How to make your photography website more accessible.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Aaron, Jun 22, 2007.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron Guest

    I'm a "web application developer" and freelance web designer by day,
    and I get asked a lot of questions about building websites, sometimes
    by photographers. I have found that a lot of photographers out there
    take matters into their own hands or hire a third party (purchase
    gallery hosting space, etc.) without knowing some important things to
    look out for.

    I've just written an article going over some "best practices" for web
    development that particularly apply to photographers, which might help
    steer you in the right direction.

    I've submitted the article to PhotographyVoter.com, it's a new site,
    not a ton of traffic yet, but you might think about signing up for it
    and helping them out. If you do, vote for me! Some really nice
    articles show up there on a regular basis but I sense that they need
    more voting participation to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    http://photographyvoter.com/story.php?title=Website-Rules-Photographers

    Here's the direct link if you're completely not interested in PV:

    http://www.singleservingphoto.com/2007/06/20/web-rules-for-photographers/

    Cheers!

    --
    Aaron
    http://www.fisheyegallery.com
    http://www.singleservingphoto.com
     
    Aaron, Jun 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aaron

    DOCJohnson Guest

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:19:40 GMT, Aaron <> wrote:

    >I'm a "web application developer" and freelance web designer by day,
    >and I get asked a lot of questions about building websites, sometimes
    >by photographers. I have found that a lot of photographers out there
    >take matters into their own hands or hire a third party (purchase
    >gallery hosting space, etc.) without knowing some important things to
    >look out for.
    >
    >I've just written an article going over some "best practices" for web
    >development that particularly apply to photographers, which might help
    >steer you in the right direction.
    >


    Quite a piss-poor attempt to bring traffic to your site just to sell your crap.
    You didn't even cover things like the uselessness of watermarks, the best way to
    protect images (low resolution and high jpg compression), etc.

    Take a hike spammer.
     
    DOCJohnson, Jun 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aaron

    Frank ess Guest

    DOCJohnson wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:19:40 GMT, Aaron <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I'm a "web application developer" and freelance web designer by
    >> day,
    >> and I get asked a lot of questions about building websites,
    >> sometimes
    >> by photographers. I have found that a lot of photographers out
    >> there
    >> take matters into their own hands or hire a third party (purchase
    >> gallery hosting space, etc.) without knowing some important things
    >> to
    >> look out for.
    >>
    >> I've just written an article going over some "best practices" for
    >> web
    >> development that particularly apply to photographers, which might
    >> help steer you in the right direction.
    >>

    >
    > Quite a piss-poor attempt to bring traffic to your site just to sell
    > your crap. You didn't even cover things like the uselessness of
    > watermarks, the best way to protect images (low resolution and high
    > jpg compression), etc.
    >
    > Take a hike spammer.


    I think Mr DOCJohnson is hypercritical.

    I looked at the blog-like page and found it included some good
    information. It seemed to me there would be nothing of much use to me
    behind the other links, so I didn't follow them.

    I would recommend to Aaron that he reconsider editing "Entire sites
    such as YouTube, digg, del.icio.us, and the brand new
    PhotographyVoter.com is based on this principle." "sites ... is" seems
    not-too-pretty-good to me.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Jun 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Aaron

    -hh Guest

    "Frank ess" <> wrote:
    > I think Mr DOCJohnson is hypercritical.


    YMMV.


    > I looked at the blog-like page and found it included some good
    > information. It seemed to me there would be nothing of much use to me
    > behind the other links, so I didn't follow them.


    You got more out of it than I did.


    > I would recommend to Aaron that he reconsider editing "Entire sites
    > such as YouTube, digg, del.icio.us, and the brand new
    > PhotographyVoter.com is based on this principle." "sites ... is" seems
    > not-too-pretty-good to me.


    That's merely grammar. I'm more concerned about the key points that
    were missed, namely that while the whole 'sharing is caring' has a
    point, and while it can be beneficial, the act of directly revealing
    your image's URL just makes it all the easier to be misused, such as
    copied (theft) or hotlinked to (appropriation of your bandwidth & your
    storage that they're not paying for).

    I've been debating on if to switch over to .PDFs as a means to disrupt
    the casual 'borrower' of my copyrighted stuff. I have a couple of
    trial balloons running now; will see what their hit rate looks like in
    the logs in 2-3 months.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jun 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Aaron

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, DOCJohnson <> emerged from the ether
    and spake thus:
    > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:19:40 GMT, Aaron <> wrote:
    >
    >>I'm a "web application developer" and freelance web designer by day,
    >>and I get asked a lot of questions about building websites, sometimes
    >>by photographers. I have found that a lot of photographers out there
    >>take matters into their own hands or hire a third party (purchase
    >>gallery hosting space, etc.) without knowing some important things to
    >>look out for.
    >>
    >>I've just written an article going over some "best practices" for web
    >>development that particularly apply to photographers, which might help
    >>steer you in the right direction.
    >>

    >
    > Quite a piss-poor attempt to bring traffic to your site just to sell your crap.
    > You didn't even cover things like the uselessness of watermarks, the best way to
    > protect images (low resolution and high jpg compression), etc.
    >
    > Take a hike spammer.
    >


    I covered both of those topics in previous articles, lazy. I will take
    your advice and link to them from that article, though, now that you
    mention it. Cheers.

    --
    Aaron
    http://www.fisheyegallery.com
    http://www.singleservingphoto.com
     
    Aaron, Jun 23, 2007
    #5
  6. Aaron

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, -hh <> emerged from the ether
    and spake thus:
    > "Frank ess" <> wrote:
    >> I think Mr DOCJohnson is hypercritical.

    >
    > YMMV.
    >
    >
    >> I looked at the blog-like page and found it included some good
    >> information. It seemed to me there would be nothing of much use to me
    >> behind the other links, so I didn't follow them.

    >
    > You got more out of it than I did.
    >
    >
    >> I would recommend to Aaron that he reconsider editing "Entire sites
    >> such as YouTube, digg, del.icio.us, and the brand new
    >> PhotographyVoter.com is based on this principle." "sites ... is" seems
    >> not-too-pretty-good to me.

    >
    > That's merely grammar. I'm more concerned about the key points that
    > were missed, namely that while the whole 'sharing is caring' has a
    > point, and while it can be beneficial, the act of directly revealing
    > your image's URL just makes it all the easier to be misused, such as
    > copied (theft) or hotlinked to (appropriation of your bandwidth & your
    > storage that they're not paying for).
    >
    > I've been debating on if to switch over to .PDFs as a means to disrupt
    > the casual 'borrower' of my copyrighted stuff. I have a couple of
    > trial balloons running now; will see what their hit rate looks like in
    > the logs in 2-3 months.
    >
    >
    > -hh
    >


    Good catch on the grammar mistake there, I just fixed it.

    What I perhaps should have added is something about how your web
    server can be configured not to serve your images via direct links
    when they are placed on other sites. I had that happen once with an
    Apple logo that I had on my site simply as a visual aid for an article
    about logos. Some kid placed it in a forum post (ironically flaming
    Apple), so I started blocking outside referrers on image file
    requests.

    I track my site's traffic closely using AWStats (.org) and at the
    moment my bandwidth is not being stressed so I am not blocking outside
    image referrers; I figure it's "free" publicity, the only price I'm
    paying is a bit of bandwidth.

    When I started writing this latest article, being a web developer
    myself, I found myself slipping deeper and deeper into technical
    issues that I'm not sure would be helpful to a casual photographer. I
    could outline, in great detail, how Apache's mod_rewrite can be
    configured to block outside sites from snagging your images, but I
    haven't met many photographers who are also server administrators and
    I wonder how helpful that would be. Still, I suppose it bears
    mentioning.

    I've written a bunch of articles in the past few months and most of
    them have been very well received, but I have also found that the more
    technical they get (not related to photography, but rather
    programming, server configuration, etc.) the less my readers seem to
    care, so I tend to shy away from being too nerdy outside of the
    photography realm. There is definitely a geek threshold.

    --
    Aaron
    http://www.fisheyegallery.com
    http://www.singleservingphoto.com
     
    Aaron, Jun 23, 2007
    #6
  7. Aaron

    -hh Guest

    Aaron <> wrote:
    >
    > What I perhaps should have added is something about how your web
    > server can be configured not to serve your images via direct links
    > when they are placed on other sites.


    That would be useful, although it would have also necessitated
    mentioning the 'darker'side of the web that's less altruistic.


    > I could outline, in great detail, how Apache's mod_rewrite can be
    > configured to block outside sites from snagging your images, but I
    > haven't met many photographers who are also server administrators and
    > I wonder how helpful that would be. Still, I suppose it bears
    > mentioning.


    You could be helpful by talking about the pros/cons of various
    blocking options within the Apache cpanel web interface, as that's an
    easy enough tool for general use.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jun 23, 2007
    #7
  8. Aaron

    Aaron Guest

    And lo, -hh <> emerged from the ether
    and spake thus:
    > Aaron <> wrote:
    >>
    >> What I perhaps should have added is something about how your web
    >> server can be configured not to serve your images via direct links
    >> when they are placed on other sites.

    >
    > That would be useful, although it would have also necessitated
    > mentioning the 'darker'side of the web that's less altruistic.
    >
    >
    >> I could outline, in great detail, how Apache's mod_rewrite can be
    >> configured to block outside sites from snagging your images, but I
    >> haven't met many photographers who are also server administrators and
    >> I wonder how helpful that would be. Still, I suppose it bears
    >> mentioning.

    >
    > You could be helpful by talking about the pros/cons of various
    > blocking options within the Apache cpanel web interface, as that's an
    > easy enough tool for general use.
    >
    >
    > -hh


    In my experience, based on years of geekery, the Internet is generally
    altruistic. Unfortunately, the nature of the Internet makes it easy
    for a small number of malicious people to affect a large number of
    non-malicious people. That said, I tend to be more defensive than
    offensive and cross my bridges as I come to them.

    I've never used cpanel, having jumped straight into manual
    configuration since day one, but if cpanel is something that web hosts
    offer, it would be worth investigating for the sake of people with
    access to it.

    The web hosts I had who offered control panel interfaces pretty much
    rolled their own, I think. I used apollohosting.com for a while and
    also phpwebhosting.com, both of whom developed their own stuff. In the
    end, I wound up switching to a Linux-based virtual hosting setup where
    I basically get SSH and root account access to a virtual machine with
    nothing but a barebones Linux distribution on it and I can just go
    wild. It's both challenging as well as satisfying to have that level
    of control.

    At least with mod_rewrite you can often place the directives in your
    own .htaccess file, but that seems way over the heads of the people I
    generally write for. I have a more technical/personal blog where I
    write about crazy stuff I do at work like editing VIM syntax files,
    word stemming in JavaScript, and that sort of thing, but I don't think
    it interests photographers too much.

    --
    Aaron
    http://www.fisheyegallery.com
    http://www.singleservingphoto.com
     
    Aaron, Jun 23, 2007
    #8
  9. Aaron

    -hh Guest

    Aaron <> wrote:
    >
    > In my experience, based on years of geekery, the Internet is generally
    > altruistic. Unfortunately, the nature of the Internet makes it easy
    > for a small number of malicious people to affect a large number of
    > non-malicious people.


    That is the basic problem: the .01%'ers that can really screw things
    up. The problem is that there's not just 50,000 of us on the web
    anymore, so .01% of a hundred million ends up being a lot of folks
    (its the statisics of large numbers).

    Just within the past ~6 months, I've had around 3 known instances of
    copyright theft (a highly relevant topic in a photo group) and within
    the past month, I had a script kiddie attack successfully hack a
    password onto an Apache system, which to be safe required it to be
    completely wiped and restored from backup.


    >
    > I've never used cpanel, having jumped straight into manual
    > configuration since day one, but if cpanel is something that web hosts
    > offer, it would be worth investigating for the sake of people with
    > access to it.


    Some hosts do offer it and for end-users looking for Admin tools with
    a low bullshit quotient, it is quite useful. Awstats is offered, as
    are also IP Deny and Hotlink Deny modules. I suspect that it probably
    does most of what you think people need, with no need to get mired
    down in the detailed line code.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jun 23, 2007
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuYXN0YQ==?=

    Need help please.... How can I make my D:\ accessible?

    =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuYXN0YQ==?=, Nov 15, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,286
    Cerebrus
    Nov 16, 2006
  2. wina605

    website make your own

    wina605, Apr 5, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    286
    wina605
    Apr 5, 2007
  3. mori3

    Make your Website & eMail Talk! 628

    mori3, Jun 28, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    304
  4. lnpworld

    Make your own website in 5 minutes for free!

    lnpworld, Feb 10, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    554
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Feb 11, 2008
  5. moiztankiwala
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,966
    moiztankiwala
    Dec 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page