Completely renewed website!

[madshutter]

Hey guys,

I just wanted to share with you my completely renewed website, and see what the collective wisdom of the forum thinks about it. Here it is: Vieri Bottazzini Photographer | Portraiture, architecture, stage, fine arts

I know the WM will create controversy, however I thought that putting larger images on the site (which required a WM for copyright protection) could led to a better viewing experience rather than having smaller images WM-free - let me know what you think, and thanks for viewing!

[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?

[Furinox]

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?

Gotta agree here. I'm pretty much against any flash site at this point. There's much better way to build a site now and be compatible with all devices.

[d2creative]

Hey, look! I have the same image as you, just cropped a little more.
Emanuelle's Dome | Dennis DeSilva

[madshutter]

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?

Originally Posted by Furinox

Gotta agree here. I'm pretty much against any flash site at this point. There's much better way to build a site now and be compatible with all devices.

Originally Posted by d2creative

Hey, look! I have the same image as you, just cropped a little more.
Emanuelle's Dome | Dennis DeSilva

Hey guys, thanks for the replies! About the flash, the site is actually compatible with all kind of devices, there is a HTML replica for tablets and one for smartphones, plus each page is indexed for all search engines, so no problems there. About the WM, I explained the why for my choice - I got too many instances of image theft in the past, and this seemed to me the best way to get large enough images for viewing comfort and a little added security against theft.

[hdctx]

Vieri, great looking work, and the full page montages for each category are very cohesive, with the exception of the home page. Looking at the jumble of subjects on the home page, you look scattered and disorganized, and like you can't figure out what your specialty is. It wasn't until the screen jumped to your first catagory montage that I got a positive vibe. All the images are great, but I really think you will accidentally generate a negative first impression with your home page montage. Just one man's opinion. Best Wishes.

Personal opinion, I would much prefer a single representative photo for each category on your home page, that I could click through to see each gallery

[Lightdances]

Nice work, good site, wm opacity is ok if you must have it. Kudos on all the work!

[madshutter]

Originally Posted by hdctx

Vieri, great looking work, and the full page montages for each category are very cohesive, with the exception of the home page. Looking at the jumble of subjects on the home page, you look scattered and disorganized, and like you can't figure out what your specialty is. It wasn't until the screen jumped to your first catagory montage that I got a positive vibe. All the images are great, but I really think you will accidentally generate a negative first impression with your home page montage. Just one man's opinion. Best Wishes.

Personal opinion, I would much prefer a single representative photo for each category on your home page, that I could click through to see each gallery

Thank you very much Dave, I am glad you enjoyed the photos - thanks a lot for your frank opinion on the home page, which is something I wasn't really sure how to solve to begin with. I will give it some more thoughts for sure! Thanks again, very much appreciated :)

Originally Posted by Lightdances

Nice work, good site, wm opacity is ok if you must have it. Kudos on all the work!

Thank you Dirk, am glad you enjoyed my work, and I am also very glad the WM didn't spoil the viewing experience too much - thanks again for taking the time! :)

[U2WAR]

Nicely done on the website. I like the layout .

[PhotoWiz]

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.

+1
Flash will kill your chances of popping up in organic searches. But it does look nice. Not being able to be viewed on Ipads is a big downfall as I believe they will be the main browsing platform in the near future.

[madshutter]

Originally Posted by PhotoWiz

+1
Flash will kill your chances of popping up in organic searches. But it does look nice. Not being able to be viewed on Ipads is a big downfall as I believe they will be the main browsing platform in the near future.

See my answer above:
"Hey guys, thanks for the replies! About the flash, the site is actually compatible with all kind of devices, there is a HTML replica for tablets and one for smartphones, plus each page is indexed for all search engines, so no problems there. About the WM, I explained the why for my choice - I got too many instances of image theft in the past, and this seemed to me the best way to get large enough images for viewing comfort and a little added security against theft."

[madshutter]

Originally Posted by U2WAR

Nicely done on the website. I like the layout .

Thank you Erich!

[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.

[Howard Barlow]

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

[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.