Since somebody else has already mentioned them, I hope you won't mind if I add my thoughts. I usually look at your site when you post a link, and I usually enjoy your photos. But I think the page design is really off-putting. The borders and the overall weight of the pages is too heavy for the pictures, and dominates them. There are too many borders, most of them unnecessary, and they overpower the contents, which people have come to see.
I do like the idea of a neutral grey background for the photos. A lot of research suggests it is the most effective background for presenting photographs, and it's used very effectively on a lot of sites. Here are some examples: http://www.mitidieri.com/ I think the grey here is a bit too dark, but look how it promotes the colour. http://www.maryellenmark.com/ this is a much better grey for the background, but I don't think she needs the black menu bar http://www.viiphoto.com this uses the same general idea, but is slightly too busy in parts http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/Home_MAG.aspx Magnum does everything well. I've used basically the same approach for my own website (which I've taken down - this is work in <laughing> progress </laughing> http://www.web-options.com/WIP/romanians3.xml uses xml/xsl and it may not work in all browsers; the internal links don't work. In this photo the thick border is part of the scanned image, and won't be there if I ever finish the site. Your PAW index http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?hitme=1&results_per_page=100&; max_pages=1&output_file=paw/index.html&mode=search is muck more along the lines that I think works best for photos. As you may gather, I like a minimalist look, and this is just an opinion. But I do think it's supported by a lot of successful sites. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 June 2005 11:03 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PAW - "Clouds at Lindis Pass" > > On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: > > > Hi David > > I like your picture but as I have written to you before would much > > prefer to see larger images than unbelievable thick borders. > > Why ??? ;-) > > I'm still intending to look at those borders, when I get > time. Maybe I'll put in some JavaScripted buttons to let you > guys set the border width, then a button that tells me what > size you ended up with ;) > > I made my files a bit small because I wanted them to be > entirely visible in just about any resolution, without > scrolling. For portrait orientation this is a real problem > because there just aren't that many pixels available. > > The problem at the other end of the scale is that those of us > with big, high-res screens end up with a picture that's a bit > small. The smallish size actually doesn't bother me, but I > am used to it and I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't > maximise the browser window. > > At the moment the photo + big borders can fit into 1024x768 with all > the overheads of the browser's title bar and big navigation > buttons. > If I shrink the borders I might be able to enlarge the photo > a bit more... depending on whether I feel like supporting > 800x600 which may be what I had in mind when I settled on my > current file sizes. > > Cheers, > > - Dave > > http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ > > > > >
