C & C welcome!! New photo site!

[cookie1105]

Well, I have just validated. It's still a little bit rough around the edges. But for a first draft, it will do. Have checked it in Firefox & Safari (no serious breaks). Any other browsers would be appreciated.

Please do me the favour of having a look at my new photo site and critiqueing it. Be as harsh as you want to be, it's the only way it will get any good. I just can't look at it any more, it's 03:33 here and I am absolutely wasted.

Thanks for looking

Cookie

www.fotish.dk

 

[frankblundt]

It's nice enough. A little under-imaged for what I'd expect from a photography site, more and bigger please, they're good photos, you should use them.

The portfolio images take a very long time to load for the size they're at - you might consider a simpler javascript implementation.

Mainly you seem to have relationship problems.

The relationship between text and images (too close to one another, and not aligned either closely or disparately enough - i tend towards the image being slightly higher than the text myself.

The relationship between the fotish and photography in the logo - there doesn't appear to be one.

 

[celebrian23]

I'm looking at in IE just in case you care, which I doubt you do- text on first page is unreadable (it's a light gray) except for the links. So are some of the other pages.

 

[cookie1105]

It's nice enough. A little under-imaged for what I'd expect from a photography site, more and bigger please, they're good photos, you should use them.

Thanks Frank, I do appreciate your comments, because it seems like you really know what you are talking about. I was hoping you would have a look at it. By under-imaged, I assume you mean there should be more photos. I agree with you. My original idea was to have a couple of galleries. I think I am going to go back to the original idea, I just wanted quality over quantity.

The portfolio images take a very long time to load for the size they're at - you might consider a simpler javascript implementation.

hhmmhh, funny that. I am sitting here with a copy of Jeremy Keith's Dom scripting next to me. His gallery is definitely a lot better (backwards compatible, unobtrusive....) than the one that I am using at the moment. I just thought that I would try the one that I am using first, and see how it looked. But after looking at it in the cold light of day...Jeremy Keiths gallery is the way to go.

Mainly you seem to have relationship problems.

The relationship between text and images (too close to one another, and not aligned either closely or disparately enough - i tend towards the image being slightly higher than the text myself.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It was one of my major headaches yesterday. I got it sorted in Firefox, and then the positioning didn't work in Safari. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

The relationship between the fotish and photography in the logo - there doesn't appear to be one.

No, the two fonts don't complement each other very well. Will try to work on it.
Thanks for your comments frank.

 

[cookie1105]

I'm looking at in IE just in case you care, which I doubt you do- text on first page is unreadable (it's a light gray) except for the links. So are some of the other pages.

Godamn I.E. On waking up, I checked it out on my girlfriends pc. What a mess!! The navigation bar has dissapeared (I suspect min width hack) and the writing is illegible. Funny, because I used websafe colours. I do care because, 80%of the surfing population still use I.E. I am trying to make it accesible for all of the current supported browsers. Firefox, Safari, I.E., Camino, Opera etc.

Oh well, I guess I have to spend some more time on it

oh yeah, Celebrian, what does your sig say. Something like: I live in Wales, where do you live?

 

[frankblundt]

I sympathise - getting table-less layouts to work across all the browsers is no easy matter. I generally start with a standards-based approach (Strict HTML 4), which usually works well enough in Safari / Firefox - less so Opera, then "break" it with hacks and fiddling to make it work in IE6PC. Mostly it seems to come down to conflicting ideas about margins, padding, floats and inline display vs block. I don't bother with IE5Mac much, just because it's so utterly hopeless.

By under-imaged i mean both more images throughout the site (on the contact, prints and login pages for example, not necessarily more than one, but at least one) and to make them larger, more dominant/prominent - they are what the site is about after all. Perhaps to the extent of filling the whole half page so that they aren't subverted by borders or edges - the image defines the page. They're good enough to do it.

And I'm glad to be of some help.