Completely renewed website!

[Sherman79]

Really nice! no complaints here!

[madshutter]

Originally Posted by DHaass

While I recognize many of the locations in your landscape folder, it would be nice having some short descriptive of the location where shot. Some examples: Delicate Arch, Painted Hills, Antelope Canyon, etc. The viewer could at least search that term for where it was located. I do not want to copy where you shot it from, but certainly feel the photos are intended to make the viewer want to visit.

I'm not crazy about the large WM, but certainly understand the reasoning. You either have to go so small, with the viewer missing out on the experience altogether, or make use of the WM and give the viewer something to really see in proper scale. There are too many people who feel because it's on the web they have some inherent right to copy and use them as they please; without your approval. That's why I hate looking at so many sites the pros have. The photos are just too small to fully appreciate them.

Nice photos by the way. The slide view at the bottom works for me.

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

Works perfectly on my iPad and iPhone. Otoh, removing these watermarks would be no problem at all.

Originally Posted by peeker

Vieri,

I like the website mostly because you have a very strong portfolio. I have to agree with previous poster about the initial impression of the home page. I initially thought I had to roam around the pictures to select whatever link might be hidden underneath an image... Maybe it's because it takes "just" long enough before the first movement to the next category that it seemed a bit off.... Once I figured out there were menus on the bottom, all was okay... It was the accidental and potential for a first negative impression... Easily fixed though.

I on the other hand found the WM's very distracting. Being a professional, I certainly understand why you want to have WM's, but maybe there is a compromise between where you have them placed versus another spot. If you put them 2/3rds or 3/4 down from the top, then they would still have some impact, and not be dead center in the screen. It's mostly because they are dead center that was the most distracting as that is where most eyes are going to go first. Also, I found it ironic that I could download one of the many PDF's that have a lot of the same images on them, and still capture an un-watermarked print screen of some of the very same images. It kinda defeats the purpose of the webpage WM if anyone can download a PDF and essentially still "borrow" the image.

Originally Posted by Sherman79

Really nice! no complaints here!

Thank you to all of you guys for viewing and commenting! I changed the homepage's slide with something less cluttered and "messy", I hope this makes more sense now. About the WM, thanks for all opinions; thank you Scott for pointing out the .pdf security hole, I don't know what I was thinking there :D I actually made them unprintable and un-copyble (if there is such a word), but I didn't think about screenshots... will figure something out, thanks again.

[craigthegraphicartist]

Originally Posted by Todd Lambert

It's a shame it's in Flash only. Can't be viewed on phones or tablets. It also can't be bookmarked and probably isn't doing much for you in the search engines.

Design wise, it looks nice and very clean. The watermark is pretty distracting, why not just put in a corner somewhere instead of smack dab in the middle?

I agree it is nice looking but flash isn't doing you any good. Todd has pointed out some good points as to why the flash site isn't doing any good, if you want to know more I actually have a blog post on why photographers should avoid full blown flash sites if you are interested in reading more.

[madshutter]

Originally Posted by craigthegraphicartist

I agree it is nice looking but flash isn't doing you any good. Todd has pointed out some good points as to why the flash site isn't doing any good, if you want to know more I actually have a blog post on why photographers should avoid full blown flash sites if you are interested in reading more.

Hey Craig, thank you for your comment & suggestions, will look into your blog - actually, as I replied to Todd, the site has a full HTML iPad/tablet version and a full HTML iPhone/smartphone version; plus, it features deep linking & SEO for each page, so you can link each page/image, and the site is indexed accordingly... so, I think some of the Flash disadvantages have been addressed; I got reports that the site is a bit slow loading for people with a slow-ish internet connection, and for that of course I agree that Flash is definitely at a big disadvantage