daveywaugh
Blah
Just forked out for a Reid subscription. The info is great, and well written IMO but that interface is HORRID! Frankly, I find the site almost unusable. I have the latest Flash Player and new iMac so not sure that has anything to do with it... anyone else find the same?
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
I've never enjoyed the interface much either but Sean is trying to keep his content as secure as possible and he has chosen that route. Being in the business (Internet) I would have selected a different route but it's his site and he's making it work so more power to him.
It is a terrific resource and he seems like a good guy to boot, worth the trouble from my seat.
It is a terrific resource and he seems like a good guy to boot, worth the trouble from my seat.
willie_901
Veteran
Flash is just plain crap. It is inefficient and sucks up cpu cycles and kills battery life. The only time my MacBook Pro fans fire up is when a Flash site loads. Flash is dead for mobile platforms... even Adobe pulled the plug on mobile Flash. It could take a long, long time for Flash to become rare because it's everywhere. On the other hand Apple sold about 75 million iOS devices as of Dec. 31. That's a lot of eye balls to ignore even for a niche site.
It is trivial to copy any Flash content. The crudest way is with a screen capture and more sophisticated methods are easy to discover and implement. Flash only stops content copying by people who wouldn't bother to copy the content in the first place. Besides, if one pays for content, why shouldn't they be able to keep a copy for their own use? Do you have to assume your customers are thieves to survive on the Internet? I subscribe to several on-line art magazines. I pay a small fee and download a PDF of the content. There's several eBook distribution channels that sell DRM content as well.
It is trivial to copy any Flash content. The crudest way is with a screen capture and more sophisticated methods are easy to discover and implement. Flash only stops content copying by people who wouldn't bother to copy the content in the first place. Besides, if one pays for content, why shouldn't they be able to keep a copy for their own use? Do you have to assume your customers are thieves to survive on the Internet? I subscribe to several on-line art magazines. I pay a small fee and download a PDF of the content. There's several eBook distribution channels that sell DRM content as well.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I'm not sure why anyone uses white print on a black background in this day and age. That's just bad design, on top of the awkward interface.
(RFF is an oddball as well - but I have to keep the standard setup as the alternatives don't link to the classifieds.)
(RFF is an oddball as well - but I have to keep the standard setup as the alternatives don't link to the classifieds.)
Frank Petronio
Well-known
For some reason all of the photo pundits on the internet are saddled with lousy websites and poor design choices.... look at Luminous Landscape or, umm any of them - Rockwell's is a joke too. At least these vBulletin boards are reasonable and familiar enough to be sort of usable (if not searchable).
What is the point of these super detailed reviews? Can't you decide on whether to buy something based on mountains of free content, internet chatter, and common sense?
Maybe if you're an early adopter and want to be the first to get the X100, NEX7, XPro1, etc... but then you shouldn't care about research - it's just hysteria and speculation - an emotional decision. But if you're a prudent buyer then you'll let those folks complete the manufacturer's Beta testing and wait for the fixes in v.2 and purchase last season's "Camera of the Year" for pennies on the dollar;-p
So isn't the real point just sheer gearheadedness?
What is the point of these super detailed reviews? Can't you decide on whether to buy something based on mountains of free content, internet chatter, and common sense?
Maybe if you're an early adopter and want to be the first to get the X100, NEX7, XPro1, etc... but then you shouldn't care about research - it's just hysteria and speculation - an emotional decision. But if you're a prudent buyer then you'll let those folks complete the manufacturer's Beta testing and wait for the fixes in v.2 and purchase last season's "Camera of the Year" for pennies on the dollar;-p
So isn't the real point just sheer gearheadedness?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I subscribe to his site and so far have renewed my subscriptions - and that isn't because of the super-detailed reviews (which I usually can't be bothered reading all the way through in super-detail). I find plenty of other things to interest me in his non-review writing and often in his reviews as well, outside of the super-detail.
Sean looks at many things differently enough from me that sometimes I learn things, even if I don't necessarily end up doing things the way he does.
But that's just me. I suspect his style of doing things won't appeal to everyone. I would suggest reading some of his stuff at Luminous Landscape before paying money, to see if his style is likely to suit you.
...Mike
brbo
Well-known
I subscribed to his site and apart from the reviews that I was particularly interested in I just can't force myself to visit his site... And I do think that content is probably worth reading.
It really is beyond crap in regards to user friendliness and readability. The same old, 'copy protection' is only hurting the paying customer.
It really is beyond crap in regards to user friendliness and readability. The same old, 'copy protection' is only hurting the paying customer.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Same here.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I know what you mean, but on the other hand he seems to have sufficient paying customers to keep him in operation. That may be more that, say, Rupert Murdoch manages to do.
Getting money from providing web content is hard, especially if - like Sean - you're trying to avoid even the perception of being beholden to paid advertisers. His solution is certainly less than perfect. Mind you, if he'd come up with the perfect solution he'd have no time for photography - because he'd be spending all his days diving into big vats of money! (Earned from selling his solution to the likes of, say, Rupert Murdoch.)
...Mike
brbo
Well-known
It's hard to get money for web content from users that wouldn't pay for it anyway.
I'm fine with log-in username/password protection. But opting for a content presentation technology that is clearly not adequate is not fine. Too many drawbacks for no gain. None of the things his users are having to put up with (beyond logging in) is giving him any protection of the content.
daveywaugh
Blah
Kinda glad I'm not the only one ;-)
I guess at some point he'll have to look at another solution with the success of iOS devices. Let's be honest, not even Android does Flash well, and now that Adobe has stopped mobile development... Would be a shame for all that great information to be lost because of technology changes. Frankly he could at least have a good Flash design - it's not like Flash itself is entirely to blame here... just a poor interface.
RFF is hardly a design masterpiece, but it's very functional and easy to work with.
Anyway, it's easy to criticise I guess. Sean's site still has fantastic information that's well written and pretty concise. I like it - and will continue to subscribe.
I guess at some point he'll have to look at another solution with the success of iOS devices. Let's be honest, not even Android does Flash well, and now that Adobe has stopped mobile development... Would be a shame for all that great information to be lost because of technology changes. Frankly he could at least have a good Flash design - it's not like Flash itself is entirely to blame here... just a poor interface.
RFF is hardly a design masterpiece, but it's very functional and easy to work with.
Anyway, it's easy to criticise I guess. Sean's site still has fantastic information that's well written and pretty concise. I like it - and will continue to subscribe.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Very early on in the piece I cracked the "protection" just to verify that I could - as an exercise in trivia. Flash may have moved on (really, it doesn't interest me). Perhaps it would be a little harder these days (though I suspect not). I don't care enough to find out.
What I will observe is that it seems "good enough" in that I haven't seen his content leaking. My guess (and it is just a guess, and I really don't care) is that without the inconvenience his "security" provides, his material would be more widely circulated right to the point when he stopped producing it for lack of paying subscribers.
Pretty much nobody will pay for stuff that's easily free. He produces content that doesn't cost that much to subscribe to, and where there's no great incentive for those who can't or won't pay to be interested in or bother to crack the stuff and put it out there.
"Look at me! I've cracked nothing special by way of security, and have produced a bunch of material about chromatic abberation in a lens you've never heard of and don't understand on a camera you'll never own."
Hardly a rallying cry for anonymous. Yet enough for Sean to earn some income he otherwise might not.
...Mike
brbo
Well-known
That is exactly why he does NOT need "protection" beyond simple and unobtrusive (payed for) log-in. Stuffing everything in flash buys him no additional protection and gives a headache to his subscribers. It's like sending a cat photo to your grandmother... with a GIANT watermark. Makes no sense.
I don't know how things are behind Murdoch's paywall, though. Is text available in bloated copy protected PDFs written in Comic Sans/Webdings hybrid? They surely must annoy their customers somehow, right?!
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I subscribed for one year and read some articles. Very well written and researched pieces but I didn't make much use of the site and don't have a need to.
I agree with all of those who mentioned the use of flash. It does make the site frustrating to use and was one of the reasons I didn't bother to renew my subscription.
I agree with all of those who mentioned the use of flash. It does make the site frustrating to use and was one of the reasons I didn't bother to renew my subscription.
ampguy
Veteran
Well I won't comment on the UI, but the content is unique. No where else on the web, that I am aware of has anyone done the critical focusing indexing to show focus shift in certain lenses, and other tests that can literally take days to do properly.
If you want to know for a fact if a lens is good, or a dog, you'll want to subscribe to that unbiased site.
If you just want to use what others think is great stuff, just ask Tom A. or some other guru for their anecdotal info. and you'll get good suggestions, but little (or no) science or data.
If you want to know for a fact if a lens is good, or a dog, you'll want to subscribe to that unbiased site.
If you just want to use what others think is great stuff, just ask Tom A. or some other guru for their anecdotal info. and you'll get good suggestions, but little (or no) science or data.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Maybe you do, but most don't find it hard to distinguish between a "dog" and a good lens, since the difference between a bad lens and a good lens is dramatic. It's the subtle differences that Sean Reid tries to articulate that are valuable, bad UI or not, and why I subscribe.
ampguy
Veteran
maggieo
More Deadly
Ted is spot-on.
Sean confirmed that my first 35mm Nokton Classic was, as I suspected, a poor sample, when I loaned it to him for testing. (BTW, Stephen exchanged it immediately- Sean sent it directly to CameraQuest and I got a new lens back- thanks Sean and Stephen!)
Also, Sean writes, in depth, about how gear works and why and why not it would be good (or bad) for given situations, along with essays on the philosophy of photography. Sean is a critical thinker who is also a clear and engaging writer and that, more than anything else, makes his site worth the money to me.
el fotografo
Established
One of the limitations of a subscription site is you may only be interested in a small percentage of the information that is offered.
I don't have time or interest in the minute details about equipment that I cannot afford or probably would never buy.
I always thought that a pay by article model would be a better approach by allowing a wider range of people to have access to his material.
There are plenty of examples of this model online already starting with i-tunes.
I don't have time or interest in the minute details about equipment that I cannot afford or probably would never buy.
I always thought that a pay by article model would be a better approach by allowing a wider range of people to have access to his material.
There are plenty of examples of this model online already starting with i-tunes.