I would like C&C on my website design....

06/15/2008 02:19:57 AM · #1

I have been working the last couple of hours revamping my website from html to a more professional looking flash site. I would appreciate any C&C on the way it looks and functions for everyone. I'm probably going to stay with this design for a while since I put so much the time/work into it..about 9 hours so far on development. I only have one gallery up for testing, but will completly change it and the others when I get everything working properly.

Thanks for your time!

//www.BigDphoto.com

Message edited by author 2008-06-16 16:59:55.

egamble

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

06/15/2008 02:24:35 AM · #2

really quick...

1.) the music was sudden and unexpected. It woke my son up. I don't think most people appreciate music when they aren't expecting it.

2.) I loved the pics in gallery one....the other galleries didn't load

I will comment on the rest...after I have had some sleep.

Great photography!

Message edited by author 2008-06-15 02:24:45.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/15/2008 02:33:59 AM · #3

I haven't loaded test images for the other galleries yet...will do that on Sunday after I get some sleep. I forgot to remove the music....didn't like it anyway...just can't remove the button in the flash without using a decompiler...and that is just too much trouble! Thanks for the time you took to check it out, and the compliment. By the way...those photos one the 1st gallery are really old..about 3 years, just used for testing...they were taken with an older Sony F707! Still have it, and use it all the time, just more for color-infrared now.

Message edited by author 2008-06-16 17:00:56.

roba

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/15/2008 02:35:22 AM · #4

I think it's a nice design... simple, and easy to navigate.

A couple of comments:
- The page itself is very small. I run a 23" widescreen monitor at 1680 x 1050, and your page only takes up 1/4th of my screen. This renders your thumbnails at almost exactly the size of my real thumbnail, and your large images at approximately 3"x 2.5". That makes it pretty hard to be blown away.
- For some reason, the images take quite a while to load... unusual for a flash site (it's noticable). Not sure if you can pre-fetch them, but definitely something to look at.

Rob

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/15/2008 02:38:56 AM · #5

Originally posted by roba:

I'm going to try resizing the screen tomorrow, also will be doing a "save for web" on the photos. They are about 313k right now...will drop them down to about 80k for faster loading and not much difference in the visual appearance.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

06/15/2008 07:14:40 AM · #6

Billy, my first impression is about your business name. I get the Dallas reference, but... did you know that 90% of photography is purchased by women? Big D sounds like something guys call each other before a ballgame. It doesn't sound female friendly... at all. :/

The website design is nice, but also very masculine. Your website (storefront) should appeal to your buyer (women).

Edited typing

Message edited by author 2008-06-15 07:15:10.

egamble

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

06/15/2008 09:16:55 AM · #7

Originally posted by idnic:

This wasn't for me...but great advice!

:)

06/15/2008 09:36:36 PM · #8

Have had the business name over 7 years now...don't think it would be wise to change it...I decided to build on an easy to navigate, no frills, simple flash site that I could do myself with limited skill in website building. Also, over the time I have been operating, I have not seen any trends by either gender. If fact, I get alot of work from men, mostly wanting headshots/portraits for their office, etc. I would say it has been at most 60% women - 40% men. Thanks for your advice though!

egamble

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

06/15/2008 09:44:20 PM · #9

oh yeah..lucky sob....living next to my beloved dallas cowboys..

Message edited by author 2008-06-15 21:44:30.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/15/2008 09:56:21 PM · #10

Originally posted by Truegsht:

I was quoting from a survey done by PPA. While men do purchase headshots, etc... women make the purchasing decision for wedding photography, senior sessions (mothers), family sessions, babies, maternity, etc., etc.

Was just trying to help. :)

Hmmm, maybe the business name is why you shoot more men?

Message edited by author 2008-06-15 21:57:05.

Moose408

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/15/2008 11:23:22 PM · #11

The one thing that really jumped out at me is that the aspect ratio on the thumbnails is wrong. So they end up looking distorted.

kleski

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/15/2008 11:29:55 PM · #12

When I view the site all the images look very pixelated which would personally discourage me from using the service. Images loaded quickly for me and the design seemed user friendly.

Intelli

Nikon D300

06/15/2008 11:42:11 PM · #13

Images Pixelated for me as well... first thing I noticed

delta

06/16/2008 01:19:12 PM · #14

Critiques:
I agree with the image quality is a little low and distorted in preview.
Text size on the right just normal text is too large, doesnt look professional
Galleries need names, i dont know what im clicking on.

Likes: Black is a good matte.
like the simple navigation

I like web design so feel free for any questions,
sincerely,
tim
//www.timtapscott.tk

wsl

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/16/2008 01:54:42 PM · #15

First Impressions -

1 - Gallery names. Need them.
2 - Pixelated Photos. Need to size/crop the images for the page, don't let the coding size them for you.
3 - Flash is bad if the site is entirely flash.

Complete Flash driven sites "can" look good if done right, but did you know you cut out search engines entirely by having a completely flash driven site? Its much better to have an HTML or PHP driven site, with flash imbedded into the site, because the search engine bots can't go thru the SWF files inorder to find keywords, urls, etc..

delta

06/16/2008 01:56:56 PM · #16

I agree with wsl, since your site isnt using flash to its capabilities, you have basically made an html site using flash. you should only use flash if you have really smooth, fancy transitions, a fancy photo gallery, ect. but your site could easily be made in html and have everything you have now and save the loading time as well as the search engine optimization

Message edited by author 2008-06-16 13:57:33.

CassieDoodle

Nikon D200

Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon

06/16/2008 01:59:25 PM · #17

I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned (I'm lazy and don't feel like reading right now lol) but the pictures are very pixelated.

PS--- Gallery 4?! Oh dear... Are you trying for fashion photography or what? If it's anything other than that, if I was a client and took one look at that gallery there would be no way I'd be sending business your way :O

Message edited by author 2008-06-16 14:01:37.

delta

06/16/2008 02:35:38 PM · #18

Originally posted by CassieDoodle:

LOL i didnt see that. very true very true. those go on myspace not your portfolio

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/16/2008 02:49:14 PM · #19

Originally posted by wsl:

While I think #1 is good advice, and #2 was a critical issue in my opinion. #3 is not in fact truly accurate. A Flash site can be much better for a rich media experience (which photography tends toward). And a site that is properly implemented can be indexed by Google, take advantage of the back button, etc.

Just because bad Flash is coded, does not mean Flash is bad. That's like condemning HTML because of sites using the blink tag or email because of SPAMMERS. Also, knowing your goal makes a lot of difference too.

First off, consider embedding your Flash site using SWFObject & also check out SWFaddress.
//code.google.com/p/swfobject/

This allows for a simpler html/php/other site to be delivered. Also google will index the content and will deliver the page. But caution, Google will balk if your Flash site delivers content that is radically different than the content you're delivering via alternate methods.

wsl

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/16/2008 03:11:37 PM · #20

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by wsl:
First Impressions -

1 - Gallery names. Need them.
2 - Pixelated Photos. Need to size/crop the images for the page, don't let the coding size them for you.
3 - Flash is bad if the site is entirely flash.

Complete Flash driven sites "can" look good if done right, but did you know you cut out search engines entirely by having a completely flash driven site? Its much better to have an HTML or PHP driven site, with flash imbedded into the site, because the search engine bots can't go thru the SWF files inorder to find keywords, urls, etc..

While I think #1 is good advice, and #2 was a critical issue in my opinion. #3 is not in fact truly accurate. A Flash site can be much better for a rich media experience (which photography tends toward). And a site that is properly implemented can be indexed by Google, take advantage of the back button, etc.

Just because bad Flash is coded, does not mean Flash is bad. That's like condemning HTML because of sites using the blink tag or email because of SPAMMERS. Also, knowing your goal makes a lot of difference too.

First off, consider embedding your Flash site using SWFObject & also check out SWFaddress.
//code.google.com/p/swfobject/

This allows for a simpler html/php/other site to be delivered. Also google will index the content and will deliver the page. But caution, Google will balk if your Flash site delivers content that is radically different than the content you're delivering via alternate methods.

What I meant by entirely flash, is what he has, meaning the site is nothing more than a index.htm calling a .swf file. Having an html/php site with embedded site, wouldn't be "a flash site" by my definition. Flash has its good points, but too many go overboard and then wonder why they're on page 117 of a google search.

EBJones

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/16/2008 03:47:26 PM · #21

Checked it out in both IE and FF. IE puts the top of your gray box right at the top of the screen for me, while Firefox gives a little margin. I prefer the look of Firefox there. The only other difference I saw was that the Firefox browser has the images too big for the size of the gray box so they extend a little below the box.

I was also put off by the pixelation and the distortion of the thumbnails.

Pictures loaded reasonably fast for me, though, and I like the simple layout.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

06/16/2008 04:11:09 PM · #22

The pixelated images need to be fixed ASAP. Do nothing else but fix the images that represent what you're trying to sell. This is your product and it's not looking good atm.

The image on your home page is not bright enough, its colours look faded and the image doesn't demand attention at all.

All in all a good looking site but it needs more work.

06/16/2008 04:57:34 PM · #23

gonna try again

Message edited by author 2008-06-18 23:18:15.