My argument over dog pictures...

[Richard Crowe]

We are heavily involved with Maltese rescue and my wife, Judy, commissioned a website designer to produce a site.  We want to feature the rescue Maltese we have for adoption, recount stories of successful adoptions, provide an adoption application which can be filled out on-line as well as providing other information which we deem pertinent to adoptions.

 

Obviously, we want to have pictures on this website and my wife realizes that good images make a great difference in the number of prospective people offering our little dogs "forever" homes. We have seen the difference in the quantity (and quality) of responses to "good" pictures.  We normally advertise the Maltese on www.petfinder.com but, Judy wanted a site that is more personalized and which could be reached with a link from petfinder.

 

I sent the website designer an email asking what size he needed our images.  I never got a reply.  Judy received a reply asking if I spoke for her.  I then spoke to the website designer who (to be very prejudiced) sounds like a computer geek who disrespects anyone that is not quite as adept in computerese as he is.  I stated that I have had extremely good results embedding images in websites and blogs directly from my image hosting site, www.smugmug.com.  I am able to get links which I can embed in blogs, on various forums and into various websites in many different sizes with absolutely no loss in quality. 

 

He stated that, this is not a good way to do it and that his way is better using file transfer protocol (FTP).  "Oh well!", I thought, "he's he expert and knows what he is talking about!"

 

When I saw the preliminary website, I was horrified!  My images which I have worked long and hard to ensure were of the best quality were muddy, oversharpened and noisy.  Our white Maltese looked gray.  I really got angry and told the designed how bad these images looked to me.

 

Judy said that, "They are just pictures of little dogs!" and were "are enough!"  Somehow she forgot the difference between excellent images and less than good imagery in the responses we get.  Then Judy said, "It doesn't matter what the images look like!"

 

That enraged me and I told her that if the quality of the images did not matter, she could darn well shoot them and post-process them and that I didn't want people to think that I had produced the inferior images. I really think that was the bottom line.  I am proud of my photography, work hard at it and am quite sensitive regarding any image which will be attributed to me - cll that vanity if you will.  However, all over the Maltese community, it is well known that I am the person who produces the photos for Judy's adoption program. I will admit that I am vain regarding my photography.  If my images don't look good, I will accept that responsibility but, I don't want anyone messing them up.

 

I was very angry and the geek said that "You have to expect reduced quality..." and continued, "I had to resize the images and you always lose quality when you resize the images!" This pretty well enraged me and I told him that I have been using smugmug for years and have experienced no loss in quality and that even if we didn't use smugmug, I had asked for the size of the pictures needed.  I told him that he might very well be a computer expert but, he has a long way to go before he knows anything about photo quality.

 

Here is an image which I have embedded using smugmug.com. This same image looked muddy and oversharpened on the new website.  Little Porsche looked dirty and gray instead of white.

 

<a href="http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/MALTESE-RESCUE-DOGS/12443645_8kLsu... src="http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/MALTESE-RESCUE-DOGS/Porsche-07-jac...

 

Using smugmug, I can produce direct photo links for web pages in eight different sizes.  I can also produce embeddable links for either blogs or forums in three sizes.

 

The website is not up and running yet so I can't direct to to that site for a comparison.  I am hoping that when we get control of the images to be posted on the website, that I can improve the debacle that the geek's images have become.

 

 

 

[Richard Crowe]

[Diane Margetts]

That photo is gorgeous, the pup is precious and I'll glad I don't live closer to you or Dakota, would for sure, have Maltese brothers and sisters!! --Computer "techies" can be difficult . . .

[Carole (*Koda*Monty*Bindi)]

Photos are very important...a picture's worth a thousand words is said for a reason. Your images are always lovely and (having a rescue maltese myself) I know how difficult it can be to get these little fur balls to sit still! A good photo can really capture so much more than appearances. Sorry you're hitting such walls in your quest.

[Diane Margetts]

You know--I personally wouldn't worry so much about sitting still. I LOVE the photos that capture personality!! And if it's a wiggle-worm, my vote is wiggle away!!!

[Penny, Comiskey & Beemer]

I am no expert...but I do know a good photo from a bad one....your's are superior to most....your web designer is not only a geek but a control freak....find a designer willing to work with his client.....

[Linda and "Toby"]

I'm sorry to hear that you are having these issues with your web designer! Are you locked into using him? Did you give him a deposit, with a final balance due upon approval of the site? Is he going to be hosting your site as well? I know some web designers that may be able to help you, if you want to work with someone else.

[F, Calla & Luca]

This sounds like a good idea!

[Nancy, Ned, Clancy, and Charlie]

YOUR photos are beautiful. I can see why you are proud of them and don't want to take credit for a poorer quality presentation. If possible, I would change web designers.

[F, Calla & Luca]

Good to "see" you.

[F, Calla & Luca]

Your photos are wonderful and a good web designer should be not only able but glad to make sure they are reproduced reliably on the site.