[Scootatheschool1990]

I'm looking for "constructive" criticism on my website. I have been doing a daily post for about a month now (it seems forever) and I want to get other peoples opinions. Do the photos take too long to load? Are the photos too saturated in your monitor? That kind of thing. Thanks in advance guys and gals.

[MSL]

Took a very quick look.
Looks very nice, but too many large images on a single page. Takes too long too load, too much to scroll through, and I'd rather look at smaller images and then expand the ones I like, or be able to scroll through them one at a time gallery style.

[Miguel]

1. Contact is not spelled correctly on your banner as well as on your contact page.
2. What does "High Definition" mean?
3. Mouse overs seem to lighten each image (as well as change the title color--which is OK) so it is unsettling as you just don't know which is the real image.
4. While I like the large sized images, after clicking the next button it takes about 15 seconds to load them all on the next page. That is not acceptable.
5. Your shots have a lot of blue colored elements of very similar tones and that can get fatiguing. I'd reshuffle the mix a bit to break things up--especially try to avoid consecutive shots of clear blue skies and water.

Hope this helps.

M

[johnyates]

I like it just fine. My internet connection is fast enough that I don't need to wait for pictures to load, and the images are nicely framed on my monitor. I especially like that it is not flash based. And, you've got some really nice shots on display.

[p38arover]

I didn't realise until I accidentally clicked on an image that it took one to another section where one could buy the image. I didn't see that mentioned on the home page.

I had no problems with loading speed but I have a cable broadband connection.

[thoughton]

Looks very good to me. I like how the pictures display at different sizes on different size screens. Photos look great. I would agree there are too many pictures on one page, I would reduce it a lot, perhaps to 3 or 4. I agree the mouseover fade-effect isn't ideal, maybe change it so just the border changes colour. Also perhaps add a tooltip when hovering over an image, so the user knows clicking it will show a description and comments. Colour saturation looks fine to me. Some of the colours (e.g. the flamingo) are exquisite.

[RussV]

Everything is fine but I would halve the size on the webpage and leave bigger gaps between, I had to scroll on a 17" monitor.. They will still look good.

[Reliant K1000]

It loads fine but I have a newer, fast machine and a fast internet. I like the fact that when you hover over the image it gets brighter, actually. I would also say that the previews should be about half that size as well. This will help those with slower connections.

I do like that there is little chatter and only the images shown - the image is the "star" and that's the way I think it should be.

If it were my site, I'd do a slightly darker background - it might make the images stand out.

Hope the constructive criticism helps. You are quite brave to do this, in other communities I'd fear what would be said!

[BrianR]

Images are too large for me. My 20" monitors resolution is 1680x1050, and most of your images have a height of 954 pixels. My browser isn't cluttered with menu bars, but I can't quite fit your images into my browsers window, part of it gets cropped. It takes precision scrolling to line it up where I can see most of it, but that's not very user friendly.

I clicked on the Valley View from Mt. Hood T-Line, and the HD Download gave me a much taller view in full resolution. Your watermark is at the very bottom, and would be easy enough to clone out or just crop it out. I'm not saying this is a bad thing to do as I'm a fan of unobtrusive watermarks like the ones your use, but it's somewhat at odds with trying to sell the digital version.

I like how the main page is just photos, and you have more info after you click on the pictures (though nothing about the tulip one). The layout of this text in some of the more recent ones seems wonkily placed around your HD Download button though. Compare Mt. Hood’s Hood. - Northwest in HD with an older one Mother Nature Reaching Out - Northwest in HD, that has the text neatly below the download button.

[monoloco]

I don't have a particularly fast internet connection but the site loaded in just a few seconds for me. Nice photos, brought back memories of my time living in the NW, especially the outback sign from Mt. Bachelor.

[K-9]

The photos are too large to the point where the image quality degraded on my 25" monitor. Resizing them will help a lot.

[thoughton]

It's got nothing to do with your 25" monitor. The photos max out at about 1450x950, at that size they are only about 60% of the width of my 27" monitor.