Hello! I've decided on a title for what I'm doing - "Beauty in the Mundane." Comments?
Here is a direct link to my page.
http://www.michaelaheald.com/Michael...otography.html
As I get more photos up, I'll have to think of a better way to present them, rather than as a page on my website. Best regards.
Michael A. Heald
I live in Racine, Wi., just south of Milwaukee. Many buildings, as a matter of fact at one time the most churches on the Historical list. Beautiful lakefront on Lake Michigan. Lots going for it. So way do I travel all over with the camera? Do I travel to photograph or photograph to travel? It's easy to fall into the It has to be an Award Winner outlook. I have often thought that there is much to photograph here, but I always think that I did it all back in the 70s with the 35mm taking rolls of film a day. Looking at your pictures is making me rethink this attitude. I think it requires a lot more work though. Easy to make the exotic photo, it's getting there that's hard. Then in most cases it's f/8 and be there. Local, so called mundane, makes you dig deeper to find the beauty. Have to think, look and most importantly see. Thanks for the inspiration!
Michael, I tried to view your images on your site but the thumbnails are not active. I need to see larger images than what you have on your page right now. Also, from a design standpoint, i would stay away from garishly colored text and stick to a black/white/gray text. Thats just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.
Hollis Bennett
www.hollisbennett.com
Michael, great idea. If you have captions for each image it would be good. Suggest replacing the word take with create, make, shape or generate. Agree that use of black, white, grey shades is more appealing as color design. Or, limit it to three colors of coordinated combination. Keep up the good work.
I knew my years of proofing who knows how many thousands of pages of legal documents would one day prove to have been good for something. And here it is - "exotic locals" should be "exotic locales."
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I spelled "exotic locales" first! Blast! I knew I should have had a dictionary.
Michael A. Heald
Hollis, I didn't think about loading the large files so that the thumbnails could link to them. (I slap my forehead!) How large a file is appropriate for viewing after one clicks on the thumbnail? Should a box come up informing the viewer of how large the file is and asking him whether he wants to continue? Thanks
Michael A. Heald
The best bet in web design is don't give the viewer too many options. Its your work and you should present it how you feel best. I think that it is counterproductive to give a viewer the option to pick a large or small image. There should be one size and the size should be whatever you think is appropriate. Essentially, a thumbnail is just a button that directs the browser to a linked file which is the larger image. Take a look at my site at www.hollisbennett.com I believe my image dimensions are in the 650 - 750 pixel range, plenty large enough but not too big as to slow things down.
If you are assuming anyone with a compact laptop might view your images, then sticking within a 1024 by 768 pixel maximum is a good idea. After that you can assume that the browser chrome takes up more of that, so somewhere between 810 by 640 pixels seems to mostly make everything fit.
Currently I have a 800 by 560 pixels layout, with maximum images size of 780 pixels. Image heights are all 520 pixels maximum, to keep editing and updates easy. I will not claim these are the best choices, but it does work across many platforms and browsers. You might want to look in the archives about a recent thread here on LF Forum concerning do and don't recommendations for websites.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks