I'm a curious, creative, Southern boy working in Anderson, SC. My corner of the internet is brought to life thanks to friendly cowboys at Eleven2 Hosting. If you're new here, you might be interested in the RSS Feed or Archives. You can say hello via .
Photographer friend Jeremy Cowart has a new website. Flash-heavy and a lot more agency-friendly in terms of getting the work in front of potential clients. An understandable change of pace and UI, based on what I know of the industry. Oh, and my lovely bride makes an appearance in the Life section.
So, since I don’t keep up with things, really, would you say Flash is back? Seemed to me a lot of designers were going into CSS/HTML sites recently.
said Chris
at 10:55pm on Monday
What the hell? His last site was top notch. Easy to use. Hot. Why the change? This seems a little clunky and not completely thought through. For example, when you click Blog it spawns a new window. Then, if you hit hit the masthead, it takes you back to the homepage in that window. You’re left with two instances of the site in two different windows. I am not against Flash, I’ve made my living using it for 12 years but sometimes it’s not the best solution. I preferred the last incarnation.
said M.A. Turner
at 8:02am on Tuesday
Hey M.A. It’s a long story. The short version is that clients weren’t wowed by the css site. They used to respond all the time to my old flash site and no one ever said a word about the previous css site except for web designers. It’s about wowing potential clients with an image to make them want to hire you. It’s not about an amazing interface or the latest technology as much as I’d like for it to be. These are things I’ve had to learn the hard way.
said jeremy cowart
at 8:31am on Tuesday
I completely understand. I’ve dealt with the same “wow factor” countless times. There’s nothing wrong with the new version, it reminds me of IAAH, 0-Style, etc. For a flash site it is by far better than most.
Have you thought about having the old CSS site serve as a backup/alternate? Are you running a CMS that could accommodate both? Or is the new site just XML? It would be pretty slick to see both versions. Your logo and color scheme seem to be the same as well as the look of your blog. May be a way to please everyone.
One advantage of the current version is the sheer scale of your imagery. They get huge. Which rocks. And I guess from a client perspective that’s good. You’re one talented motherfucker.
said M.A. Turner
at 8:54am on Tuesday
Well, that about answers my question.
said Chris
at 1:18pm on Tuesday
minor glitch
Not sure if you’ll see this jeremy, but when you’re scrolling through pictures and want to go back to the previous picture, it won’t let you. Instead it opens the option to go back to the major categories. . .or at least that’s what it does on my computer. Great work otherwise.
said katie
at 8:19pm on Tuesday
scratch that. i was trying to click on the blue arrows. . .it’s been a long day
said katie
at 8:21pm on Tuesday
Yeah we’ve talked about keeping the other version still. It’s possible for sure and might be a future option. Gotta stop spending money now on cool, new features : )
said jeremy cowart
at 4:16am on Wednesday
Sort of has to make you wonder about people when static photos won’t get you hired, but if the same static photos slide across the page from right to left then they want to hire you. It’s as if the presentation is more important then your actual photos. Love the work regardless.
said Jon
at 10:05am on Wednesday
I loved the old site for its simplicity, but this new one - especially in full-screen mode - showcases the photography in a way the old one just could not. I think it’s a great change. Selfishly I’d love a version of the old one for the iPhone - hehe.
said Grant
at 11:25am on Wednesday