Shaun Really impressive site - I looked mainly at the flower shots as that's my interest.
I liked the clarity in the thumnbnails and the sharpness of the scans generally. Were all of these taken with the *istD or have some of them been scanned from slides and then worked over in software? I've got quite a lot of wildflower shots on slides but I've found it difficult to get decent scans. My transparency adaptor attached to the Epson 1650 Photo scanner gives results which are acceptable for the web but not much else and I've found the quality of Kodak Photo CD scans ranges from excellent to abysmal with most being just OK. Back to your website - I agree with earlier comments about the size of the images and I still think they are a bit large. Is there a reason why they need to be that large? As a viewer of the site, I would prefer if they could fit on the screen without scrolling. The only other thing I can think of is the way you reference your external links. At present, anyone who clicks on the "mesothelioma" link, for example, gets taken away from your site and may not return. It might be worth "targeting" the external links to a separate window so that your site stays active. Cheers Brian +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Association of Societies for Growing Australian Plants http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP Shaun Canning wrote: >Hi Gang, >Kevin rightly mentioned that the images on my revamped website were too >large, which indeed they were. So, I have revamped the site for the >second time to reduce the size (and download time) of the images. None >are now larger than about 250k. > >Please have a look and send some feedback. There was very little last >time, and I'm hoping it was because the images were too big, not because >they are crap! ---- Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
