Pimp your photo website!

[mr chris 10]

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

 

Anyway, http://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!

[repox 10]

Here's mine. All comments welcome.

http://www.repoxphoto.com

[alchresearch 214]

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.

 

http://www.gibbo.co.nr

[neoquaid 10]

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!

[ImpInaBox 10]

Here's mine. All comments welcome.

 

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

[office 10]

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.

[ImpInaBox 10]

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.

[office 10]

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.

[ImpInaBox 10]

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.

[peak4 261]

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.

[jezzyjj 10]

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.

[office 10]

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: