emilynoel — 2013-09-22T17:40:20-04:00 — #1
I welcome any feedback on my photography portfolio:
The purpose of the site is simply to showcase my personal photography and the different genres that I shoot in. It is not meant to sell any product or service (not yet, at least...maybe one day!). Thank you in advance,
tonofjewelry_com — 2013-09-23T17:51:04-04:00 — #2
love the site. nice layout. i don't have any edits that i'd make. great job!
rubble — 2013-09-24T16:41:50-04:00 — #3
Comments in no particular order except for when I noted them down:
Index page first
Has 12 errors and 2 warnings.
Both the above can be checked with firebug, HTML tidy and yslow addons in Firefox.
I like the layout - simple, clean and modern
Again nice layout and not cluttered with to many photos
Some photos take a while to load - is the original file size/quality to large?
Ibiza/Ibiza horizon not straight girl jumping into the sea
None of your names/descriptions are very descriptive e.g. Ibiza/Ibiza and you have the same tag on different photos. So if I said to someone I like the Ibiza/Ibiza photo they would say which Ibiza/Ibiza photo!
I like the site and you have some great photos
matt_e — 2013-09-25T11:22:27-04:00 — #4
Also, I have no clue what "Photography is a secret about a secret" means.
sofomor — 2013-09-25T12:33:56-04:00 — #5
Looks good but pics are random and repetitive (different poses - same venue). Try to make it unique and also add descriptions.
emilynoel — 2013-09-25T13:25:47-04:00 — #6
Thank you all, for the feedback. I'm going to update it this week and take many of these things into consideration when I am editing my site.
rubble — 2013-09-25T14:34:25-04:00 — #7
This site might be worth a look Emily; it is a dedicate photography CMS; I tried it but I still prefer my own. As long as they do not start adding more and more options it is a nice option.
stevegreen22 — 2013-09-26T05:38:20-04:00 — #8
Brilliant! Loved the way the images blended and fade to display the new category. really nice well designed site. Decent ajax contact form as well. You clearly have some skills with a camera
emilynoel — 2013-09-26T12:16:06-04:00 — #9
Thanks for the feedback! Much appreciated
nostronzo — 2013-09-29T12:29:06-04:00 — #10
I like the website but imo several pictures take too long to load.
Have you looked into that already?
phankinson — 2013-10-01T16:15:03-04:00 — #11
Beautiful site. Comments are as follows:
1) When I first loaded the site I was thinking the URL didn't work because it loaded extremely slow. Not sure where you are hosting it, but because you're going to be sending relatively large photos I would make sure it's on a decent host.
2) The site isn't well designed for SEO. I would try your best to avoid urls like http://www.emilynoelphotography.net/#!food/cl3g and use http://www.emilynoelphotography.net/food
Well designed and well laid out. Beautiful pictures too
mirohristov — 2013-10-01T22:52:44-04:00 — #12
Very clean and simple.
I love the smooth transition from page to page.
Get rid of all the rounded corners in the communicate page. It breaks the consistency of your design.
There's too little space on the left. I mean the inputs are too close to the left edge.
Maybe the width of the form should be the same as the other pages (980px).
When the page gets shorter the footer animates it's position when going up,
but when the page gets taller the footer just repositions... idk... maybe not a big deal.
On the homepage the entire image could be clickable. (not just the text).
Communicate should be last in the nav.
emilynoel — 2013-10-06T20:35:01-04:00 — #13
Thank you all. I took several of these last comments into consideration and made changes. Great advice on the SEO issues....I'm new to this and hadn't even realized that was an issue. I believe I may have improved that a bit now. I'm using Wix.com so I'm not sure how to improve load speed?
dynamikemagic — 2013-10-07T07:26:09-04:00 — #14
The images loaded fine for me. Some took 2-3 seconds to load.
I really like your photos. If you are just doing this as a hobby, good for you. I think you should make it a business. You might want to become a stock photographer.
motion2082 — 2013-10-07T08:29:26-04:00 — #15
Really like your photography site. Did not get lost at all. If I wanted to see more images I could easily click Show more. Like how everything loads on request. Rollever effect is a nice touch. Some images did take a couple of seconds to load for me too but not too long where I got impatient.
Is this your hobby or are you running a business?
Is the LIVE section like your ABOUT section?
emilynoel — 2013-10-07T10:16:44-04:00 — #16
Thanks much for the feedback. The "live" section is my "about" section. I debated calling it that but I was hoping I could be a little more original but still clear at the same time
Not running a business, just a hobby. I've been snapping for a couple years now with my pictures scattered all over the place, so I was never able to showcase to family and friends...
emilynoel — 2013-10-07T10:18:37-04:00 — #17
Thanks, Dynamike. I appreciate it. I actually had someone mention selling these as stock images the other day, and I'm going to look into that. I'd love to take this beyond a hobby eventually and I think that might be a good way for me to do it.
teknoaxe — 2013-10-07T10:51:45-04:00 — #18
I gotta say, I love the simplicity of your website design. Like others in this thread, there was no way of getting lost in your website. And the dark gray background certainly lets the photos stand out and take center stage, which is what you want it to do.
I notice your category divisions have dramatic names attached to them like "wonder" and "admire". It is pretty cool, but are there specific divisions between those two categories? There certainly is between those and "Savor", I got that. I was expecting food when I saw that name and I got food, but I was unsure about how you divided up your photos for the rest of the site.
Also, I notice you decided to load more photos in a feed. It's okay for now, but for me personally, I have nightmares navigating sites like flickr nowadays because they chose to do feeds instead of pages. I tested out your page on my phone and it does load up pretty nicely into a mobile form, so I will give you that, but for some reason, feeds just wreak havoc on any of the PCs I've tried them on.
emilynoel — 2013-10-07T14:57:15-04:00 — #19
Thanks, teknoaxe. I agree that the Wonder and the Admire categories are the most ambiguous. Wonder is supposed to be nature-related photography, plants, animals, landscape, etc. And Admire is supposed to be more art and architecture. If you have any clever, less ambiguous ideas for re-naming them, I'm open!
teknoaxe — 2013-10-07T17:46:38-04:00 — #20
Hmm, well I'm no expert at poetic names, but let me throw a few at you. I'm guessing the theme you have here is to describe your categories in verbs, right? Okay, here goes.
Hmmm....so those weren't any more descriptive at the differences, I guess. I'm not sure if the website design will allow you to do this, but if you can give the elements of your top menu "titles", you can keep your original names and have the actual divisions clarified when you hover over them (small pop up words that appear when you hover over a link, image, etc).
next page →