My new web site: Critical Comments?

[Steven Barall]

The first two photos you see are photos of you. Nothing personal but I want to see your photos and not photos of you. That said, I do like to see photos of photographers but I don't mind having to search a bit to find them.

Good luck and thanks.

[Oren Grad]

after designing a fair number of websites and multimedia presentations for photos, i've found that gray works for some images, black works for some, but white works for all (assuming they've been printed decently by traditional standards, to hold up in a white mat or with a white border).

Having been wrestling with this myself, I have to disagree. The brilliant, backlit white of a CRT or LCD monitor is very different from the reflective white of a mat board in its effect on perception of tones. Keeping life in the shadows is always a challenge in B&W photography, and showing pictures on a brilliant white background makes it even harder.

There are various tricks one can try, including various shades of gray for the background and different types of border. Unfortunately, none works as well for all pictures as a simple off-white mat does for a print in the real world. But so far, for my taste, I've found that a middling-to-dark gray background is least bad as a general solution.

To Mike: I agree with the other comments. If you want the focus to be on your pictures, simpler is better.

[Doug Dolde]

It is very well done. Nice work.

[paulr]

Oren, it sounds like we've come to different conclusions based on different experience. but we agree that it can be a tricky issue, especially if you need to find a background that works for a range of images.

to my eye, in this case, the dark background absolutely murders the images. maybe you disagree, but i have a hard time even looking at them in this format.

[Brian Ellis]

This is probably personal with me and others may agree or disagree but I figure photographs should speak for themselves. When someone tells me repeatedly that his or her photographs are "fine art" and are "remarkable" I always figure they probably aren't because if they were I wouldn't need to be told about it. You have some excellent photographs here and I don't think they need any hyperbole. If it were me I wouldn't tell people that they're fine art or are remarkable, I'd let people see for themselves. Again, a personal prejudice that others may not share so I pass it on FWIW. Otherwise, I agree with most of the other comments - I have to scroll down to see entire pictures (maybe just my monitor) and I found it a little cumbersome to get to the pictures and then to get back to the galleries when done.

[Oren Grad]

to my eye, in this case, the dark background absolutely murders the images. maybe you disagree, but i have a hard time even looking at them in this format.

Paul, I agree. For my purposes I'm more comfortable with something closer to the background gray you use on your own site.

[Mike H.]

Wow! To ALL of you who offered critique - THANKS, so much! I appreciate the fact no one said they hated my images, and the comments opened my eyes to lots of things I hadn't considered.
The third Tumacacori image is one of my favorites also.
The "About" section may sound slightly obtuse, forced, wordy (there IS a good descriptor out there somewhere), the underlying thought process is really mine.
I wasn't trying to hype "me" as opposed to "my images" - it was just some logic in the back of my mind that said, "Introduction, images, miscellaneous, price, contact". Now we'll try and make it "Images, price, contact, miscellaneous and about". As for the term "Splash page", I'd never even heard it.
Regarding the background color, I'll go look at it and do some thinking. All the related comments and discussion were very thoughtful.
As for "flash" things, I haven't a clue. I'll inquire and learn.
If anyone else comes up with more ideas, don't stop now. More comments will just help me continue improving the site. Now to go back, sit down, re-read everything and try to figure out how to implement some of the really great suggestions.

[alec4444]

Ditto to someone's comment about the highlights being muddied. You should either boost the highlights in the photos (to a whiter white) or change the background. Other than that, I like it. Nice photo for the splash page....irregardless of whether they're good or bad. =)

--A

[keviesten]

Get rid of the splash page. There's no need for splash pages - its not doing anything constructive. Just start with the "About" page as your homepage.

[Photomax]

Nice photos.

Some observations (in addition to what has already been mentioned...)

* URL. Was it intentional to call your site "mikesfineartphotos.com" ??? It might be more beneficial to be more specific and use your real name. This will make it easier for folks AND search engines to find you.

* Have you tested the site with a dial up connection or slow DSL? I have basic DSL and the photos are slow to load. Clicking on a thumbnail does nothing instantly but after a delay the full image emerges. I think this is due to all the bandwidth that the Flash files require. The topic of using Flash to display images has been beaten to death, but like many others, I hate having to wait for Flash content.

* Not sure if I like all the monochrome grayscale background.

* The second headline "Mike's Gallery" looks like it lacks any styling.

* I would add more focused text about the photography and images on the About page. The current text is a little flowery.

* You look like a nice fellow and a real photographer in the two front images, but I would ditch the Jeep. You have yourself, a nice looking camera and a great looking desert setting. You don't need the Jeep (it looks like a product shot for Jeeps.)

Again, nice images though!

Max