

Thanks, Phillip. I read the article last night. Helpful in comparing the different sites.

Scott - I hadn't heard about Flash working in an iPhone browser. Do you have any more details on that?

In regards to Livebooks if you hit one of those sites on an IPhone or browser which is set so flash does not play you will get the HTML version of the Livebooks pages which means they are optimized for SEO. Take a look at some photographers who use Livebooks. PE/AD/etc like the Livebooks feel as it is easy for them to navigate as they know where the information is located to go to the next pages. If you are wanting to attract editorial or assignment work then something like Livebooks is the way to go, if you are looking for an ecommerce approach I would go elsewhere and focus on something which will effectively handle that aspect of it. The one thing to consider besides no music on your website, is that if you are doing e-commerce, weddings, portraits or anything like that and also looking for assignment work then two websites is a must since the PE/AD/AB people will look down on that side of the business. It is fine for your B2C to link to the B2B/B2PE site but not the opposite way.

PE
AD
B2C
B2B
B2PE


At least I understood SEO and HTML!! (And I thought the gov't was bad with acronyms! )

Oooops... here you go.

PE = Photo Editor
AD = Art Director
AB = Art Buyer
B2C = Business to Consumer
B2B = Business to Business
B2PE = Business to Photo Editor

SEO = Search Engine Optimization
SEM = Search Engine Marketing