OK so we have a thread on pimping your best photo.... now pimp your website !

It'd be good to see your site, whatever it is - from a professionally designed one for your business or wedding, your FaceBook and MySpace pages, and on to your own website you've crafted yourself using software or by hand from scratch :)

My Stock Photo site can be reached using the link in my signature, so where do we see yours ? :cool:

Nice work on there Grissom, cool idea too.

Mines in my sig.

I put the photos I want to share on my flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hook85/) stream. I have my own personal website, but there's nothing to do with photography on there and it's very rarely updated now :(

My ImpInaBox (www.impinabox.co.uk) site was thrown together in a big hurry about 6 months ago mostly from bits I'd used on other sites. The idea was to use it as a development site and testing ground for photo related scripting and other ideas but apart from sticking a few more galleries into it from time to time I've not gotten around to doing any thing more with it. The design was intended to take advantage of wide screen monitors and to avoid flash at all costs!

Check the my photos link in my signature for my complete galleries. There are lots of photos though, as I use it for backup purposes too. :)

Check the my photos link in my signature for my complete galleries. There are lots of photos though, as I use it for backup purposes too. :)

You don't need an apostrophe in photos because it's plural, not possessive :)

I've got a photography blog at http://philippaphotography.blogspot.com and my photos go onto flickr (http://www.flickr.com/hippie/sets).

I have a photo restoration, manipulation, design site with Gallery.

this is my site
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551878025#/photos.php?id=551878025&ref=pb

it's full of rubbish with the odd few good'ens.

I have a photo restoration site with Gallery, Someone may be interested in.
my website address: http://www.photografix-design.com

Love the gold coloured title but I think you need to check this site out in something other than IE. Some of the elements are clipped or overlapping in Firefox.

this is my site
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551878025#/photos.php?id=551878025&ref=pb it's full of rubbish with the odd few good'ens.

Eric, do I need to log in to see your site?

Eric, do I need to log in to see your site?

no shouldn't i set it to public access ?
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=19506&l=6f8fc&id=551878025

Mines very basic but here it is...

www.darkimage.co.uk

My old Gallery2 based site is a bit b0rked at the moment, hence the "broken" image for the 2007 gallery.

Anyway, www.chrisdowson.co.uk

My new site will be finished at the end of the summer... otherwise I won't be able to pay the rent!

Here's mine. All comments welcome.
www.repoxphoto.com :banana:

I generally just upload my pics to folders in my webspace and link to the direct images, but i've started work on a new site to showcase some of my favourite pics.

www.gibbo.co.nr

I've got a photo website of my own here... http://www.andyharris-photography.com which I created with a clikpic template

... and just recently launched a community photo one (Hoyland though, not quite Sheffield) at http://www.hoylandphotos.co.uk which I'm pleased with (using freewebs)

Any visitors and comments eagerly welcomed!

Here's mine. All comments welcome.


Not too keen the website, repox, but there are some great pictures on there. :thumbsup:

[QUOTE=ImpInaBox;3777030]Love the gold coloured title but I think you need to check this site out in something other than IE. Some of the elements are clipped or overlapping in Firefox.

Not very inspiring comments (Love the gold coloured title) you must love every page then because it is there on every page. Also IE. 80% of people use it and Firefox isn't everything to everyone.

On the other hand I have viewed your site impinabox it's a bit repetitious if you like church photos, but then again each to their own.

Not very inspiring comments (Love the gold coloured title) you must love every page then because it is there on every page. Also IE. 80% of people use it and Firefox isn't everything to everyone.

Wasn't meant to be inspiring (or personal - honest) but you did put the site forward for comments. Current IE is not standards compliant and does not display HTML correctly in many cases - ask any web designer. Future versions of it are likely to becompliant, or at least more so than current versions, so sites that are broken in a standards compliant browser like Firefox are lilely to be broken in future versions of IE too. A good many photographers in particular use Apples and Safari or Firefox rather than IE, so it's simply good practice to ensure your website is standards compliant and designed to work in a range of browsers.

Wasn't meant to be inspiring (or personal - honest) but you did put the site forward for comments. Current IE is not standards compliant and does not display HTML correctly in many cases - ask any web designer. Future versions of it are likely to becompliant, or at least more so than current versions, so sites that are broken in a standards compliant browser like Firefox are lilely to be broken in future versions of IE too. A good many photographers in particular use Apples and Safari or Firefox rather than IE, so it's simply good practice to ensure your website is standards compliant and designed to work in a range of browsers.

Anyway please take onboard my comments about your site if your not happy with my site or any other sites put forward, try looking at your own design first, just food for thought, you don't seem to like many of the sites put forward. Good practice to be critical about your own site, just wondered what the people you were critical about thought about your effort. Can't always be perfect can we.

Just looked at my site again as you suggested - found 5 churches tho one was incidental to the pic. Is that too many? Apart from that it was a useful exercise - I found a possible problem with Safari (tho it might be my beta version that's the culprit there) and a problem with the drop-down nav menus in Opera. Cheers for that. :thumbsup:

Hi Folks, only just started to have a look round here, I normally lurk around the 4/3 forums.
There's a flickr site in my signature you are welcome to have a look round.
No particular theme to the postings; the last batch were all of the Waddington airshow.

Anyway please take onboard my comments about your site if your not happy with my site or any other sites put forward, try looking at your own design first, just food for thought, you don't seem to like many of the sites put forward. Good practice to be critical about your own site, just wondered what the people you were critical about thought about your effort. Can't always be perfect can we.
Actually Imp complimented you and then also gave you some very useful feedback about your site's browser issues, specifically, problems with browsers other than IE, so rather than take it as a personal dig, maybe you should think, that was some useful advice that you were given. And it was useful, as sites that only work in IE show poor design skills and are not good if you want to create a good image. Sites should work in all browsers and also if you work in the media or graphics field, IE is unlikely to be the browser of choice as Macs as far more popular than in the general population.
The way my site was implemented was to ensure consistency across platform and full browser compatibility with out using Flash. It made for a fiddlier back end, but it ensured it worked consistently, without using Flash. Next version of site will be simpler, but still cross-platform and still browser friendly.

Actually Imp complimented you and then also gave you some very useful feedback about your site's browser issues, specifically, problems with browsers other than IE, so rather than take it as a personal dig, maybe you should think, that was some useful advice that you were given. And it was useful, as sites that only work in IE show poor design skills and are not good if you want to create a good image. Sites should work in all browsers and also if you work in the media or graphics field, IE is unlikely to be the browser of choice as Macs as far more popular than in the general population.
The way my site was implemented was to ensure consistency across platform and full browser compatibility with out using Flash. It made for a fiddlier back end, but it ensured it worked consistently, without using Flash. Next version of site will be simpler, but still cross-platform and still browser friendly.

At the end of the day it was the first website I had put together and made live so I think I did really well as a "novice" Actually I take nothing personal, I do read into everything but all I was saying was firefox isn't everything, the site works great in IE. and the site offered much more than just gold lettering maybe it's a photographer or restorator thing I don't know. Yes next time I design a site it will be everything browser wise. I love photo restoration work, I suppose it's seen as changing raw images, but don't filters for lenses do the same thing.
Anyway I enjoyed building my website as a novice it looked exactly as I wanted it to look It had flash , static design, imagination and flare without the common look of websites and after 900 hits in two weeks I think that speaks for it's self, I always think dark on light and light on dark works better, but thankyou everyone who commented on the site I do take om board your views and I will when I get time from the restoration work coming in now look again and improve the website further. Hope jezzyjj overall you enjoyed the look of my website I have viewed yours and like imp the photo,s are sharpe pleasing to the eye so well done:thumbsup:

Working great in IE is not good enough as a lot of people do not use it. It doesn't matter if you don't rate FF/Safari/Opera, but as others do, you should still design a website that works in all of them and please do not take umbrage if someone helpfully points out it's broken in FF.

Working great in IE is not good enough as a lot of people do not use it. It doesn't matter if you don't rate FF/Safari/Opera, but as others do, you should still design a website that works in all of them and please do not take umbrage if someone helpfully points out it's broken in FF.

Anyway what did you think of the site as a whole first time not bad at all and you'll probably find 80% use IE. But as I say the post was about the whole website not just the browsers and title text. At the end of the day I'm more than happy with it. As for firefox that can easily be sorted out.
I didin't realise people were so passionate about their browsers it's all about experience though. The next site will be up for comment very soon hopefully not too many slips next time. Look forwardd to your views.

As browsers are an integral part of the viewing experience, when you are talking about websites,then you must talk about them too. And if 1/5th don't use IE [plus the fact that different versions of IE also work differently], that's a lot of people who may have problems if you only consider whichever version of IE you have on your machine.
Personally, I only use IE or FF to check sites as they are too clumsy and way inferior in so many ways to the browser I normally use [Opera]. Never understood the fuss about FF, it's like raving about Win 3.1/OS 6 when Win XP/OSX is already available.

As you asked for thoughts on for your site design itself.
There's a lot of dead space above the logo which is way too big, which means on my laptop I have to needlessly scroll down to see rest of page, which should easily fit within the space available. The Terms/Contact/Site map are also unnnecessarily repeated at top of page which again takes up valuble vertical height.
The layout doesn't work properly in Opera and I, like many others simply wouldn't bother using IE to see a site that's broken, unless I had to. Navigation is also a bit flaky in Safari, with prices on a second line.
On the subject of navigation, there are no visual clues as to which page you are on by looking at the navigation itself, which is the normal and easy way to orientate oneself.
I'll just comment on one page in depth, the slideshow page as that's open in front of me - too much repitition of very little info and the fact that there is a separate slideshow page is not obvious [and which also displays quite differently to rest of site - not good]. The slideshow on initial example page is ugly, confusing, takes up more space than necessary and is a bit odd in use. The example page you have to click to, would be better as the only example page - if it was made consistent with rest of site. Though popups you have to close to see next image are very annoying to use, there's a tweaked version of that method [ http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/ ]which allows you to go back and fore through the images and is much nicer in use.

The gold/embossed font looks odd next to the black stroked font beneath it and generally the site looks and feels very 90s and assumes the customer had not used a website before.


I understand it may be your first site, but doing good web design, with clear navigation, that is consistent across browsers/OSs is anything but easy, it's something I used to do full time. But now with doing photography + design more, I simply do not have time to keep up with all the browser fudges one needs to learn. So I'll have someone else do my coding in future.
As for coding - you have CSS in your page header and then specify things like bold text individually, that's not how to use CSS efficiently.
And on your prices page you use frames, ugh!

Generally on the site, I'd recomend less text and more examples of work, with a brief caption, to better show what you do. If people ask me about my photography, I show them pictures, I don't waste time descibing what I do, so I always have examples with me.

I'm only at ameteur level but feedback would be great, my photography myspace: http://www.myspace.com/kelseykaoticphotography

and deviantart: http://www.dutchess-of-feshu.deviantart.com/


little word to the wise - when I was in college we were told of which sites we could use to host our photography, if anyone uses facebook for it, it just violates your copyright and they technically own any image you put on that site.

Jezyjj

Thanks very much for your comments along with inps comments I will surely
make good use of them, I do tend to use lots of white around what I do just
so the look is easy on the eye and I do tend to explain things indepth a little purely because I'm interested in what I do and I do design well and code accordingly.

But yes valued comments I will use, if there are any other aspects of the site you can help me with then yes send them to me.

Cheers:thumbsup:

I do tend to use lots of white around what I do just so the look is easy on the eyeIf you are talking white space, then it's used inapproriately on your site with regard to window placement and is lacking on your first page with regard to text and images within the window itself as there is none to speak of with the text being very cramped and in places not even readable as a result. Some padding would help.


and I do tend to explain things indepth a little purely because I'm interested in what I do But it's what your customers are interested in or will work best for them that is actually important. I don't bother talking about what software or cameras I use, I simply show some nice pics. :thumbsup: A photo/imaging site that has more text than images simply misses the mark.

I'm only at ameteur level but feedback would be great, my photography myspace: http://www.myspace.com/kelseykaoticphotography

and deviantart: http://www.dutchess-of-feshu.deviantart.com/


little word to the wise - when I was in college we were told of which sites we could use to host our photography, if anyone uses facebook for it, it just violates your copyright and they technically own any image you put on that site.
And if you want to be serious about showing your work, using MySpace/Deviant Art is not good as having your own site. They may be good for networking or seeing peers work maybe, but it's much better to have your own website with your own identity if you want to go beyond amateur status.

There's a discussion here on Lightstalkers [pro photographers group] about Facebook
http://www.lightstalkers.org/copyright-grab-by-facebook-

If you are talking white space, then it's used inapproriately on your site with regard to window placement and is lacking on your first page with regard to text and images within the window itself as there is none to speak of with the text being very cramped and in places not even readable as a result. Some padding would help.

But it's what your customers are interested in or will work best for them that is actually important. I don't bother talking about what software or cameras I use, I simply show some nice pics. :thumbsup: A photo/imaging site that has more text than images simply misses the mark.
Actually white space on my site is used quite well, text isn't cramped it's readable, I never use white lettering on a white background for obvisous reasons and I never use pages which waste space with just text on saying more images to follow totally a waste of time looking at them, look at any restoration site everyone explains how the process is done, not everyone knows how to scan a photo properly or the difference between restoration and manipulation. As for not enough photos on the site have another count you will be quietly surprised.

Text on a site is quite important than loads of photo/images explaining the same thing I have tried to balance text with photos, I think it works and the work coming in now shows that. As for the design aspect I've been doing it too long now for that to be an issue.
Someone many years ago gave me sound advice, if the person is better than you, listen to them if not don't listen.

Office, after the discussion going on here I thought I'd have a look.

Not a bad effort, though in a couple of places there are images that overlap text making it unreadable (I'm using Flock, browser based on Mozilla if you're interested in looking at it).

Cheers Dafoot,

I will be making a few changes when I get the time, also reviewing the look of my site and making the changes you mentioned. Hopefully my next attemps will be better.

But thanks again

Cheers Office:thumbsup:

Actually white space on my site is used quite well, text isn't cramped it's readable So maybe DaFoot and I imagined the text on your first page being cramped and at times unreadable due to poor design.:confused:

I never use white lettering on a white background for obvisous reasons and I never use pages which waste space with just text on saying more images to follow totally a waste of time looking at them As for the petty digs at my site, white text with a strong drop shadow means text is perfectly legible on a white background and saying more images will be added to the less full galleries is actually a sensible thing to do, as it means you do not need to view further, duh!

look at any restoration site everyone explains how the process is done, not everyone knows how to scan a photo properly or the difference between restoration and manipulation. As for not enough photos on the site have another count you will be quietly surprised.
Text on a site is quite important than loads of photo/images explaining the same thing I have tried to balance text with photos, I think it works and the work coming in now shows that. Completely missed the point of what I said.

As for the design aspect I've been doing it too long now for that to be an issue. One website done and you're an expert! Wow, that impressive. BTW overuse of the bevel/emboss filter :gag: is a dead giveaway of a novice designer, not to mention that it's somewhat dated.

Someone many years ago gave me sound advice, if the person is better than you, listen to them if not don't listen.Somehow I doubt you even notice if someone had more knowledge, skill or experience.

Mine http://www.flickr.com/photos/gigglejuice/

Been a bit uninspired for a while now though so not entirely happy with recent stuff :(

[QUOTE=DaFoot;3861507]Office, after the discussion going on here I thought I'd have a look.

Not a bad effort,

Like I said I listen to the people who are more experienced than me,
again I,ve taken onboard your comments jezzjj i've got quite a few now when I get a spare minute or two I will review the site but keep on looking at it because it helps my hits to the site.

Enjoyed viewing the photos by kelseykaotic and kblade whats the eqipment being used here.

Mines a Fuji finepix S5500

...but keep on looking at it because it helps my hits to the site.

At the risk of incurring further wrath :D can I ask why you want more hits to the site? I can't think what good repeat hits from the same source are going to do?

My thoughts exactly!

...A photo/imaging site that has more text than images simply misses the mark.

I must disagree (well I would wouldn't I :D). It all depends on the purpose of the site. If you're looking to attract clients, particularly for social photography jobs - weddings, portraits and what-not - then the words give the visitor some sort of impression of you as a person and they way you work. Few people will book a wedding photographer who comes over as a total bore (unless they too are terminal bores), they want someone they like and can get on with as well as someone who will give them results that they like.

And apart from that search engines like words.

Thank you again for your comments totally agree imp text does help a great deal with search engines, and hit pages are great to have keeps me in touch with the site 24 hours a day. I enjoy the stats side of things I can tell whether people are just paying a flying visit or they are looking through the site and which pages are popular helps when reviewing the site. I do get work from the site, word of mouth, flyers, stats are an important part of the whole thing well for me anyway.
Over a 1000 hits in 3 weeks, not bad going and most people do spend time browsing my site even though it may be boring to others.
Whats the saying you can't always tell whether advertising works this one does.
Nothing wrong with having a stats page, ask the others who use them.

Mmmm - stats can get addictive but don't get too hung up about hits, visits are more important (Webalizer type visits anyway). And for the ultimate in stats have a look at Google Analytics (http://www.google.com/analytics/).

Cheers for the link imp.
looks an interesting site.
I can tell from myown stats the pages where visitors tend to spend more time hopefully reading the text pages. Just gives visitors that small insight to what I actually do, and the terms page fully explains what I don't want sending photowise.

I must disagree (well I would wouldn't I :D). yes! :P

It all depends on the purpose of the site. If you're looking to attract clients, particularly for social photography jobs - weddings, portraits and what-not - then the words give the visitor some sort of impression of you as a person and they way you work. Few people will book a wedding photographer who comes over as a total bore (unless they too are terminal bores), they want someone they like and can get on with as well as someone who will give them results that they like.

And apart from that search engines like words.You missed the point of what I said "photo/imaging site with more text than images simply misses the mark". Not no text. And Photographix has a lot of repeated text telling you very little compared to simply showing a few images demostrating far more clearly what he offers.
There are no images on the design or restoration pages at all and just one not very good example on the maniulation page.

In filmmaking there is the adage, 'show don't tell', which is just as useful when it comes to websites.
People want to see photos on a photography site, design on a design site....etc. Personally if the writing comes before the photography, I simply move on as if they don't think the images are worth showing up front, I cannot be bothered looking at them.
Besides with good alt text, images can be fine with search engines.

yes! :P

You missed the point of what I said "photo/imaging site with more text than images simply misses the mark". Not no text. And Photographix has a lot of repeated text telling you very little compared to simply showing a few images demostrating far more clearly what he offers.
There are no images on the design or restoration pages at all and just one not very good example on the maniulation page.

In filmmaking there is the adage, 'show don't tell', which is just as useful when it comes to websites.
People want to see photos on a photography site, design on a design site....etc. Personally if the writing comes before the photography, I simply move on as if they don't think the images are worth showing up front, I cannot be bothered looking at them.
Besides with good alt text, images can be fine with search engines.

I think the only person missing the point is yourself, at least if you are unhappy about anyones site at least spell the site correctly so we know you are talking about the right site and spelling manipulation, demonstrating doesn't help also, if you don't like the site why the continuous viewing of it I suppose it has that magnetic feel to it.
Look again at the design /restoration pages I can count six and half images try IE browser they are there.
I think it's time now to let someone else show their site to the forum too much unnecessary time wasted talking about mine,

sorry everyone on the forum for continued boring nonsense.

Having a go at some obvious typos is a bit sad don't you think and a little daft coming from someone who has trouble with English comprehension and punctuation.
BTW, none of the images on your design or restoration pages have anything to do with specific page content, so how are they relevant? Duh!
God this is why I usually avoid online forums!

.... try IE browser they are there....
I think that is the point JezzyJJ is trying to make.

As a developer/designer you cannot expect people to confirm to what you want in order to view the site. If you want people to read through your site then you need to make sure it is readable on as many platform/browser combinations as possible.

As a minimum I'd suggest you'd want to check your site appears as you want it to in IE6+7, Firefox 1.5+2.x and Opera.

It is a good idea to also test at several screen resolutions.

Dafoot, I do understand the importance of the browser bit.

The website has been turned inside out, so thanks for that now I know exactly what to look for and noted the pages that need reviewing.

The one good point about it all I now understand the importance of the browsers it's alright saying I stand out as a novice web designer, but thats what I am at the moment no problem there.

Things will get better, better, better as I go on.
Hopefully the next time you look at the site for what reason, things will improve.

But I am surprised no one picked up on one area I thought they would have.

You missed the point of what I said "photo/imaging site with more text than images simply misses the mark". Not no text.

Yeah yeah - I got it but coming from you I just couldn't resist a pop! :D (What is the equivalence of words to pictures btw? One pic == a thousand words I suppose)

It's a million words per picture these days with inflation. ;)

It is a good idea to also test at several screen resolutions.For example, the site doesn't fit on my laptop screen and only because of the overly large banner and wasted space above it. So although desktop monitors have become much bigger, laptops have become more commonplace and 800px high is still fairly normal for many people.

All this petty nonsense, life must be really boring.

It really makes you think twice about using this forum with all the constant petty talk just not worth reading about.

It just goes on and on and on.

Back to the important stuff though there has been quite a few well designed and thoughtout websites to view through this post so well done to everyone who was brave enough to put their website forward and to the critics amongst us who slide through the net they are ten a penny.

Keep up the the good work the websites were excellent I expect to be quoted on these points again should I expect anything less.

Keep on sending in the websites.

Anyone take photos anymore? I mean the ones you actually take and look at after? maybe keep in an album, enlarge, pass to someone else, OR DO YOU JUST ARGUE ABOUT WEBSITES???? :rant:

In this thread we critique websites. Duh!

All this petty nonsense, life must be really boring.

It really makes you think twice about using this forum with all the constant petty talk just not worth reading about.

It just goes on and on and on. You were given a lot of very useful and constructive feedback on your very first site from people who are experienced in web design work.
But sadly you chose to behave childishly and started to attack others. I'd say people have been very restrained considering your attitude.

In this thread we critique websites. Duh!
Imp, if I ran an online forum, my only rule would be, "Read all the words [and preferrably in the correct order] in both topic heading and all posts before replying". All miscreants who flouted this rule would be barred.:thumbsup:

In this thread we critique websites. Duh!

I know that, I just mean that a lot of this digital malarky seems to end up with people discussing websites rather than photos, a bit like discussing a picture frame rather than the painting itself....

why don't you bite the bullet and put your websites up for review (impy /jezy) on a separate post to this one if you are both experts
in this field of photography and website designing / designing in general.
Separate meaning (not joined or united with others) and if you can no mention of the office.

I wonder if you can...

The only constructive advice has come from the many other forum members i'm afraid.

Mine is www.crayfish.zenfolio.com

I like the layout of zenfolio, but it costs money. Nothing's perfect, sigh...

I know that, I just mean that a lot of this digital malarky seems to end up with people discussing websites rather than photos, a bit like discussing a picture frame rather than the painting itself....Seeing as framing can make or break a picture, not entirely a good analogy. There's a shot on the pimp your photo thread [I think] of the Angel of the North statue which is particularly strong due to the nice framing.
Besides there are a lot of other threads that discuss photography, I think only this one is about websites.

impy /jezy
The only constructive advice has come from the many other forum members i'm afraid.Well if there was any doubt you have reading problems, are completely blinkered and have no interest in improving yourself, there's none now. Though you foolishly seem to think you are beyond improvement anyway. :loopy: Another little tip for you to ignore - Nobody is beyond improvement.

Also you do seem to be contradicting yourself as you previously posted this
"Jezyjj Thanks very much for your comments along with inps comments I will surely make good use of them".

Congratulations BTW as you have been added to the SF ignore list.

Mmm - zenfolio looks to have had some thought put into it and in particular doesn't make the all too common mistake of using full black or white as a background colour. I think it's a mistake anyway. A photograph on a black or white background looks kinda muddy unless it too has full black shadows and white highlights - and even then it doesn't really stand out against the background, only keeps up with it. Colour too seems to hit you more when shown against a dark grey background - as your US pics show admirably, Crayfish. :thumbsup:

why don't you bite the bullet and put your websites up for review (impy /jezy)

'Grief sunshine! Are you blind as well as daft? I put my website up for review at the beginning of this thread - when it was still nice and calm and constructive. You even looked at it yourself and told me there were too many churches or some such.

Put your reading glasses on and look here...

www.impinabox.co.uk (http://www.impinabox.co.uk)

[QUOTE=ImpInaBox;3885724]'Grief sunshine! Are you blind as well as daft? I put my website up for review at the beginning of this thread - when it was still nice and calm and constructive. You even looked at it yourself and told me there were too many churches or some such.

Put your reading glasses on and look here...

Quote imp:Mmm - zenfolio looks to have had some thought put into it and in particular doesn't make the all too common mistake of using full black or white as a background colour.

So why have you made your background colours dark, dosen't add up probably why I haven't took your advice :huh:

Aren't we in for one hell of a treat, matey:huh:
next time could make the lettering a little more clear having difficulty reading this one, hold on got it now:confused:

nice and calm then you piped in. Actually I rather like church pictures taken hundreds myself love the textures and designs the most. Chesterfield has quite an unusual one. There are plenty to amuse yourself with in your town of sheffield too.
yes,crayfish those usa photographs are something else. Your entire site is very well presented. Plenty of interesting photos to browse through a real pleasure to view. Flawless Photography. thank you:thumbsup:

Mmm - zenfolio looks to have had some thought put into it and in particular doesn't make the all too common mistake of using full black or white as a background colour. I think it's a mistake anyway. A photograph on a black or white background looks kinda muddy unless it too has full black shadows and white highlights - and even then it doesn't really stand out against the background, only keeps up with it. When doing my site I ummed and ahhed over black Vs white Vs grey connundrum and decided the best solution was to use the colour that suited each image individually. Some look much better on black, some on dark grey, some on white and others look better full bleed. More faff but it made for a better presentation of the photos as one size doesn't fit all. Plus I tend to frame the images as well, because it stops them bleeding into background colour, a common problem with unframed images placed on black or white backgrounds.
And if image doesn't have full blacks and whites, go back and fix it! Unless of course that is the look one is going for.


New site is done very differently to simplify the updating process. It's all designed, just need to find all the images to go into site. That's the painful and very time consuming part, selecting down.

Quote imp:Mmm - zenfolio looks to have had some thought put into it and in particular doesn't make the all too common mistake of using full black or white as a background colour.

So why have you made your background colours dark, dosen't add up probably why I haven't took your advice :huh:

Sigh! This is hard work... dark grey != black. Subtle but important.

I think jezzy was right - I'll hit the ignore button from now

:(
Aww, come on guys, keep it going, this has been a great thread. Can anybody really tell if Office is
a) a muppet
b) a troll
c) drunk

I like the advice about churches best - there are some in Sheffield apparently. Who'd a thunk?

Can anybody really tell...

One of the wonderful things about a forum is trying to work out what kinda person is at the other end and what they really mean - or maybe there's just a machine. Alan Turing woulda loved it! :D

Right you lot. Can we have some love back on the forum please ? It's a bit offputting for those that havent yet posted on the thread. But some valid stuff has been said so will leave it there.

Changing the subject - this is a great collection of images (http://www.opacity.us) that was mentioned on a recent TWIP podcast (http://twipphoto.com/), more documentary than looking nice (although some great aerial work) and could do with tarting up. Wish it were my site :)

Now has anyone else got a site they want to pimp ?

Now THAT is a cracking site! Good pics too (if a little depressing) - and timely bearing in mind this months competition subject! Well spotted. :thumbsup:

EDIT: ...tho on second thoughts there's a lot of scrolling needed - it won't fit jezzy's wide screen too well. OK - I'll get me coat!

Now THAT is a cracking site! Good pics too (if a little depressing) - and timely bearing in mind this months competition subject! Well spotted. :thumbsup:

EDIT: ...tho on second thoughts there's a lot of scrolling needed - it won't fit jezzy's wide screen too well. OK - I'll get me coat!


Which will be nice ;)

Now has anyone else got a site they want to pimp ?

Does this have to be your own site or can it be anything?

Does this have to be your own site or can it be anything?

Whichever you want :)

In which case Grissom these are some other Urban websites which have some amazing images

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/index.php
http://www.urbexforums.co.uk/index.php

Also take a look at what exists under Sheffield!!!

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21878
http://www.oobject.com/spectacular-sewers/sheffield-storm-drain-england/2141/

Amazing pictures! (Impinabox I have some gaffa tape for your box so shush ;))

Lovely stuff :) I love tunnel pics - there are some great 'nuclear bunker for sale' sites that show what they used to look like and what they could be used for and how you could live there... just need to win the lotto !

I have some photos from a nuclear bunker I went to 2 weeks ago at Abbeydale Golf Club, not very good though, more showing what it looked like pictures.

EDIT: ...tho on second thoughts there's a lot of scrolling needed - it won't fit jezzy's wide screen too well. OK - I'll get me coat!It's not a widescren, It's a small screen [on 13" laptop] which is only 800px high.
Scrolling vertically is not a problem. Scrolling because the banner is a quarter of the page with lot's of empty space above it, is simply annoying. And the imortant bit of this urban exploration site [the photos and navigation] fits on my laptop screen nicely.

He already has his coat! He's gone!

Wuss, it's not even raining that much.

Just found this site listed in an e-zine: http://www.shorpy.com/. Fascinating photos of times gone by - and the site is nothing to do with me I hasten to add!

The colour pic of the girl with the sextant (3rd down) is interesting - is that a bit of dust on the sensor just by her right arm??? :D

It's a bit freaky how all the women in the image in the office, have identical haircuts.

hey i like those pics - the comments below the full-size versions really bring teh photos to life :)

OK so we have a thread on pimping your best photo.... now pimp your website !

It'd be good to see your site, whatever it is - from a professionally designed one for your business or wedding, your FaceBook and MySpace pages, and on to your own website you've crafted yourself using software or by hand from scratch :)

My Stock Photo site can be reached using the link in my signature, so where do we see yours ? :cool:

Mine is on my signature. The photos are mainly for family and friends (you lend them and never get them back) so I put them on my site to copy.

Errr, you haven't got a signature! :confused:

Errr, you haven't got a signature! :confused:

Just for you.

http://mickcoyles.com