Please sock it to me. Let me know all the bad about my website: www.dclphoto.com

Also, do you prefer:
1. the way my portfolio weddings and senior images are displayed (http://www.dclphoto.com/Portfolio/We...4841&k=PFvhLbz)
2. the way my portfolio family and children images are displayed (http://www.dclphoto.com/Portfolio/Fa...2217&k=83LZtPX)
3. the regular smugmug style boxes to the left with large image to the right?
4. another suggestion all together?

I know I need these galleries to consistenet, but cant decide how I want the images displayed. Thanks in advance for any critique you may offer!

I like it. The only thing I noticed was the initial loading of the slideshow - there's a missing image and during that brief second or so while the real slideshow loads, you see that placeholder thing that indicates an image should be there but it's not. Know what I mean? I don't know what the description of it is but I know when I had a slideshow on mine, I had to create an image that said 'loading' so people saw something before my photos started to load. I'm sure someone here knows what I'm talking about and point you in the right direction. :-)

I'm using IE 7, so I might be the only one seeing this, but on all of your pages, I'm seeing a red x in the upper left hand corner.
Its as if you're missing an image...or something.

I also see you have your Originals available. Unless you want people to steal your images and print them, I'd make X3 your
max size available. This way if anyone swipes an X3 and tries to print it, the quality will stink.

Doug

I am using Firefox Mac and it loads fine for me. I don't see any missing images, or red x's.

I prefer the variance of the wedding style, as one shot under the next (for me) is not as appealing as the variety of layout that you have in the wedding portfolio.

I've used Chrome and Safari, and both show me a broken image link first in your slideshow, and then it switches to proper images. Not sure if one of your slideshow images maybe went AWOL?

On a laptop with 15" screen your logo and nav bar occupy 1/3 to 1/2 of my vertical screen space. People with these screen sizes have to scroll on every page just to see the first image. There is a lot of vacant/empty space on the left and right hand sides of the screen.
Agree with maximum image size - unless you want to give away your high res images, you need to limit the size visitors can see to something LESS than "Original"

This thread discusses it in more detail:
ORIGINALS = a gateway to free photos, & right click protection is NOT PROTECTION.

This link shows the pixel dimensions of each display size:
http://help.smugmug.com/customer/por...0#displaysizes

Can't say I am a fan of having to scroll through so many images. I think the Smugmug style of thumbs on the left and larger image on right is a good compromise with viewing a lot of images quickly and then getting a closer look at the ones that interest me.
I really like your background texture and colour scheme.

Originally Posted by AceCo55 On a laptop with 15" screen your logo and nav bar occupy 1/3 to 1/2 of my vertical screen space. People with these screen sizes have to scroll on every page just to see the first image. There is a lot of vacant/empty space on the left and right hand sides of the screen. Agree with maximum image size - unless you want to give away your high res images, you need to limit the size visitors can see to something LESS than "Original" This thread discusses it in more detail: ORIGINALS = a gateway to free photos, & right click protection is NOT PROTECTION. This link shows the pixel dimensions of each display size: http://help.smugmug.com/customer/por...0#displaysizes Can't say I am a fan of having to scroll through so many images. I think the Smugmug style of thumbs on the left and larger image on right is a good compromise with viewing a lot of images quickly and then getting a closer look at the ones that interest me. I really like your background texture and colour scheme.

Thank you! After reading the suggested thread, I made all images X2 and I dont notice any compromise in quality on the screen.

The gallery style has been an internal debate I would like to just end for myself. The smugmug view seems to get most votes whenever I ask people which they prefer, and I agree for ease of viewing multiple images. Lately, it seems the journalistic/blog style has become very popular all over the web, so I was trying it out. I like how it displays images side by side and I can place complimentary images together. Sooooo, this leads to another question I have of your opinion, please: I am going to change my galleries to smugmug style. Should I have individual images in the smugmug style or do I leave them in side by side collages and just display themas they are in smumug format? I appreciate your input. Thank you!

kygarden - I didnt notice this, so I will get to searching on a solution. Thank you!

jclguru - I read more about the size of images and I actually made them X2 and it didnt seem to effect the screen image quality to where I notice on a 27" screen. I hadnt considered this before, so I really appreciate this. Just curious, how can you, as a visitor viewer, tell what size I made the images? Thanks!

AperturePlus - Your opinion seems to be the majority as well. I will be changing this. Thank you!

redannie - I dont think I have any images missing. I have heard this from a few different people now, so I shall search for a solution to this on the forum. Thanks!


Thanks so much everyone . . . .

Sooooo, this leads to another question I have of your opinion, please: I am going to change my galleries to smugmug style. Should I have individual images in the smugmug style or do I leave them in side by side collages and just display themas they are in smumug format? I appreciate your input. Thank you!

My opinion - definitely doesn't make it true!! I'm wondering what advantage there is in creating 2-image collages. Seems like it would be quite a bit of extra work for not much gain. The thumbnails would be small and so the viewer may not be able to make out what the thumbnail is (as you can't see the entire image in the thumbnail - assuming you are using square thumbnails.) Once a viewer selects an image to see a larger version of it, they will get a smaller look as the size is going to be shared over two images. I just don't see much advantage in creating these collages but I can see some disadvantages - but that could be my ignorance!

Originally Posted by AceCo55 Sooooo, this leads to another question I have of your opinion, please: I am going to change my galleries to smugmug style. Should I have individual images in the smugmug style or do I leave them in side by side collages and just display themas they are in smumug format? I appreciate your input. Thank you! My opinion - definitely doesn't make it true!! I'm wondering what advantage there is in creating 2-image collages. Seems like it would be quite a bit of extra work for not much gain. The thumbnails would be small and so the viewer may not be able to make out what the thumbnail is (as you can't see the entire image in the thumbnail - assuming you are using square thumbnails.) Once a viewer selects an image to see a larger version of it, they will get a smaller look as the size is going to be shared over two images. I just don't see much advantage in creating these collages but I can see some disadvantages - but that could be my ignorance!

It is more work, I just thought it look more "editorial", but you def make some good points. I appreciate all your comments. Thanks!