http://www.mikecousins.com
I redid it completely and made it all W3C compliant as well. Let me know what you think.
Photo website overhaul
Photo website overhaul
[url]http://www.mikecousins.com[/url]
-
Grandpa Stu
- Posts: 2362
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 8:00 am
nice
that red really bugs me. perhaps desaturate it a bit?
otherwise it's lookin good.
otherwise it's lookin good.
I think your choice of front-page photos are innapropriate, also pedophiletastic. They might have been technically great shots but you cant put that across in a front-page narrow JPEG. Much less a montage of 3 shots smeared together rather crudely.
The rest of the page looks a bit too much like a blog for my comfort (dashed square boxes, single bar header with widespaced font) but otherwise alright. Colours by Gothic Crayola INC.
The rest of the page looks a bit too much like a blog for my comfort (dashed square boxes, single bar header with widespaced font) but otherwise alright. Colours by Gothic Crayola INC.
The front page photo changes after every event I shoot. Gymnastics was the last one. The pedophile joke is old.Foo wrote:I think your choice of front-page photos are innapropriate, also pedophiletastic. They might have been technically great shots but you cant put that across in a front-page narrow JPEG. Much less a montage of 3 shots smeared together rather crudely.
The rest of the page looks a bit too much like a blog for my comfort (dashed square boxes, single bar header with widespaced font) but otherwise alright. Colours by Gothic Crayola INC.
I do kind of agree with you about the colours. I might try some other combos.
[url]http://www.mikecousins.com[/url]
I'm not joking with the pedophile thing. I think it's a legitimate concern for you as a photographer. I've seen some of the work you put out and it's good stuff, but those shots don't serve as a good example of your abilities and since they're not exceptional shots it just sits awkwardly as a front-page example of your work.
Regarding colours, the black background is the killer for it as it currently stands. Though most 'serious' sites gravitate towards while backgrounds, I can see that photography sites are an exception to this rule. However, its got to be handled carefully... normally with a black BG you need to keep the foreground colours in all gray hues.
Regarding colours, the black background is the killer for it as it currently stands. Though most 'serious' sites gravitate towards while backgrounds, I can see that photography sites are an exception to this rule. However, its got to be handled carefully... normally with a black BG you need to keep the foreground colours in all gray hues.
No it is not, unless you're feeling guilty. I've looked at a lot of sports imagery over the years and those are par for the course for any professional gymnastics photographer.Foo wrote:I'm not joking with the pedophile thing. I think it's a legitimate concern for you as a photographer. I've seen some of the work you put out and it's good stuff, but those shots don't serve as a good example of your abilities and since they're not exceptional shots it just sits awkwardly as a front-page example of your work.
Regarding colours, the black background is the killer for it as it currently stands. Though most 'serious' sites gravitate towards while backgrounds, I can see that photography sites are an exception to this rule. However, its got to be handled carefully... normally with a black BG you need to keep the foreground colours in all gray hues.
Oh and the site looks great. I'm just glad your rowing phots suck as much as mine do... There's not a lot you can do to jazz that sport up
Bright, solid colors like red are only a problem when you look at the wall or a white website/word doc/whatever and see the color of the site you were just looking at... that's annoying as hell, but the black on your site prevents that from happening.
Yes. Counter with YOU MUST BE A PEDOPHILE. That's gonna further the conversation. Anyway TNF agrees and I doubt he's ever owned a raincoat.Dave wrote:No it is not, unless you're feeling guilty. I've looked at a lot of sports imagery over the years and those are par for the course for any professional gymnastics photographer.
I've already said it dude.. it's the part of my first post you chose to ignore:
"those are par for the course for any professional gymnastics photographer"
1) Pedophiles are everywhere, but don't stop living your life
2) Women spread their legs in gymnastics... it's just a fact of the sport. You can't run an internet photo operation like this one if you worry about pedophilia.
"those are par for the course for any professional gymnastics photographer"
1) Pedophiles are everywhere, but don't stop living your life
2) Women spread their legs in gymnastics... it's just a fact of the sport. You can't run an internet photo operation like this one if you worry about pedophilia.
You're trying to attack my credibility by pointing out the alleged daftness of my replies, while ignoring my argument. Cute strategy, but you're ignoring the factsFoo wrote:If you want to drag absurdities into it you damage nothing but your own credibility.Dave wrote:Hell foo, we should remove the middle photo too because the little girl is making kissy hand faces.
I actually agree with Foo.
It's not that the pictures are sexual or anything, it just conveys the message "I take picture of little girls" (even though it's at a sports event) instead of "I'm a professional photographer".
That issue aside, your front page images should instantly make the visitor aware of the fact that they're looking at a photographer's website who has some serious photographing skills. These pictures don't show that nor imply that this is a photographer's website I'm looking at.
I'd ditch the images in favor of some more to-the-point ones.
It's not that the pictures are sexual or anything, it just conveys the message "I take picture of little girls" (even though it's at a sports event) instead of "I'm a professional photographer".
That issue aside, your front page images should instantly make the visitor aware of the fact that they're looking at a photographer's website who has some serious photographing skills. These pictures don't show that nor imply that this is a photographer's website I'm looking at.
I'd ditch the images in favor of some more to-the-point ones.
Last edited by Eraser on Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fair enough. I'm not suggesting he remove all photos and references to it and never make a child the subject of his work again. Lets not straw-man this to an extreme view, you know that's not the statement I made.
As a photographer, he should be aware of these issues. I'm sure he is. The correct approach is a balanced one between taking quality shots, and keeping things tasteful.
I'm not offended by the images, either. It should be obvious to you that I brought it up because the issue at hand is that of the website's presentation to the world at large.
As a photographer, he should be aware of these issues. I'm sure he is. The correct approach is a balanced one between taking quality shots, and keeping things tasteful.
I'm not offended by the images, either. It should be obvious to you that I brought it up because the issue at hand is that of the website's presentation to the world at large.
I didn't notice much wrong in the left picture until it was pointed out. But if someone as typical as tnf find the picture awkward, then I'd rest on his judgment and replace the picture.
[size=85]yea i've too been kind of thinking about maybe a new sig but sort of haven't come to quite a decision yet[/size]
Re: Photo website overhaul
:icon14:teriba wrote:made it all W3C compliant as well.
I think we're all rational, capable individuals here... What does your own judgement tell you as someone with a camera the size of Alaska?mjrpes wrote:I didn't notice much wrong in the left picture until it was pointed out. But if someone as typical as tnf find the picture awkward, then I'd rest on his judgment and replace the picture.