Photo Site Revamp

[Wirefox]

I have spent some time tidying up my SmugMug pages. If you get a spare moment could you please let me have some feedback on layout, ease of use, general feel etc.

SoloImages SmugMug Revamp

Many Thanks

Steve

[carregwen]

Oooooo! great! Clear the decks, get out the soft rubber sheeting, sharpen the knives, tighten those restraining straps, and switch on those 500w lamps someone.

Sorry about that... Yes, it looks cool and sophisticated, in a cool and sophisticated sort of way. Funny that. What we would expect from you, I think. But hang on there, if we expect it that means that, ergo, you are predictable So, scrub that last sentence, because you are never predictable.

I like the black sleek look, it whiffs of the artistic. It sort of has class, yet at the same time is classless (bit like you maybe?). I would have included a small section of text about yourself, but I wouldn't give too much away, and FGS don't write it in the third person, and don't mention Cheshire fat-cats, Audis, The Guardian, or George Orwell.

That was absolutely no b***** use at all, was it?

PS: You have some very good original shots on there.

[David]

Steve - very smart, accomplished presentation, some superb shots, added it to my bookmarks of favourite photographers. Being old I have one quibble. I like apostrophes: as in "Photographer's Choice".

Cheers

David

[Clactonian]

Very swish Steve.
Seems to work OK. No problems with navigation.
Mike

[rick55]

Very nice, Steve, I like the look.

Is there a way to suppress the "overview" shots of the private galleries? If these are private shots, it doesn't seem good to have even a downsized version visible. Maybe you could put a shot of the wedding cake first or something. Picking nits, as usual.

Cheers,
Rick

[Wirefox]

I like the black sleek look, it whiffs of the artistic. It sort of has class, yet at the same time is classless (bit like you maybe?). I would have included a small section of text about yourself, but I wouldn't give too much away, and FGS don't write it in the third person, and don't mention Cheshire fat-cats, Audis, The Guardian, or George Orwell.

Thanks Rob, I think. The Bio is not a bad idea actually I will try hard not to mention the above but you know how little it takes to set that chip on my shoulder out of position. I was thinking something along the lines

Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.

Steve - very smart, accomplished presentation, some superb shots, added it to my bookmarks of favourite photographers. Being old I have one quibble. I like apostrophes: as in "Photographer's Choice".

Thanks David, I am flattered and for that you will certainly get your apostrophe

Very swish Steve.
Seems to work OK. No problems with navigation.

Cheers Mike. I had got to the stage where I was too close to it and needed a few fresh pairs of eyes.

Is there a way to suppress the "overview" shots of the private galleries? If these are private shots, it doesn't seem good to have even a downsized version visible. Maybe you could put a shot of the wedding cake first or something. Picking nits, as usual

There is Rick, but it looks a bit untidy. I will replace them with inamimates.

Cheers

Steve

[ScoutR]

Looks great and everything works fine on Win 7 IE8. Navigation was clear and intuitive. I like having the choice of styles, and the slideshow format really shows off the shots nicely

Wendy

[revi]

Pleasant presentation and good pictures
Navigation in the public galleries is very smooth, pictures load nice and fast in general.

One gallery seems to have escaped though: 'still life' has a different layout/interaction than the others (and for me individual pictures seem to load a lot slower).

In general, I'd have liked the selected image a bit bigger (as big as possible? It's not as if you don't want to show them bigger, as the bigger sizes are available).

Again, globally a very pleasant, subdued style that works as it should, and doesn't distract from the pictures

Remco

[Wirefox]

Thanks for the positive feedback Wendy.

Remco, I have been having a few problems with the 'Still Life' gallery since it will not accept the format style. I will e-mail the administrators to see if they can shed some light on the issue.

I did wonder about the picture size. I made the decision of view size partially to discourage copying but to be honest it has never really bothered me in the past so I think I may go up at notch on that one. Thankyou for your constructive input, much appreciated

Steve

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Steve,

I had a look earlier and spotted that still life was different, but TBH, I prefer it because it gives bigger images i8n a Lytebox, where as everywhere else has the panel beside which takes up 2/3 screen width.

I like that in still life, once you're in the Lytebox (as here at CiC), you can use the left and right arrow keys to step forward and backward through the images without going back to a thumbnails view.

Only other comment I'd make is there is a lot of it, which in some ways is good, but in others can be overwhelming.

Not sure they're worth much as comments, but shake 'em in the mix and see what comes out.

Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.

Bread knife, shoe box, a job that paid, you lucky bu**ers, we 'ad none o' that

[Shadowman]

Great site, easy to navigate. One thing that didn't work was sending an email, do you have to join to send an email?

[Peter Ryan]

All of the above Steve. I am pleased I took the time to have a look. Great images and easy to review.

[wilgk]

Looks great Steve! - all works fine & I enjoy very much your still life series

[rpcrowe]

Looks great! However I have a question... If you had your thrumbnails show up in their rectangular formats rather than in a square format; do you think it might help or hurt the look of your smugmug presentation? I think some of your shots are awesome when viewed in their rectangular format, but less so when viewed as a square thumbnail - cutting off parts of the framing.

[Donald]

If you get a spare moment could you please let me have some feedback on layout, ease of use, general feel etc.

Yep, it works. I do like what SmugSmug offers and you demonstrate what can be done with it.

Two comments:-

1. On the home page, I have to scroll down to see the public galleries and the private galleries icons. Spent the first couple of minutes wondering where to click to see the galleries. That might just be my set up and other people may a) see the whole page at once and/or, b) be much more intelligent than what I am!
2. You have very big galleries (but maybe all the girls tell you that!). Too big? Will you hold the attention of viewers if there are 60/70 images in a gallery, or 400+? Is smaller but more an idea worth thinking about?

[Wirefox]

Many thanks everybody. I am actually taking on board most of your comments and a few from Rob in a PM. I intend to reduce the number of images significantly.

Richard, I will see what rectangular thumbs look like. Its a good point.

Donald, I am not at all sure why you are only seeing the top bit. I will log onto my sons laptop and review the format from a small screen windows point of view.

Cheers

Steve