New Look - Explore

Discussion in ' Site Help' started by Admin, Sep 27, 2017.


Do you like new masonry or old masonry format

Poll closed Oct 4, 2017.


  1. Admin

    Admin Testing Staff Member

    Hey Folks - we took your feedback from the last go at this and here is the latest iteration on the new layout. Let me know your thoughts - still a work in progress but wanted to share so you can see what is in the works. Feedback welcome.

    Check out the two URLs - our current layout is:

    Editor's Pick |

    and the new layout being worked on is:

    Editors' Pick | - Where Photographers Inspire Each Other

    PS. Make sure you click on a photo - the modal is new as well.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
  2. I like the layout a lot. A potential problem is that it puts those who shoot a lot in portrait orientation at a disadvantage, but I'm not sure there's a convenient way around that problem unless you're OK with more open space around images.

    I can't get the individual photos to load, though (Safari 11.0)--I get the perpetual circling dots.

    I'd vote for "new, with slight modifications if possible," if that were an option
  3. The new layout got my vote.
  4. Admin

    Admin Testing Staff Member

    Yes - of course - we're open to feedback! Will look into Safari loading the modal now.
  5. When I click on Ched's "waterfall" photo, LINK-HERE, the third photo I'm seeing in the grid, to go to its page, the tags for the photo cover a good part of the photo.

    It's not a good presentation mechanism for portrait-oriented photos. I'd like to see this addressed. The portrait photos could be made bigger, so they're not limited to the smaller dimension of the landscape-oriented photos next to them. They should be the same size, thereby taking up more vertical space. The landscapes would then simply float within that space. It will still look grid-like but not diminish the portrait photos. As is, it doesn't work well to my eye.

    And, on another matter, is someone working on changing the color/density of links so they can be seen as links within text? They're barely discernible, which is why I've developed a habit of actually using the word LINK in caps when I create a link, as I did above.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  6. Admin

    Admin Testing Staff Member

    1.) Noted on the tags on photo. Aside from the tag issue - thoughts? 2.) I do hear what you are saying about portrait photos, however the only way to address that is to make the thumbnails (both portrait and landscape) larger and its been suggested that as it is now our thumbnails are too big, thus effecting the click thru rate creating the "view" many people are focused on. The theory is - thumbnails smaller = more direct views, larger thumbnails = less direct views.
  7. I think the thumbnails for portrait and for landscape photos should be the same size, whatever size you determine is optimal. Not asking for big thumbnails. I like 'em small, too. Just asking for equanimity in the sizes. I think whatever the max horizontal dimension is for landscape photos should be the max vertical dimension for portrait photos. That way, vertically- and horizontally-oriented thumbnails would be the same size. Here's an example:

    PapaTango, frigo and Leslie Reid like this.
  8. Admin

    Admin Testing Staff Member

    Your example above looks very similar to what we currently have - don't you think?

    Screen Shot 2017-09-28 at 9.00.40 AM.png
  9. How about grouping like formats together, kind of like this (odd-sized aspect ratios would be grouped with the set they're most similar to):
  10. I am not drawn exceptionally to either one over the other--the draft does 'ring' out a bit more. The thing that I do not like about the new draft is the white background. I find it distracting and plays a 'contrast' trick on the eye that tends to desaturate how the image is perceived. Maybe with a darker background?
  11. Glenn, the example you posted is not what I'm seeing. I'm on a Mac laptop using Safari. Here's what I get. As you can see, I'm seeing the vertical format photos staying within the same height as the height of the horizontal format photos, so the vertical photos are much smaller than the horizontal ones:

    Screen Shot.jpg
  12. Leslie, I understand the point behind your idea, but I find the more strict, neat-looking grids kind of static. I think there's more dynamism with a more random showing of photos. It allows my eye to see each as an individual and the grouping itself doesn't dominate. I understand this is very much a matter of taste, so make of it what you will.

    I like the way Glenn's attachment looks (including with the darker background). Not sure why mine looks so different. Only problem I have with Glenn's is that the second line of photos has no or too little space between photos. I'd like to see more space between photos, even when they're all horizontal. Best method for creating this sort of grid is to take implied squares that will provide the max length and width for any type of photo. Give the four squares an appropriate amount of space between each other. Then, any photo that is not a square (which will be most photos) would get centered in the space a full square would take up. That way the length of a horizontal photo and the height of a vertical photo will be the same, making horizontal and vertical photos the same size, and there will always be an adequate (though varying) amount of space between photos.
  13. My preference would be to see the portait and landscape allocated the same space and set up randomly as suggesred above.Background needs to be dark much like the current version and minimal spacing between the frames much like Fred's suggestion.
  14. OK, so someone just cleared this up for me. What I posted is an example of the grid as it exists presently and what Glenn posted is an example of the proposed grid. So I vote for the current, not the new, grid. It's got a better, darker background and is equitable to both landscape and portrait photos.
  15. I can't choose a pony in this race, but I am definitely against the still older format where pictures were cropped, instead of preserving the photographer's format.
    So long as the photographer's format is preserved, I'm not a big worrier.
  16. I like new one, header is less detractive . Looks way better in my opinion.
  17. Please stick with the old look, Glenn.
  18. Finally taking a look at this:

    I like the new version very much. The variety of thumb sizes seems to add interest for me (I find the little ones more seductive than the big ones) while the degree of order instilled by having a common vertical size makes it easier to read the rows. I even like the white background for thumbs (but not for single/large images): it's fresh and clean.

    I very much like the new Modal version over the old, although I don't seem to go "Back" from the modal page to the multi-thumb page.
  19. I am looking into the new version for a few days. I surely like this over the old format, since this one is more sophisticated, and informative too. One thing: I feel, the font size of the comments is a little too small to read consistently. Also, the grey shade of the letters tends to blend with the background. It could be a problem for some readers, especially with weaker eyesight.

Share This Page