OT my website - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
» Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Ford Cars and PAG Vehicles > PAG Vehicle Discussion > Land Rover
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowInsurance

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-21-2005, 15:01   #1 (permalink)
MVP
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
OT my website

I've just spent the day at the computer and just uploaded my new
website. if any techy-folk feel like a few minutes looking at naked
women I'd appreciate some feedback on the site (not the women, the
website ;o),
I'm a better photographer than I am website designer.
www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk

thanks muchly folks.


Regards.
Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)
--
_________________________________________
1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D
(3,000 rivets flying in close formation)
www.4x4info.info
www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
_________________________________________



.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-21-2005, 16:01   #2 (permalink)
Tim Hobbs
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:47:41 +0000, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
wrote:

>I've just spent the day at the computer and just uploaded my new
>website. if any techy-folk feel like a few minutes looking at naked
>women I'd appreciate some feedback on the site (not the women, the
>website ;o),
>I'm a better photographer than I am website designer.
>www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
>
>thanks muchly folks.
>
>
>Regards.
>Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)


Like it... Nothing overdone, just gets to the point mostly.

Couple of comments - I don't like tables with borders. I think it
would look better with border = 0 IMHO.

I would also choose a minimum screen res - 800 x 600 probably and fix
the table widths to fit in that width. On a high res screen the
content spreads very wide and makes it look disjointed.

I'd also try to get all the thumbnails to a single width (which mostly
they are). The thumbnails also lack definition - have you
experimented with larger thumbnails but higher JPEG compression to
keep the overall page data size the same? Might look better (or
worse)!

While I'm here, I really like some of your photography, some seems a
bit 'contrived' but there are some really good images there.

Have you thought about online ordering? Really easy to do - someone
else does the printing and mailing stuff for you and you take the
money...


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 03:01   #3 (permalink)
MVP
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:38:58 +0000, Tim Hobbs
<tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:47:41 +0000, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I've just spent the day at the computer and just uploaded my new
>>website. if any techy-folk feel like a few minutes looking at naked
>>women I'd appreciate some feedback on the site (not the women, the
>>website ;o),
>>I'm a better photographer than I am website designer.
>>www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
>>
>>thanks muchly folks.
>>
>>
>>Regards.
>>Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

>
>Like it... Nothing overdone, just gets to the point mostly.
>
>Couple of comments - I don't like tables with borders. I think it
>would look better with border = 0 IMHO.


Hmm, I'll look at that.

>I would also choose a minimum screen res - 800 x 600 probably and fix
>the table widths to fit in that width. On a high res screen the
>content spreads very wide and makes it look disjointed.
>
>I'd also try to get all the thumbnails to a single width (which mostly
>they are). The thumbnails also lack definition - have you
>experimented with larger thumbnails but higher JPEG compression to
>keep the overall page data size the same? Might look better (or
>worse)!


I had it with larger thumbails but chose to work with 150 pixies on
the longest side (I think it was 150 I settled on).

>While I'm here, I really like some of your photography, some seems a
>bit 'contrived' but there are some really good images there.


Contrived, hmm, well it is all 'set-up' and maybe that shows on some.

>Have you thought about online ordering? Really easy to do - someone
>else does the printing and mailing stuff for you and you take the
>money...


I'm going to set-up an online ordering via another website, I still
print everything myself by-hand to ensure quality, and for the prices
I charge I should be sacrificeing my first-born at the same time.

Thanks for taking the time Tim ;o)


Regards.
Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)
--
_________________________________________
1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D
(3,000 rivets flying in close formation)
www.4x4info.info
www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
_________________________________________



.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 05:01   #4 (permalink)
Tim Hobbs
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website


>>While I'm here, I really like some of your photography, some seems a
>>bit 'contrived' but there are some really good images there.

>
>Contrived, hmm, well it is all 'set-up' and maybe that shows on some.


Hey, being a critic is the easiest job out there... I'm about to pick
up a camera again properly for the first time in years - going to
start with ducks on the local pond and work from there. I'll post my
first efforts so you can reciprocate!

>
>>Have you thought about online ordering? Really easy to do - someone
>>else does the printing and mailing stuff for you and you take the
>>money...

>
>I'm going to set-up an online ordering via another website, I still
>print everything myself by-hand to ensure quality, and for the prices
>I charge I should be sacrificeing my first-born at the same time.
>


www.dipinto.co.uk



--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 06:01   #5 (permalink)
Austin Shackles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

On or around Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:38:58 +0000, Tim Hobbs
<tim@101ambulance-urine.net> enlightened us thusly:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:47:41 +0000, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I've just spent the day at the computer and just uploaded my new
>>website. if any techy-folk feel like a few minutes looking at naked
>>women I'd appreciate some feedback on the site (not the women, the
>>website ;o),
>>I'm a better photographer than I am website designer.
>>www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
>>
>>thanks muchly folks.
>>
>>
>>Regards.
>>Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

>
>Like it... Nothing overdone, just gets to the point mostly.
>
>Couple of comments - I don't like tables with borders. I think it
>would look better with border = 0 IMHO.
>
>I would also choose a minimum screen res - 800 x 600 probably and fix
>the table widths to fit in that width. On a high res screen the
>content spreads very wide and makes it look disjointed.


I'm with you on both those points. Borders around the frames don't add
anything. A single-pixel line might be OK, or no borders at all.

As to resolution - 800x600 is starting to fade, now, although I know people
who still stick to it ("because it makes the buttons and writing nice and
big" - don't seem to have noticed that you can tweak the sizes of such in
modern windows) more or less religiously.

most people seem to be using higher resolutions, these days. I tend to
scale pictures for web posting (other then for such as photo.net) so they
fit in an 800x600 window, which means that you can see it all by going
full-screen if you still run 800x600, or it'll pretty much fit inside your
browser on 1024x768 or above. I run 1280x960 here, and an 800x600 picture
still appears a reasonable size. Apart from sites such as photo.net which
are about photo critique (and thus you want to lose the minimum detail, so
no re-sizing) this works fine. There's absolutely no point in having
pictures at 3000x2000 resolution except for ones that people may want to
print - almost no-one has a monitor which will show it without rescaling
anyway.

I think, for a photo-promo site, I'd go for a 3-level approach; which makes
the coding more hassle, granted; have a page of thumbnails, clicking 'em
gets a medium-resolution picture (say within 800x600 as above, fairly well
compressed to something like 100KB, so it's fast loading) and then have a
"large" button which gets you something like 1600x1200 and less compression.
Unless you want to sell full-res ones, in which case, the 800x600 ish one
can have a "buy this picture" button.

just my €0.02-worth.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 06:01   #6 (permalink)
MVP
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:07:16 +0000, Tim Hobbs
<tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote:

>
>>>While I'm here, I really like some of your photography, some seems a
>>>bit 'contrived' but there are some really good images there.

>>
>>Contrived, hmm, well it is all 'set-up' and maybe that shows on some.

>
>Hey, being a critic is the easiest job out there... I'm about to pick
>up a camera again properly for the first time in years - going to
>start with ducks on the local pond and work from there. I'll post my
>first efforts so you can reciprocate!
>
>>
>>>Have you thought about online ordering? Really easy to do - someone
>>>else does the printing and mailing stuff for you and you take the
>>>money...

>>
>>I'm going to set-up an online ordering via another website, I still
>>print everything myself by-hand to ensure quality, and for the prices
>>I charge I should be sacrificeing my first-born at the same time.
>>

>
>www.dipinto.co.uk


will take a look.


Regards.
Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)
--
_________________________________________
1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D
(3,000 rivets flying in close formation)
www.4x4info.info
www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
_________________________________________



.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 06:01   #7 (permalink)
MVP
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:52:57 +0000, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

>On or around Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:38:58 +0000, Tim Hobbs
><tim@101ambulance-urine.net> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:47:41 +0000, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've just spent the day at the computer and just uploaded my new
>>>website. if any techy-folk feel like a few minutes looking at naked
>>>women I'd appreciate some feedback on the site (not the women, the
>>>website ;o),
>>>I'm a better photographer than I am website designer.
>>>www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
>>>
>>>thanks muchly folks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards.
>>>Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

>>
>>Like it... Nothing overdone, just gets to the point mostly.
>>
>>Couple of comments - I don't like tables with borders. I think it
>>would look better with border = 0 IMHO.
>>
>>I would also choose a minimum screen res - 800 x 600 probably and fix
>>the table widths to fit in that width. On a high res screen the
>>content spreads very wide and makes it look disjointed.

>
>I'm with you on both those points. Borders around the frames don't add
>anything. A single-pixel line might be OK, or no borders at all.
>
>As to resolution - 800x600 is starting to fade, now, although I know people
>who still stick to it ("because it makes the buttons and writing nice and
>big" - don't seem to have noticed that you can tweak the sizes of such in
>modern windows) more or less religiously.
>
>most people seem to be using higher resolutions, these days. I tend to
>scale pictures for web posting (other then for such as photo.net) so they
>fit in an 800x600 window, which means that you can see it all by going
>full-screen if you still run 800x600, or it'll pretty much fit inside your
>browser on 1024x768 or above. I run 1280x960 here, and an 800x600 picture
>still appears a reasonable size. Apart from sites such as photo.net which
>are about photo critique (and thus you want to lose the minimum detail, so
>no re-sizing) this works fine. There's absolutely no point in having
>pictures at 3000x2000 resolution except for ones that people may want to
>print - almost no-one has a monitor which will show it without rescaling
>anyway.
>
>I think, for a photo-promo site, I'd go for a 3-level approach; which makes
>the coding more hassle, granted; have a page of thumbnails, clicking 'em
>gets a medium-resolution picture (say within 800x600 as above, fairly well
>compressed to something like 100KB, so it's fast loading) and then have a
>"large" button which gets you something like 1600x1200 and less compression.
>Unless you want to sell full-res ones, in which case, the 800x600 ish one
>can have a "buy this picture" button.
>
>just my 0.02-worth.


I don't want anything bigger than 500 or maybe 600 on the longest side
as image theft is a very real threat and you can print an 8x10 from an
800x600 image. still thinking the ordering system through though...


Regards.
Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)
--
_________________________________________
1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D
(3,000 rivets flying in close formation)
www.4x4info.info
www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
_________________________________________



.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<

-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 07:01   #8 (permalink)
Tim Hobbs
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

>>
>>just my 0.02-worth.

>
>I don't want anything bigger than 500 or maybe 600 on the longest side
>as image theft is a very real threat and you can print an 8x10 from an
>800x600 image. still thinking the ordering system through though...
>


Why not watermark them? That prevents anyone printing them, but they
can see a high-res picture to really evaluate the quality of the image
(at least in a technical sense).

This is how all the major stock libraries work, supplying comping
images at about 600 pixels wide to allow concept work and client
approval. If you want the print-quality original without watermark
you hand over your $300 or thereabouts...


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

My Landies? http://www.seriesii.co.uk
Barcoding? http://www.bartec-systems.com
Tony Luckwill web archive at http://www.luckwill.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 07:01   #9 (permalink)
Austin Shackles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

On or around Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:35:35 +0000, MVP
<mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> enlightened us thusly:

>I don't want anything bigger than 500 or maybe 600 on the longest side
>as image theft is a very real threat and you can print an 8x10 from an
>800x600 image. still thinking the ordering system through though...


you won't get much quality though. I suspect that with suitable
image-processing gear you'd get as good results from 640x480, say.

If you print from 800x600 to 8x6", you're only looking at 100 dpi - typical
glossy magazines run at about 1200, as you're no doubt aware. You can't
stop people making off with images you post on the web, though in theory
it's copyright theft, probably. I guess if you catch people selling your
images, you'd stand a chance of getting redress, but I'd not hold me breath
even so.

'course, you can compress them heavily, but that tends to look bad. If
you're looking to sell pictures, then I think you have to have a reasonable
preview and accept that some people will content themselves with nicking
that, rather than paying for a proper version.

's a bit like the music industry - they, too, have a huge problem with
copyright theft - personally, I reckon the way forward is to make the music
available for download sufficiently cheaply that most people will pay to be
legitimate, and accept the tightwads who won't as unavoidable losses.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2005, 07:01   #10 (permalink)
Austin Shackles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT my website

On or around Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:00:35 +0000, Tim Hobbs
<tim@101ambulance-urine.net> enlightened us thusly:

>>>
>>>just my €0.02-worth.

>>
>>I don't want anything bigger than 500 or maybe 600 on the longest side
>>as image theft is a very real threat and you can print an 8x10 from an
>>800x600 image. still thinking the ordering system through though...
>>

>
>Why not watermark them? That prevents anyone printing them, but they
>can see a high-res picture to really evaluate the quality of the image
>(at least in a technical sense).
>
>This is how all the major stock libraries work, supplying comping
>images at about 600 pixels wide to allow concept work and client
>approval. If you want the print-quality original without watermark
>you hand over your $300 or thereabouts...


that's a good point, and one I'd not thought of. proper watermarking w0ould
be difficult to remove.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Ford Cars and PAG Vehicles > PAG Vehicle Discussion > Land Rover



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 18:24.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.