Posted by Getty has got a thing that allows us to embed images. They say it’s free to use and entirely legal – although with Getty being famously litigious when it comes to unauthorised use of their photographs, we still feel a little nervous, like they’re luring is into a trap or something.
Nevertheless, we wanted to take a look at what kind of thing might be available, so needless to say the first thing we did was carry out a search for ‘Rob Key’.
The results feature a surprisingly heavy emphasis on this kind of thing.
However, don’t think for one minute that there’s nothing but Rob in whites looking a bit sad after losing his wicket against Essex.
Because sometimes he’s wearing coloured clothing while in the very process of losing his wicket against Essex.
And at other times he’s wearing coloured clothing, in the process of losing his wicket against Essex, but photographed from the opposite side.
But there are some truly spectacular moments too.
Take this photo of him in profile, for example.
And finally, here’s the Queen getting to shake him by the hand – the lucky bitch.
Can’t wait to see none of these photos show up in the daily email and for this post to make precisely zero sense to all our subscribers as a consequence.
What no hover captions?
No hover captions but an extraordinary volume of code as a trade-off. A real treat for ‘view source’ lovers.
What is your % readership on mobile/tablet these days, yer maj? I have had to redesign my own website since these statistics reached majority status on mine. In deference to mobile/tablet users perhaps it’s time to consider the heretical option of abandoning the hover caption, and just writing the caption underneath the photo. Bit more accessible, though not as fun to discover.
Desktop still just about shading it in 2017, but roughly 50-50.
Irrelevant though because the fewer people get a joke, the more we like it. If only half our readers have access to one, so much the better.
Yup, I’ve standardised on not using hover captions on Ogblog, despite the fcat that I really like the way you (KC) use them.
We all have to find our own way, I guess.
I try to echo or enhance the “story” with the under-caption, emphasis on “try”.
Our approach is to write any old random shit.
Your “any old random shit” tends to have your distinctive, nay inimitable voice, KC.
We’re just an any old random shit kind of a guy.
At work (Windows 7, Chrome) I cannot right click to view source, nor am I allowed to click through on them ([Mixed Content/Potentially Adult]).
What’s Bob doing that’s of a mixed or potentially adult nature at these links? A new post-cricket career turn?
Inspired by this piece and your last one, after clicking on one of the links and ending up at Getty, I did a search for Mark Cosgrove and came up with this:
http://www.gettyimages.com.au/license/477309358
And This:
http://www.gettyimages.com.au/license/461213060
In fact, scrolling through pages of the photos was quite inspiring.
“The queen…….lucky bitch”. I’m appalled.
Surely it should be “a queen”. Unless, that is, you’re sublimating your own sovereignty to hers?
Who is the true monarch? In the words of highlander, “there can be only one”.
The other possibility is KC is married to her – but that’s too painful to contemplate.
On the subject of photos, have a gander at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/39147440
Guess Jason Gillespie’s age from the photo of him at the top of the story.
Then be immediately reminded in the first paragraph that there are folk older than him still plying their trade in Test cricket!!
The lucky bitch comment did make me snort.
Can’t ask for more than that as a writer.