Sooo I just got the banner design I ordered from Jon Clark (pic)

If you have a few minutes to sit and watch it it's a good banner. It needs to be more snappy to be most effective.

Actually, that is a good looking banner. If you are happy with it, then that is all that matters

Funny that Jon and his associates all seem to use and misuse the same ... at the end of posts and threads.

I'd really like to see a designer that has half a clue with "Save for Web" save out the JPEGS and GIFs and compare the file size difference..

I bet it's not much.. Since.. I've been in this situation 100x before..

I said it looked "impressive" as in "Ooo lookit the pretty colors" I don't really think it looks "badass" tho.. And yes I did want to know if someone from GFY did it because everyone here brags about how amazing they are and post nothing to show for it. So I'm just waiting for something I think looks reasonably good to be done by one of the loud mouths here.

Hahaha.. I'm just pointing it out.. see none of you are actual designers.. so none of you get it.. But using the stock tire track pattern.. is weak.. especially with the shit people are doing with custom patterns these days..

It's just funny...

What's your excuse? dumbass. I love how when people disagree with something they just say something stupid like "yer an idiot" Yah well I got 10 more years experience making stuff pretty for the screen than you.

You are right and wrong.. Most of the slices on that page can benefit from being jpegs.

I dunno what kind of shitty monitor you are on but the ENTIRE site is made up of gradients and colors blending together.... because they used GIFS for everything I see a ton of dithering and banding.

The designer doesn't even understand how to make optimized GIFs look GOOD.. Lookit the black on the girls underwear it is spotted with color..

Lookit Twisty's Animated banners.. That is a designer that knows how to work Gif optimization..

In REALITY the designer should go thru each slice and play with the quality settings till he finds the perfect medium between quality and file size..

GIF and PNG are COMPLETELY different.

GIF is *NOT* high quality 24bit PNG is. GIF is only 256 colors..

Everything i've done in flash I use PNGs exported at highest quality. That's why my shit looks soo sharp. I've never had a problem with my stuff taking too long to load..

I will use the built in text editors to do text.. Even tho TEXT png layers are usually only a few KB it just makes editing easier..

Hey man i'm a designer it's my job to notice this stuff.. And it's the fact I notice and don't let stuff like that slip that keeps me UP..

You guys can just keep yer heads stuck up yer ass.. I really don't give a flying fuck.. it's not my site..

And it's better if yer stuff looks low quality cause my stuff will just stand out that much more..

I'm confused.

If that banner cost $15 how much did he pay his designer?

I'm going to say Jon Clark is the designer and the only designer.

Looks nice

good to go

You're giving him too much credit. He's a two bit hustler from the streets of Toledo.

Hehe, sorry man - that would just be a mistake. A very common mistake designers have been making for years. If it wasn't sliced up, then it should be a jpg - which is how it should have been done, not sliced. The way it is, it's done correctly.

I have Gateway HDMI Monitors, so chances are really good - it's not my monitors. What you are seeing is a result of having your monitors set to bright, making all your colors wrong.

Look at the file sizes.. huge difference. And the animation isn't going to stop Webmasters from signing up. Personally, I only allow all animations to loop only once in my browser, so I don't have to see other persons trash more than once.

No designer should adjust the quality of every image, that very minor factor will not improve ratios. I would fire any staff/designer I ever heard doing this, burning up my time on unimportant bs - it's why so many designers fail.

Of course they are different, but so is jpg and gif, and we still use them mixed together. Other than the flesh tone pictures, everything on that site is less than 256 colors - and the few that are - can be cleaned up with a PNG - loaded via css, reducing the total amount of image slices needed.

Things don't seem slow to you, but to millions of others that don't have nice high speed, don't get fast loading when you use PNG's. Flash is a vector program that can be scripted, for a reason. It's unfortunate for flash that it can be used in other ways.




You should notice things like that, but if you have a problem like that, on a Webmaster site, spending hours trying to adjust parts of a design to correct for it, just isn't logical - when it will make no factor in Webmaster signups.

A low quality design means nothing at all, as long as the site is usable - the design makes no factor.

No worries though, we will always have people that think the next pretty design will make them rich.

There is software for that you know

What?


It has nothing to do with my LCDs being set too bright. It's called GIF dithering.

It is the result of gifs having only a 256 color palette..

Yes. look at the file sizes. If you have half a clue the JPEG can be optimized to have just a slightly larger file size but because it's not limited to 256 colors you do not see dithering and banding..

What animation? huh? The comment about Twistys' banners was an example to show you what someone who has experience optimizing GIFs can really do.. as opposed to what the designer of the O.Ps site did..


Yahh sorry but spending 2 extra minutes optimizing slices is not burning anyones time or unimportant BS..

Every firm/program i've worked for definitely did not have a problem with me doing this and definitely encouraged it. The idea is to have the best looking graphics with the smallest file size..

Not saving 2 minutes haha...


You are wrong the images are not less than 256 colors thats why their is dithering and banding!

Yes PNGs should be used because they are slightly smaller file size as compared to the same quality JPEG.. BUT! Jpegs allow more control over the final file size..

But it's the same point as i'm making those slices should have never been GIFs because the slightly lower file size is not worth the look of dithering and banding. That a 256 color gif gives.

Sorry but it's a live cam site nobody with dialup is going to be hitting it. I guess a webmaster could be a internet newb and still have dialup? anything is possible..

But I can assure you that the file size increase using a better quality jpeg would be minimal.

I dunno what yer point about Flash is.. Vector is Vector and Vector can only look a certain way.. Raster graphics are a must for a lot of flash...

It is not unfortunate.. Flash is an amazing piece of software used in a lot of industries.


I have experience so I can tell you none of the bugs in the design of that site would take hours to adjust.. only minutes.. and should have been caught by quality control from the get go..

To me everything is in the small details.. I don't respect the people who don't see that.. and those people generally don't get far.. because they will never stand out..

Completely untrue. If the surfer is not comfortable with the design they are not going to stick around long.

And taking a minute to iron out any type of bugs in the site can only do good for your productivity...

It helps.

nice one

Sorry but you are confusing me abit now, are you talking about the affiliate program site or the actual cam site design now?

... I use them at the beginning.