| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/21/2008 07:43:28 PM · #1 |
Hey guys, I just completed my website and would like to find out what you think of it.
Thanks
Website
|
|
|
|
06/21/2008 07:59:58 PM · #2 |
| Nice photos, Maggie. All enjoyable viewing. The design does not get in the way too much. Only criticism is about the indented names: "existential" and "perceptive". I simply don't like subcategories and don't really understand what they are. The other category names seem OK. But overall, it would be wonderful to add some words about the locations. Just a sentence for each photo. The text providing context would help your viewer stick and remember... |
|
|
|
06/21/2008 08:06:11 PM · #3 |
I like it. Nice, simple, clean design. Leaves the focus on the photos, not gimmicks. Some really fabulous photos in there.
The indented words down the left don't line up for me. Don't know if this is intentional or not, but thought I'd mention it. |
|
|
|
06/21/2008 08:07:01 PM · #4 |
-I wish I could click on the photo's on the opening page....to see more like them
-BEAUTIFUL PHOTO's
-Is this a site to show off your work? sale it? I don tknow...because it doesn't say.
Other than that...I like it. The names of your photo galleries are also a bit 'heavy'.
Message edited by author 2008-06-21 20:07:55. |
|
|
|
06/21/2008 08:11:42 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Nice photos, Maggie. All enjoyable viewing. The design does not get in the way too much. Only criticism is about the indented names: "existential" and "perceptive". I simply don't like subcategories and don't really understand what they are. The other category names seem OK. But overall, it would be wonderful to add some words about the locations. Just a sentence for each photo. The text providing context would help your viewer stick and remember... |
thanks pineapple. These are just categories and not subcategories. I didn't want to just line up the words describing categories because the alignment looked boring to me, but that's just me. I didn't want to put captions because I didn't want this website to be about the locations I have been to, but simply a visual appreciation of the images. But I appreciate your comments and they may certainly make me rethink the whole design.
Message edited by author 2008-06-21 20:14:05. |
|
|
|
06/21/2008 08:24:01 PM · #6 |
Love you photos Maggie! Are some done in HDR? The tonal range is quite impressive in some of your images! :)
|
|
|
|
06/21/2008 10:54:55 PM · #7 |
I like it...different from the everyday sites you see online. I also used "Lightbox" scripting for my site. Only put up a few images...have alot of work to do.
I do like alot of your images though...and wondered the same as  kosmikkreeper, if some of the images were done in HDR???
|
|
|
|
06/21/2008 11:00:46 PM · #8 |
| Great site Maggie, love the pictures you have on there. Faved. |
|
|
|
06/21/2008 11:19:27 PM · #9 |
| thank you guys. None of the images were done in HDR, actually I am curious to know which ones you consider HDR. I realigned the categories on few pages and will finish realigning tomorrow on the rest. I understand that the categories may not be understood by some, but I am OK with it. I am trying to be different and I didn't want to use plain categories like "landscape", "people" etc. and they all make sense, at least to me, once you look for a metaphoric meaning. |
|
|
|
06/21/2008 11:28:00 PM · #10 |
Hey Maggie,
You have some really nice pictures.
I'd like to know the purpose of your site, however.
Like others have said, the names are sorta funky. If you are using this site to get work that will be a turn off to editors, as they don't have time to decipher these sorts of nebulous terms and how it applies to your photography.
The other thing is that I think you have too many images in each category.
Good photography is often well complemented by good editing and I think there are definitely a number of strong photos in each gallery, but there are also plenty you could afford to lose. These are photos that anyone who sees your site knows you could make by seeing the better ones already.
You're pitching yourself as a photographer, not a designer or a deep thinker. One of the biggest complaints many editors/art buyers have while looking at prospective photographers is websites that don't get straight to the point. The pictures is where you want to show you are different, the rest should leave us with almost no effort and thought to get to your photos.
If your site is just for personal display then I think making it to suit your needs and preferences is great, and in that case this is fine.
It's just that, if you are trying to get work .... it needs some changes, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
06/21/2008 11:31:41 PM · #11 |
Existential... reminds of the the Geico commercial :D
Seriously though, it looks great! |
|
|
|
06/22/2008 09:46:45 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Hey Maggie,
You have some really nice pictures.
I'd like to know the purpose of your site, however.
Like others have said, the names are sorta funky. If you are using this site to get work that will be a turn off to editors, as they don't have time to decipher these sorts of nebulous terms and how it applies to your photography.
The other thing is that I think you have too many images in each category.
Good photography is often well complemented by good editing and I think there are definitely a number of strong photos in each gallery, but there are also plenty you could afford to lose. These are photos that anyone who sees your site knows you could make by seeing the better ones already.
You're pitching yourself as a photographer, not a designer or a deep thinker. One of the biggest complaints many editors/art buyers have while looking at prospective photographers is websites that don't get straight to the point. The pictures is where you want to show you are different, the rest should leave us with almost no effort and thought to get to your photos.
If your site is just for personal display then I think making it to suit your needs and preferences is great, and in that case this is fine.
It's just that, if you are trying to get work .... it needs some changes, in my opinion. |
thanks petrakka for the constructive criticism. I am still working on the "About" section where I'd like explain the purpose of the website. Basically, it is a personal site and these categories mean something to me. On the other hand, now that you mentioned it, if I was ever to show this to editors/art buyers, I wonder why would it matter to them what I called my links. All they have to do is click on the link to see photos (I am not disagreeing with you on the issue that they just want to get to the point). If I was to call my categories "Gallery 1", "Gallery 2" etc., would that have made the difference? They would still click on the same links. I guess, I just came up with my own scheme of organizing my photos, and I assume if the art director/buyer comes to see my photos all they have to do is click on the links, and the photos are right there, they do not have to think about the categories. BUT, occasionally, I sign up with stock agencies and they ask for website URL, so I guess the website will not be totally personal if I use it for that purpose. I might reconsider those categories after all... I am perplexed now, I kind of want this to be my personal site...
I absolutely agree that I have too many photos in some categories. I have a hard time self editing. If you have time and feel like it, would you mind telling me what to get rid of?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2008 09:47:24 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by CassieDoodle:
Existential... reminds of the the Geico commercial :D
Seriously though, it looks great! |
I have no TV, so I have no idea what a Geico commercial is all about :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 06:26:17 PM EDT.
