Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Website

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Website

    Renewed the photography dep. of my website. All photographs are done over in Lightroom. Lot of work
    In some cases, I still don't know what is the best handling but I think it is an for ever changing process.

    http://www.michielschierbeek.com/Fotopagina.html

    Here is an example from the Logistics serie.



    Under Traffic you find some Photographs I was thinking of in my other thread
    -Suject, abstraction and bokeh.
    Not a very good example or well put, I quess, because some people got the wrong impression on the suject. What's on a man's mind.
    Kind regards, Michiel

  2. #2
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Website

    Hi

    well ... firstly (as someone who works in libraries) I don't like pages which force people to use a specific display width (especially if its wider than 1024 pixels). So your HTML forcing tables and views of:

    <table width="1201" height="1321" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="Table_01">
    is not what I think of as good style ... aside from that I think it looks nice (after I scroll around to see it)

    I also don't like to run my applications full screened ... hence loosing much of the functionality of my OS ... so I don't like my browser to be the only thing I can see. So even if I had a 1600 wide display I wouldn't be seeing it that wide.

    just a thought

  3. #3
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: Full Screen

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    I also don't like to run my applications full screened ...
    just a thought
    Why?
    Just a question

  4. #4
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Full Screen

    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    Why?
    Just a question
    back when I used dos I was limited to doing one thing at a time, then along came doshell (or was that dosshell and I could "alt tab" between applications.

    when I had a mac classic with a tinky tot screen even it didn't default to making all applications full screened, and you could simply click on a background application to bring it to the foreground. Heck, I can even monitor one application while working on another....

    By not full screening all my applications I can visually move between them by choosing which one I want to go to with my mouse (or my tablet should I feel like that). Over the last 3 decades I've wondered why it is that so many people don't / can't work that way. I have noticed however that its exceedingly rare to see a sysadmin or programmer or professional IT worker (even librarian) doing everything full screened.

    The only application where I do this is when doing photo editing, where I just don't have enough screen (yet) or enough of them (still using only two here)

    A question for you: Go grab any news paper and tell me how many of them print the text from left to right alllllll the way across the page

    Columns are a foundation of reading effectively

    ... for example

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Website

    Well...I am a visual artist, not a writer, so I do not think in collums that much.
    I like an instant overall view.
    Also I am not a professional website builder, so I wouldn't know how to make the whole picture sizeable. Must find out.

    It turned out wider and wider but I thought most people by now have, at least 1280 pixels wide screens instead of 1024 pixels, these days. May be I am wrong. Not very democratic, I suppose.

    Well it is a technical critique I did not expect as the first reaction, but I will look into it.
    That is what forums are for.

    Michiel

  6. #6
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Website

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    Well...I am a visual artist, not a writer,
    sure ... it wasn't intended as any personal sledge ... I was concerned to contribute anything as it all too often is that people don't like anything other than "ohh ... that's great"


    so I do not think in collums that much.
    as a web publisher there are oodles of considerations ... heck many stumble on things such as posting images as "adobe RGB" colourspace when putting up website pages.

    I like an instant overall view.
    Also I am not a professional website builder, so I wouldn't know how to make the whole picture sizeable. Must find out.
    me too ... we have active arguments here (and other work places in the past) on what will be truncated by people's monitors, what colours are safe blah blah blah ... poke about with CSS but you then open up the can of worms of which browsers support W3C standards and which don't (gosh, did I say IE there?)


    It turned out wider and wider but I thought most people by now have, at least 1280 pixels wide screens instead of 1024 pixels, these days. May be I am wrong.
    or maybe your not....

    That is what forums are for.

    Michiel
    what ever you decide to do ... consider this before you consider flash




    click on that image for an interesting read ... if you're into that sort of thing
    :-)
    Last edited by pellicle; 18th August 2009 at 04:02.

  7. #7
    Senior Member JBurnett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Website

    Works well for me, operationally and visually.
    Best regards,
    John.
    http://jburnett.ca

  8. #8
    Senior Member Joan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    477
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Website

    Hi Michiel,

    I find your site to be very visually appealing. It loads quickly/navigation works fine. The blue background you created on the photography section is unique and stands apart from the typical black or gray of most sites. Why not carry that color over to replace the dark gray background on the gallery pages?

    Regards,
    Joan

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Joan View Post
    Hi Michiel,

    I find your site to be very visually appealing. It loads quickly/navigation works fine. The blue background you created on the photography section is unique and stands apart from the typical black or gray of most sites. Why not carry that color over to replace the dark gray background on the gallery pages?

    Thank you Joan,

    May be I will do that. For now I just used the sort of standard colours for making webpages in Lightroom. The classical photografic variety in greytones.
    Everytime I change one of the items I probably will turn it in blue.
    Thanks for the suggestion.
    Joan

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    306
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Website

    Michiel, how about a slideshow option as well as manual browsing?

    Mike

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Website

    Michiel, I found your site easy to navigate--and I think your categorization works (interesting how there are a number of those that you and I share for choosing for subjects). I don't have anything critique wise since I know nothing about site building.

    I had no issues with size but have a wide format monitor where I often have 2 windows open--though not for viewing photography or similar. I also find the option of tabbing makes it quite easy for me to switch from site to site/window to window if I choose to view full screen.

    All in all--a thumbs up *smile*.

    Diane

  12. #12
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Thank you Pellicle

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    By not full screening all my applications I can visually move between them by choosing which one I want to go to with my mouse (or my tablet should I feel like that). Over the last 3 decades I've wondered why it is that so many people don't / can't work that way.

    The only application where I do this is when doing photo editing, where I just don't have enough screen (yet) or enough of them (still using only two here)

    A question for you: Go grab any news paper and tell me how many of them print the text from left to right alllllll the way across the page

    Columns are a foundation of reading effectively
    I appreciate your feedback and realized you know more about this than I do. I therefore thought I might be missing something but I see it's just a question of different approaches to working with a computer.
    I find I concentrate on one job/application at a time and don't need to peek at several on a screen.
    Personally I have no use for a two screen set-up many vouch for: One for the image and another for the tools (I'm talking Photoshop here). I'm perfectly happy just hitting the Tab key a hundred times a session and think nothing of it!
    As far as switching between applications, on a PowerBook, the new pad just needs four fingers tapping on it to show you what's open and then click to taste.
    With regards to the column layout in newspapers I believe you'll find there's more psychology as to where and how the information is displayed but that's really moving off topic and perhaps unfair to the forum to steer that far off photography ...

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Website

    Quote Originally Posted by mbroomfield View Post
    Michiel, how about a slideshow option as well as manual browsing?

    Mike
    I choose the html possibility of lightroom instead of the flash module, that does not support a slideshow.
    It is the discussion between flash and html. I have been digging into Flash, and used it, in the past but it did not like all the wistles and bells of it.
    I don't need it.
    Also I did forget what I had learned to soon with my old brains. Especially keeping up with all those action scripts made me loose interest. Time,precious time with what you can do something you really like! Taking pictures for example.
    Now you can determine your own tempo to look at it. You have to press the button though. Hard work!?
    Well it still is under development.
    Michiel

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    Michiel, I found your site easy to navigate--and I think your categorization works (interesting how there are a number of those that you and I share for choosing for subjects).

    Diane
    Categorization was what I wanted, but it has it problems, because your are always stuck with photo's which don't fit in any of my invented categories.
    Again it shows life is full of compromises.
    Yeah, I need subjects to work on, in the meantime I try not to ignore the things happening around me.
    Anyway, thanks for your feedback.

    Michiel

  15. #15
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thank you Pellicle

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    ...but I see it's just a question of different approaches to working with {a tool}
    pardon my edit there .. but yes ... that's right. Its exactly the reason (trying to keep this on photography) there is so much product diversity. Its like people telling me that film is {dead | alive}. a G1 can be a great tool to me, but an annoying hinderance to another photographer.

    I find I concentrate on one job/application at a time and don't need to peek at several on a screen.
    Personally I have no use for a two screen set-up many vouch for:
    I've come to like it because it encourages me to move my neck more ... old motocycle injuries manifesting themselves ;-)

    we are all on slightly different paths ... and learn / need to learn different things at different times. To me the main thing is respect. I respect the younger kids working with me in my area as I can learn some things from them. After a while (and I believe its because I respect and interact with them as an equal) they discover that an old fart may actually have something to teach them about the new stuff too.

    so we all move on and we all benefit ... criticism is good ... but only if its constructive

    :-)

  16. #16
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Website

    For those who might be interested in this topic:

    I thought my information may be a little out of date (as its been about 2 years since I worked in that group) so I asked a few of my ex colleagues who (now) work for major commercial web publishing groups (and used to work at my department), 1000 pixels seems to be what people think of as a maximum in the publishing industry.


    To further this a bit of searching on the topic yeilds from this site:
    Finally we can see what sizes we need to design for. E.g. if you want to design for 95% of your visitors you need design for no more than 776x424px (fixed layout)
    I know that photographers, artists and developers all tend to have big and multi screen arrangements but just as long as you realise that this is not the norm out there in the "general public" who may be looking at your site.

    anyway ... back to normal transmissions now

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,927
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    Renewed the photography dep. of my website. All photographs are done over in Lightroom. Lot of work
    In some cases, I still don't know what is the best handling but I think it is an for ever changing process.

    http://www.michielschierbeek.com/Fotopagina.html

    .....
    Looked in on your website.

    - Front pages are very busy, very big, very graphic with lots of punch.
    - Galleries seem muted and small.

    To my eye this is a bit of a mismatch.

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Website

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    For those who might be interested in this topic:

    I thought my information may be a little out of date (as its been about 2 years since I worked in that group) so I asked a few of my ex colleagues who (now) work for major commercial web publishing groups (and used to work at my department), 1000 pixels seems to be what people think of as a maximum in the publishing industry.


    To further this a bit of searching on the topic yeilds from this site:


    I know that photographers, artists and developers all tend to have big and multi screen arrangements but just as long as you realise that this is not the norm out there in the "general public" who may be looking at your site.

    anyway ... back to normal transmissions now
    Must admit it turned out to wide. On the other hand, where I am now, my screen is much smaller (1440 x 900 pixels) and it still fits niceley. Also my audience is may be a bit spoiled with wide screens. As a sculptor I like the design in general of the page as such, looking a bit like a coated steelplate.
    I will look into it later, if I can downsize it a bit.
    Thanks for your contributions!

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Looked in on your website.

    - Front pages are very busy, very big, very graphic with lots of punch.
    - Galleries seem muted and small.

    To my eye this is a bit of a mismatch.
    This is true, I was thinking myself the horizontal (landscape mode) pictures are too small. It was related to the fact that I could not find out (yet) how to make the pictures in portrait mode individually smaller. They would turn out too high for most screens. For the rest it is easy to make the Galleries bigger.
    I did notice though, looking at other photography sites, that most of them showed the photographs rather small.
    Well I am gonne work on it, also I will make use of Joan's suggestion, to bring more uniformity to the Gallerie pages compared to the main pages.

    Many thanks all of you for looking into it and your worthwile suggestions.
    Funny almost nobody mentioned the photographs themselves.

    Was a little late in answering due to a little food poisining from something I ate in one of those gasstations along the highway.
    It is a pity they can 't raise the standards above terrible junkfood level.

    Kind regards, Michiel

  19. #19
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Website

    Hi

    I will probably regret this but:

    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    Must admit it turned out to wide. On the other hand, where I am now, my screen is much smaller (1440 x 900 pixels) and it still fits niceley.
    but 1440 is larger than 1000 ... the convention is width x height ... so your screen is wider than your pages display number thus it fits

  20. #20
    vlatko
    Guest

    Re: Website

    Michiel, maybe you could try with just a bit of Flash. Like I did:

    http://www.clandestineart.com/

    I admit that the front page is not perfect and needs more work. But the site is in "public beta" anyway. :-)

    The point is, Simple Viewer scales from my native 1600x1200 down to 1024x768 pretty nicely. I hate all-Flash sites, but flash galleries are okay for me. Plus, this makes adding new photos a snap.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •