new website by me :)
Discussion
Right then. What I personally think is wrong with them:
In my view the horizon being all at the same level make the shot dull. It would have looked better if you were closer to the trees therefore creating various heights to the picture.
Obviously the focal point is the flowery thing, so therefore would have looked better is this stood out and rest was slightly blurred.
Just terrible. Should you got down to same level as the animal & not try to fit the whole dog in the shot perfectly.
Personally I think the camera was pointing slightly too far downwards. Either should have got himself slightly lower to floor or straightened camera up. Shutter speed not quite right either.
Ditto to previous flower shot.
Just too dark & sky is very plain & colourless.
>> Edited by hobo on Tuesday 20th April 16:54
In my view the horizon being all at the same level make the shot dull. It would have looked better if you were closer to the trees therefore creating various heights to the picture.
Obviously the focal point is the flowery thing, so therefore would have looked better is this stood out and rest was slightly blurred.
Just terrible. Should you got down to same level as the animal & not try to fit the whole dog in the shot perfectly.
Personally I think the camera was pointing slightly too far downwards. Either should have got himself slightly lower to floor or straightened camera up. Shutter speed not quite right either.
Ditto to previous flower shot.
Just too dark & sky is very plain & colourless.
>> Edited by hobo on Tuesday 20th April 16:54
Just to add to the advice from Pies and Mad Dave...
The aperture doesn't affect focus as such, but rather depth of field. A large aperture (f2.8) will result in a small area that is in focus, whereas a small aperture (f22) will give a much wider range of focus. E.g., if you're photographing a landscape and want the foreground and background to be in focus, go for a smaller aperture (f22). If you want to capture a flower with everything else blured, then go for a large aperture (f2.8).
When I say area, I mean in the line from you out to the horizon, not left to right across the photo if you see what I mean.
Obviously, you're limited by your camera only being able to set an aperture of f8, however the concept is the same.
As for filters, there was a good article in one of the Photo magazines last month which gave an overview of the effects of different filters on landscape photographs. It may still be out in the shops - I think it was Practical Photography, and it had a landscape shot on the front.
Also try bracketing your shots when the lighting conditions aren't great (e.g., shooting white or black things). Cameras assume a mid-grey tone when they calculate the exposure settings, so if you try to photograph a white swan skiing, the camera will expose the picture so that it appears grey. In this case, you'd probably want to over expose by 1 - 1 1/2 stops, and the reverse is true for dark pictures.
The aperture doesn't affect focus as such, but rather depth of field. A large aperture (f2.8) will result in a small area that is in focus, whereas a small aperture (f22) will give a much wider range of focus. E.g., if you're photographing a landscape and want the foreground and background to be in focus, go for a smaller aperture (f22). If you want to capture a flower with everything else blured, then go for a large aperture (f2.8).
When I say area, I mean in the line from you out to the horizon, not left to right across the photo if you see what I mean.
Obviously, you're limited by your camera only being able to set an aperture of f8, however the concept is the same.
As for filters, there was a good article in one of the Photo magazines last month which gave an overview of the effects of different filters on landscape photographs. It may still be out in the shops - I think it was Practical Photography, and it had a landscape shot on the front.
Also try bracketing your shots when the lighting conditions aren't great (e.g., shooting white or black things). Cameras assume a mid-grey tone when they calculate the exposure settings, so if you try to photograph a white swan skiing, the camera will expose the picture so that it appears grey. In this case, you'd probably want to over expose by 1 - 1 1/2 stops, and the reverse is true for dark pictures.
The only ones i like are the daisy, cos its kinda funky 
and the last one - something silhouetted by a nice sky.
Your website: good effort mate, especially if you did it all by hand. That said, i dont like the design myself - you could improve it a lot by simply changing from the default font to, say, Arial. Dont listen to me - im a website designer/graphic designer by trade so im far too critical. Id be more than happy with your effort as a first/hand coded effort.
My (as yet unfinished) site is here: www.davidhambly.co.uk
and the last one - something silhouetted by a nice sky. Your website: good effort mate, especially if you did it all by hand. That said, i dont like the design myself - you could improve it a lot by simply changing from the default font to, say, Arial. Dont listen to me - im a website designer/graphic designer by trade so im far too critical. Id be more than happy with your effort as a first/hand coded effort.
My (as yet unfinished) site is here: www.davidhambly.co.uk
Ah, maybe I should point out this isn't my first effort at a website, I've been messing around with them since 97ish, indeed have gone through numerous different sites for various different topics. This however is the first PHP one and indeed the first one to use db's as a back-end. I also do one at uni, it's based on osCommerce but highly modified to meet the needs of the course.
I quite like the simple design (I'm not into graphics or fancy things hence the plain layout - the only concession is the use of the dog behind the menu). Just wondered what people thought of the layout overall, the shadow behind the pictures and the like.
All dis-heartened now
>> Edited by docevi1 on Tuesday 20th April 19:44
I quite like the simple design (I'm not into graphics or fancy things hence the plain layout - the only concession is the use of the dog behind the menu). Just wondered what people thought of the layout overall, the shadow behind the pictures and the like.
All dis-heartened now
>> Edited by docevi1 on Tuesday 20th April 19:44
Ok Stefan. Im afraid im not a fan of your site - not trying to be nasty or disheartening, i just dont like it 
I admire you for doing it all by hand though, i dont have the patience - i use Dreamweaver.
IMHO ways to improve:
Change the font away from the default.
Buttons - would look better either as text as opposed to images, or do the images in Fireworks so theyre sharper - they look a bit blurred and too bold.
The way you navigate the site is good though, nice and clear (far better than my own site). It might be worth spell checking too mate - i only read one line, and that was on the Profile page - "What personal site would be complete without a little bit of info about the creator." There should be a question mark at the end - pedantic i know, but worth pointing out.
I hope you dont take these comments the wrong way mate - they really are only my opinion and i mean no malice whatsoever - its just you asked what i thought of it, so ive typed it.
Cheers
Dave
I admire you for doing it all by hand though, i dont have the patience - i use Dreamweaver. IMHO ways to improve:
Change the font away from the default.
Buttons - would look better either as text as opposed to images, or do the images in Fireworks so theyre sharper - they look a bit blurred and too bold.
The way you navigate the site is good though, nice and clear (far better than my own site). It might be worth spell checking too mate - i only read one line, and that was on the Profile page - "What personal site would be complete without a little bit of info about the creator." There should be a question mark at the end - pedantic i know, but worth pointing out.
I hope you dont take these comments the wrong way mate - they really are only my opinion and i mean no malice whatsoever - its just you asked what i thought of it, so ive typed it.
Cheers
Dave
Mad Dave said:
Ok Stefan. Im afraid im not a fan of your site - not trying to be nasty or disheartening, i just dont like it
Different tastes I suppose, I am surprised you don't do your sites by hand tho, I'd always assumed designers liked the ultimate control of text-pad over something like Dreamweaver - Ultimately I never got on with dreamweaver
mad dave said:
Change the font away from the default.
I might investigate, can you change a page's font without changing induvidual cells? I couldn't spot a way.
mad dave said:
Buttons - would look better either as text as opposed to images, or do the images in Fireworks so theyre sharper - they look a bit blurred and too bold.
I did them in Paint Shop Pro, originally they were all down one side and looked better, I agree the shadow needs improving, but to be honest I'm not a graphic designer so chance upon results like that rather than engineer them (I don't like making images). I'll fiddle tho
mad dave said:
It might be worth spell checking too mate - i only read one line, and that was on the Profile page - "What personal site would be complete without a little bit of info about the creator." There should be a question mark at the end - pedantic i know, but worth pointing out.
Aha, my ability at the english language shines through then
Always had a problem with spelling and grammar in the first place and didn't actually check through what I had written - I concentrated on the PHP and backend (much nicer than english ) mad dave said:
I hope you dont take these comments the wrong way mate - they really are only my opinion and i mean no malice whatsoever - its just you asked what i thought of it, so ive typed it.
Non taken, and nothing other than friendly guidance shown from yourself
docevi1 said:
Ok Stefan. Im afraid im not a fan of your site - not trying to be nasty or disheartening, i just dont like it
Different tastes I suppose, I am surprised you don't do your sites by hand tho, I'd always assumed designers liked the ultimate control of text-pad over something like Dreamweaver - Ultimately I never got on with dreamweaver
mad dave said:
Change the font away from the default.
I might investigate, can you change a page's font without changing induvidual cells? I couldn't spot a way.
mad dave said:
Buttons - would look better either as text as opposed to images, or do the images in Fireworks so theyre sharper - they look a bit blurred and too bold.
I did them in Paint Shop Pro, originally they were all down one side and looked better, I agree the shadow needs improving, but to be honest I'm not a graphic designer so chance upon results like that rather than engineer them (I don't like making images). I'll fiddle tho
mad dave said:
It might be worth spell checking too mate - i only read one line, and that was on the Profile page - "What personal site would be complete without a little bit of info about the creator." There should be a question mark at the end - pedantic i know, but worth pointing out.
Aha, my ability at the english language shines through then
mad dave said:
I hope you dont take these comments the wrong way mate - they really are only my opinion and i mean no malice whatsoever - its just you asked what i thought of it, so ive typed it.
Non taken, and nothing other than friendly guidance shown from yourself
Ill type you out a fuller reply later on mate, just a bit frantic at the mo. You should be able to set a font for the whole table as opposed to each cell - ill post the code up shortly. I did start out in code - thats how i learnt, but ultimately it just takes too long - i edit specifics on code but do the initial design in WYSIWYG
I do the same <table width="397" border="0" height="584" bgcolor="#006699" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr bgcolor="#006699" valign="top">
<td height="92">
<div align="center"><font face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
^--------there you go, copied from Dweaver. All i did was select all the rows and set the Font. Would you benefit from Dreamweaver + Fireworks? I have a 30day demo here which id be happy to send you - some unscrupulous folk crack the trial to make it work infinitely, but im lucky to have fully licensed copies at work.
<tr bgcolor="#006699" valign="top">
<td height="92">
<div align="center"><font face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif">
^--------there you go, copied from Dweaver. All i did was select all the rows and set the Font. Would you benefit from Dreamweaver + Fireworks? I have a 30day demo here which id be happy to send you - some unscrupulous folk crack the trial to make it work infinitely, but im lucky to have fully licensed copies at work.
Ah, that code fragment is changing each cell, it would be a lot of work to change the text on my site then (lots of cells, tables within tables within tables always the best way). Thanks tho.
Tbh, I'm not to keen on Dreamweaver, the navigation and what-not are a bit too complicated (with all the different toolbars all over the shop) for my tastes.I tend to find the code it produces is very complicated as well (especially for Fireworks/Dreamweaver conversions). I much prefer FP as it's instantly usable and for simple things like tables it does a decent enough job
I would never have thought un-scrupuolous and the poorer people would do anything of the sort Dave
always the best way). Thanks tho. Tbh, I'm not to keen on Dreamweaver, the navigation and what-not are a bit too complicated (with all the different toolbars all over the shop) for my tastes.I tend to find the code it produces is very complicated as well (especially for Fireworks/Dreamweaver conversions). I much prefer FP as it's instantly usable and for simple things like tables it does a decent enough job
I would never have thought un-scrupuolous and the poorer people would do anything of the sort Dave
As people who've seen some of my photography attempts know, I'm not at all qualified to comment on the pictures.
As a web developer though, I can give you a few tips about that side of things
First thing I'd suggest is that you look into CSS. It offers up an incredible amount of flexibility in setting style to content.
Then there are just the pedantic things like using alt text attributes on images, especially those used for navigation.
If you want more info about the website build side of things, drop me a mail.
As a web developer though, I can give you a few tips about that side of things
First thing I'd suggest is that you look into CSS. It offers up an incredible amount of flexibility in setting style to content.
Then there are just the pedantic things like using alt text attributes on images, especially those used for navigation.
If you want more info about the website build side of things, drop me a mail.
hobo said:
Not meaning to be awful, but they are all terrible.
The best of the bunch is the water, but even this is lifeless.
I think thats pretty tight. A bit of tact when dealing with subjects that are obviously quite personal will get you a long way in life.
I think you will find that constructive criticism is useful. Calling something terrible just makes you sound like a know it all. I think the main reason people post on this forum is to learn from one another and share the photos they are proud of.
I personally think that your cat photo is too messy composition wise. Typing GOOD PET PHOTO as if it is the definitive standard makes you sound like a complete tosser. I think youve got a lot to learn from the other people photography wise, and probably about how to be constructive rather than sounding like a bigot. Im quite new to photography too (3 months). Im pretty thick skinned but id still be upset by your comments.
Think before you post.
>> Edited by gravymaster on Saturday 24th April 16:51
Hmm, this reminds me of car shows. I use the rule 'If you can't think of anything nice to say, don't say anything' (and of course the owner might be standing behind you!)
We post pics for comment - hopefully good - but for those braver souls amongst us, esp the novices, for helpful suggestion as to how they might be better. Simply saying they're crap is not a whole lot of use - if you don't know *why* they're poor or are unable to suggest how to make them less poor, Rule One above applies.
One role of this forum should be able to help newcomers to learn from the more experienced, to understand what went wrong, or what can be improved, and try again. We were all newbies once and encouragement/understanding is the best way forwards.
4p spent!
We post pics for comment - hopefully good - but for those braver souls amongst us, esp the novices, for helpful suggestion as to how they might be better. Simply saying they're crap is not a whole lot of use - if you don't know *why* they're poor or are unable to suggest how to make them less poor, Rule One above applies.
One role of this forum should be able to help newcomers to learn from the more experienced, to understand what went wrong, or what can be improved, and try again. We were all newbies once and encouragement/understanding is the best way forwards.
4p spent!
simpo two said:
Frontpage? F R O N T P A G E ???? Wash your mouth out with soap young man. Pff. Frontpage indeed.
Word on the street has it that FrontPage is gaining cred.
Probably 'cos I use it!
(Tried Adobe GoLive - took me 20 minutes to change the page b/g colour FFS!)
Frontpage should be burned, then buried in a big hole. They should then built a supermarket on it, just to be on the safe side.
I louthe Frontpage, its far too clunky and puts stacks of superfluous code into the pages. Its ok when learning (because its very easy to pick up) but IMHO its beneficial to get Dreamweaver or something better than FPage once you know a bit about web design.
Just my 2p mind
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff