fotoandy

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6002860">Kah Hoe Wan</a>:<br>

Sincerest thanks for the concise and clear feedback, truly appreciated.</p>

<p>I agree with some of it, not so much agree on others. The only thing I could think of as non-negotiable (at this point in time) is the spelling of 'foto' v 'photo'. It's part of the branding of the site, for now I'm hard-headedly keeping it. Also would be a little contradictory to spell it one way on the url/banner, but different elsewhere.</p>

<p>Having said that, your feedback on that point and others has made me at least re-evaluate most everything you mention, sometimes this is the very essence of what can be positively gained from feedback. Thanks again for that.</p>

<p>Will drop you a mail over the next couple of days, bit crazy with work at this very moment.</p>

<p>Alrighty... Now in B&W with smaller images on the homepage icons at bottom. (<a href="http://www.Foto-Andy.com">home link</a>)</p>

<p>Better/Worse?</p><div>[ATTACH=full]495244[/ATTACH]</div>

<p>Thanks everyone for the feedback thus far, especially Gary for the extra concise impressions.</p>

<p>I'm right now trying out a non-yellow background, basically a white-to-black gradient. It was already being considered, but I thought to leave it for this round of feedback before ditching it, was curious to see what opinions would be. Obviously if you look while I'm working, much CSS will be for the yellow background.</p>

<p>Have already been moving to "less is more" thru this site refit, but frankly I'm finding many photo'g sites going too far down this road. I shoot a lot, and right now want to share a lot. If we're talking the visual aspect of the site over content itself, thought I'd try something a little different/stronger, why not?</p>

<p>I could break down each point further, but will try to keep it brief to not pollute the feedback process with my rambling. A full article is promised, or at least quick recap in round 3.</p>

<p>Anything beyond 1st impressions? Is it just the hompage that makes you feel this, or is it the entire site? Just a Foto Set (gallery)? Thanks to further my understanding of your thoughts.</p>

<p>Appreciated!!! :)</p>

<div>[ATTACH=full]508728[/ATTACH]</div>

<p>Work continues apace on my website, <a href="http://www.Foto-Andy.com">www.Foto-Andy.com</a>.</p>

<p>Based on hacking up my own site the last few years and recently refined on during this upgrade by some mostly helpful comments in my 1st feedback request on photo.net.</p>

<p>I basically learned not to bother posting foto news/links, keep sharpening content display amounts, and (for the last point) kill the sidebar on the homepage. Oh, and to reply less and more precisely to comments, had a little TOO much free time there...</p>

<p>So time to check in after some more work, thanks for your efforts in advance.</p>

<p>Just please note it's still somewhat in progress, I fit this around other work. There's some Foto Sets photos to reload (any old ones have a more 'modest' copyright and size),tags to add a-plenty, and other minor bits, fel free to comment if you think you see one.</p>

<p>Then I can hopefully get on with full-power photo posting soon, long overdue...</p>

<p><strong>Feedback regarding first impressions, navigation, and overall presentation is especially valued. </strong></p>

<p>Photo content notes are welcome, but not really the feedback I'm fishing for, unless it greatly affects the above points of course.</p>

<p>Thanks again! :)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.Foto-Andy.com">www.Foto-Andy.com</a></p>

<p><em>Tech Stuff: A Worpress install and NextGen Gallery, with a modified full-power theme (auto-add thumbs to posts, other handy code etc) and a handful of plugins and php tweaks. D.I.Y...</em> 8|</p><div>[ATTACH=full]496653[/ATTACH]</div>

<p>Quick here in Europe at around 10pm, site loads snappy and clean to me.</p>

<p>Nice pics too!</p>

<p>Hi Santtu,</p>

<p>Great site, very minimal yet informative. It works as a collective focus of your other efforts, as long as they don't go down it shouldn't present you with problems.</p>

<p>I would probably take issue for critisism with all the offsite-ing involved if you you were presenting these things as your proffessional works (like 'I'm a photographer'), but you point out how that's not the case, no probs and actually pretty cool.</p>

<p>While not having a clear contact link was a little off, I like the 'I am, I am?' reference, it gives you a free pass imho. I would however move it to the last menu item, contact is usually in the end.</p>

<p>I'd recommend to also rotate the home page slideshow occasionally, both for returning visitors and your own sense of inpiration.</p>

<p>Hope that helps! :)</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=312067">Mikael Karlsson</a>: Hi Mikael, thanks for the followup post.<br>

Yup, the words you give on ccopyright are fair and true, I deserve them.</p>

<p>Having said that (and reviewed all the news posts I did, now pulled as I explained upthread), there were 3 posts I found with non-Foto-Andy pictures, and of that only the Dr evil pic clearly fell out of fair use, used for a cheap laugh, and my bad-sleep brain forgot to attribute something OBVOUSLY not mine.<br>

The 2 other uses were in reviews (like your book example), (the Liebowitz documentary and the NASA D3 pics), both attributed correctly at posting time. And the NASA pics are public domain if attributed and linked, which I did.</p>

<p>As I say, I take my shame, but let's keep it in perspectivem especially within the central question of the thread. When you say " for commercial purposes", that falls into making money off the image, or the site itself, I wish I was! :) There's no ads beyond the Swiss link (for which I get one whole free economy flight a year), heck I'm not even selling my own photos elsewhere onsite. Doctor Evil was the worst of this experiment (one out of 3 posts), and was, in context, more like a Facebook post than any sort of money grab.</p>

<p>I'm not writing this to defend myself, more because I find this issue worth long-posting aboute, for all the distraction from getting other feedback. I 1000% agree with your opening words:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you're OK with people using your images for commercial purposes free of charge, you really shouldn't use images belonging to others without permission</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not okay about it, but when I find an image on a site (and I do, 2 last month!), I evaluate the context. One of last months' was a post on a bunch of flickr'd photos of a Tibetan Mandala, with a few text ads in the sidebar. He left my watermarks, he linked to me (doctor evil slip aside, all my ©s were also links), and it wasn't really selling anything. No prob, I let it slide, even left a comment with thanks.</p>

<p>The other was one of my cat photos, used on a small site for an animal care center. While the w/mark and link were also correct, the pic was used to announce a bunch of calenders released. I contacted her and politely pointed out the situation etc etc, and while she didn't pay out without going the lawyer route (not worth it frankly), she pulled down the photo and life moved on. The irony is I'm actually one link poorer out of this, and don't even get a few pennies for the effort of protecting my work. Ha!</p>

<p>Ok, I don't got much more on copyright to add beyond that (and whew, another keyboard abuse session), I'm going to pop over to your site and take in your example. In the meantime, can we call this the end of the copyright issue (email me if you want to carry it on, discussing is learning), especially as the posts involved exist only in private archive?</p>

<p>Any further thoughts on my site are appreciated, if you need a topic: Navigation within my Foto Sets is a something I'd really love to hear about, or the home page without articles. :)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.foto-andy.com/2010/09/01/no-news-its-good-news/">A short post</a> I did on all that come from this feedback, see how I bow to your mighty comments! ;)</p>

<p>Thanks to posts so far, as well as a couple of emails either for privacy or lack or registration effort.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=112337">Les Berkley</a>: I won't lie nor deny, I was slack at licensing, but not for laziness or malice. The article themselves were an experiment in adding something new to this site overhaul, and were never realy intended to stay up much longer.</p>

<p>Even at that, considering the lack of ads (the Swiss link being the exception), I considered it fair use (esp. short term). I'm however deeply ashamed of forgetting to attribute a couple of pics I used (Doctor Evil and another that slips my mind), I deserve any muck you wish to throw on that one. Truly bad form on my part, even if only a little or within what might be fair use.</p>

<p>PS: As just posted, news is pulled for a site refresh aside from this copyright issue, but having your comment pushing the issue into my mind was great for the decision. Thanks for taking time to write, it genuinely helped! :)</p>

<p>Ok, after a day out biking the coast and a think about all these comments (and the volume of my replies as part of internally figuring this out/being active within the thread, thanks for any patience spent), I made one change to regroup and refocus both the website and this thread.</p>

<p>No more news articles.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a>: That quality of your post is why I knew photo.net would help me to understand the issue, well deserved and gold star given with my thanks!</p>

<p>Glad to know I'm not only the one in this potential boat (nor scratching the head), it also sounds like we're thinking along the same lines of what lenses we use/want. I'm also considering to keep the D90 (or DX body of quality) around, but unfortunately the value 2nd hand of course softens the hit when you pay for the upgrade.</p>

<p>The whole upgrade to FX path is definitely one to make you question if it's truly worth it (let's not forget it's still only 1st Gen on Nikons, upgrades logically within a year) for sure. As I said earlier, a good workaround I use is good ol' 35mm film if it's feasable (or even required), although then of course that's a lower time/profit margin, relatively speaking.</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=19848">Jim Tardio</a>'s point upthread about using a DX in fullframe mode on FX where possible is an interesting option, but I would need research before saying another word towards an opinion on that.</p>

<p>Thanks also for the words on lenses you've used, the 12-24 with 28-70 combo sounds like a setup I will definitely consider, especially as 17-50 sounds a little limiting in reach (even on DX) and width (especially on DX). The notes on each will definitely be considered thoroughly...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i do think it makes sense to get the lenses you need for FX before dumping your DX body, but let's face, it, the reality is these are lateral moves to some extent. getting the 28-300 for FX, for instance, costs $450 more than the 18-200 on DX; the 17-50 on DX is about $450-$650, depending on which version; the 24-70 is about $1700; the 50-150 is $750; the 70-200 II is $2200; the 11-16 is $600; the 14-24 is $1800. bottom line, here, i think, is there is no right answer. you just have to do what's right for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Testify brother, spread that truth!</p>

<p>Flickr and Picassa are awesome if everyone is okay with getting an account. As Damon notes, it's 25$ per year per account for more capabilities/uploads on flickr (wheras Picassa has a much bigger free limit), and the free accounts might be limiting for your project.<br>

Could make a big $$$ difference if lots of photos will be uploaded (10 flickr users=250$ a year for example).</p>

<p>It's also definitely worth noting that either services are super simple to add to websites and free blogs, either by copying provided code or a plugin/addon (should your site structure support it).</p>

<p>For your needs, I'd say Picassa is probably your best bet. They'll give you lots of storage for no cost compared to free flickr accounts (and signup is a free google account), and are just as easy to use from my experience, although I tend to preffer flickr.</p>

<p>Please... MAKE SURE YOU DO YOUR PRIVACY & COPYRIGHT SETTINGS WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE... sorry to YELL, but theft is rife online and it's two minutes of settings versus potential misuse of images, something the families will likely not love you for.</p>

<p>PS. If you happen to use a privately hosted Wordpress installation (it's a basic framework setup for a website) the NextGen Gallery is excellent (<a href="http://www.Foto-Andy.com">I use it like on my site</a>), and has an add-on module that lets multiple users upload pics, even with a veto-before-show feature I think.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=312067">Mikael Karlsson</a> :Thanks for the excellent feedback Mikael, very appreciated. Hope my reply isn't "too many things either", typing it out usually helps my process greatly in all this, and might even help someone some day to avoid my mistakes, they are worth it if learnt from.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Way too many things going on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot going on is the idea for a change, even if it is surely "too much" at the moment (this feedback helping me to see what fat needs trimming). I did do the "usual" minimal design/content thing in previous site builds, it just feels too... same-same, and a loss of potential to the medium of a online creative website. I want to see what that potential is, part of the ride.<br>

This and similar feedbacks lead me to think that spinning any photo world news/links might fix that a lot. It was something to try for a while (and I _do_ enjoy it), especially as a vehicle to share things I find interesting/awesome in the world of cameras. That would also clear out any potential copyright issues (covered below) from this site, as well as make the blog side open for "Featured Fotos/Sets/Tags".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is the purpose of your site?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Show photos and life (as in explain with some words what's up in the shot/set as relavent, not as in all up-myself declaring how "I expose life!"), both for new/current work and archives.<br>

Also, offer a few different ways to see it all through "Featured Fotos/Sets/Tags", giving a viewer regular posts to check back for, as well as maybe see an older photo or set they may have missed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Generally speaking people have pretty darn short attention spans these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have ADHD (if now the milder over-30y level), sometimes I so wish I was kidding or exaggerating!!! Hahaha!<br>

Seriously though, part of the "lots of stuff" route in photo count at least is to A: Give the short attention spans something to do within my site (hard part is getting them to trust they can, hopefully easier when I finish my backlog of content upload), and B: Savor my ADHD to an extent, if you think I shoot a lot of subjects now, Oi Vay 5 years ago...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with Scott in that there seems to be quite a few images on the site that aren't yours. I would mark these images very clearly as belonging to someone else to avoid potential problems with copyright infringement and all that fun stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I too agree with Scott, just his delivery killed any serious reply on it from me. I am ashamed of my lazy watermarking of other peoples' work, and this public mention of it will likely drive me to move that to tonights' work time out of shame if nothing else. My bad, not to be flippant about it in the least.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've checked the site on a couple of different computers because the images look rather washed out to me. No difference really in checking on both Macs and PCs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Washed out" is very bad unless an effect I strove for, but obviously it's hard to tell exactly what you mean without samples. Could you please PM me a screetshot from either machine?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think there's potential with your images depending on what exactly you want your site to be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for upping my "potential" quota, every bit helps! :) I would be lying if said I knew exactly what I want it to be (I'm still figuring out what to really specialize in), I have a lot of (photo) content to post up now that at least the site framework is up and working.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know a lot of photographers who tried to be everything to all people and failed miserably and one of the things I always stress when I am consulted by fellow stock photographers is to focus the scope of a website to fit in with the target audience. If that target audience is "everyone" it's pretty hard to market efficiently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It's a danger I wrestle to minimize, especially as even over 30, ADHD is not *always* helpful to focus within the photo efforts. My goal at this stage is to develop what I can do (People, travel, macro or at least passably) and see where it can take me, as well as get the years of shooting I've basically using as training "for the pros" out there and working a groove.</p>

<p>Thanks to you and anyone who read this far, I hope I'm not babbling on too long in replies (I won't always, time is with me this week). If I did, again hoping it's one day helpful to someone.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4802905">Andrew Lynn</a>: Very eloquent arguement for holding off FX lens purchases until owning an FX body, enough to make me reconsider the upgrade. BUT I WANT TO SPEND MY $$$ AND GET SHINY NEW GLASS NOW!!!! :p<br>

Seriously though, well scored points, perhaps the tipping point to force a rethink of this 'halfway' strategy.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2109369">D.B. Cooper</a>: Doesn't surprise me they swapped out the samples, but don't let thier silliness completely turn you off a potential lens. Not defending the lens, just defending an open mind until you try it for yourself, much like I have to remind myself everytime I consider Sigma (which I strongly dislike as a lens maker).</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2257221">Ty Mickan</a>: You point on the popularity of high ISOs is quite on the money. You also make an interesting point for going with less than f2.8 prime lenses. In my case though, zooms (even @ f2.8) work ideally for me right now, but I'd be lying if I didn't think a bag of f1.x primes would not be awesome, except for lens changing time/opportunity loss. Tempting to accept as I love me them low ISOs..</p>

<p>That was indeed direct, thank you so much.</p>

<p>Thanks also for using "<em>Now if you don't mind, there are other Websites to stay and browse awhile. "Dingaling aling aling", as the little bell over the doorway sounds on my out.</em>", it exemplifies where rudeness comes in. And poor humor. And general lack of wit.</p>

<p>Don't let the door hit you on the way out, you will not be missed.</p>

<p>PS. "Website" is not capitalized.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do not be afraid to hurt my feelings, but rudeness will be politely ignored.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I re-read that this morning and realize it sounds a touch wussy and/or contradictory.</p>

<p>What I mean is don't be afraid to be direct or negative, just please don't be a troll/douche about it...<br /> but maybe I've been on the wrong forums lately if I felt i needed that disclaimer :p ...</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19848">Jim Tardio</a>: Seriously??? That would be pretty frikkin' great, I really like that lens, and it has <a href="http://www.foto-andy.com/sets/macro/quicktour-macro/">served me well in past</a>. The colors are mostly on a D70, the turntable B&W is film (full set <a href="http://www.foto-andy.com/sets/macro/i-heart-my-turntables/">here</a>).<br>

Might have to consider it as a potential keeper and a savings on the upgrade, higher ISOs be damned!</p>

<p>Yay!</p>

<p>PS. Nice spot on the f4.5 mistake, thanks.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>Photo.net is perhaps the best gift to photography the Internet gives us. Just wanted to say that.</p>

<p>Well, being in the "website design" area of the boards, we all know I'm here for feedback on my photography website, <a href="http://www.Foto-Andy.com">www.Foto-Andy.com</a>, for which I thank you for your time, should you have it to spare of course.</p>

<p>Apple users might dig that it's Flash-free, and the photo lightbox/viewer works on iPod/pad/phone, if a tad slow.</p>

<p>The site is designed so I can feature my photo work (<a href="http://www.foto-andy.com/foto-latest/">Latest Fotos</a>, <a href="http://www.foto-andy.com/sets/">Foto Sets</a>, <a href="http://www.foto-andy.com/category/foto-featured/">Foto Featured</a>) in a both current and archive/library sense (and shop in future, like Fotomoto), not to mention in a few different ways of discovery. <a href="http://www.foto-andy.com/category/fotoblog/">I've also been writing a few articles/links on photo world of late</a>, but haven't decided quite how that one will unfold as yet.</p>

<p><strong>I'm especially looking for comments about layout, load times, and any navigation/finding stuff</strong>. There's still much updating and order change to individual "<a href="http://www.Foto-Andy.com/sets/">Foto Sets</a>" to come, so while feedback there is certainly great , please remember that's one of the last things I'm sorting out off a loooong list and bad sleep (unrelated).</p>

<p>I should propbably add with hesitation (for fear of polluting your pre-opinion), it does bear mentioning I don't consider the site design fully finshed, I'd say 85%. I won't say just what (again fear of tainting results), but I can say now that much of this self-built site is now done, there are many, many, MANY photos to come, not to mention India (4th time now, thanks Swiss logo!) in December.</p>

<p>Do not be afraid to hurt my feelings, but rudeness will be politely ignored.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5372852">albert lee</a>: Your thoughts on using the DX 35mm and 11-16mm back up some results I saw on this. I was thinking that the 11-16mm (or even my current 12-24mm) could be a poor-man wide as you say, <strong>were you truly happy with the results on a D700, especially distortion</strong>? For the dx 35mm I'd have to see it, but I tend to like vignetting to be minimal, unless I add in post of course for effect.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a>: On the lenses you mention, I'd say as I did to Albert just now that I'll have to look into the 35mm choice furthur, thanks to both of you for bringing to me, as a DX solution or perhaps beyond. <br /><br />Re the Tokina 100mm: Yeah, looks pretty tasty.<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561"><br /></a></p>

<p>@Wouter Willemse: Thanks Wouter for helping to clarify Peters' point, you definitely also make a good narrative on the whole crop/Full frame arguement I've been agonizing in during this process (the "holy grail" of FX indeed), especially in the lenses.</p>

<p>There is definitely a few big comprimises to this two-sensored system I'm looking at, and constantly changing lenses is one of the very big ones. However, that also comes down to how you shoot. For the way I shoot events and travel for example, I tend to set a lens, keep it on and walk around, then do the same with a semi-telephoto zoom (70-200, 2x converter if needed).</p>

<p>Further, If I have a fast moving-changing situation (where I will miss my 18-200vr so dearly, softness aside), I would likely go for a 2 camera setup if really required, but frankly I quite like focusing on the photo in the lens I have on, like when I had an Olympus XA with a fixed 35 f2.8. That of course is my method, whatever works for you (for all I know you could be a "50mm or death" guy).</p>

<p>I was actually thinking of holding out on the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and keeping my 12-24 to address that gap in the "right" wide for events (so then my walkaround lens). I've aso noticed it's 24mm on that lens is a serious sweet spot of sharpness and lack of distortion for events.</p>

<p>I guess one thing I might have added to my initial post is that, given more cash-o, I would pick up a D700 regardless of my 'need' for it or not. I'm not crazy about doing this (maybe crazy FOR doing it), but the wallet says I have to wait for FX, and I am just tired of buying lenses with the thought of "I have to sell this for the next one", already made worse when going up to full frame. I'm ready to take the mild chaos for a year or two, I fully admit the tech side is secondary to me on how I shoot (unless it's a product shoot or such, but that's another thing).</p>

<p>A last thought on Full frame v Crop: Even a D300s just doesn't *feel* right next to a D700, from the eye to the hands to the technical results. Maybe it's my learning on film, being weary of being in DX, or just resisting something I never felt right about. It sucks to even consider this "halfway" situation, but if it gets me where I need to be...</p>

<p>As you say: my €0,02 also,<em> ik woon ook in Europa</em> (Belgium of all places). Hoi !</p>

<p>Great photos (content before style is the priority in my books), and agreeing with other posts that the layout for finding content is optimal. I especially like that all your portfolios are contained in the 'portfolio' tab, very straightforward and easy to go back to.<br>

I too agree that flash could definitely hinder mobile Apple devices from viewing your site, something you'll definitely want to be sure about (since, as also stated, clients will likely use such devices). OTOH, since many photo folio sites are flash, I wouldn't see this as a dealbreaker.<br>

@Scott M. Knowles re: <em>"I suspect eventually Apple will concede to upgrade iPhones and iPads to run flash and other Mac/PC compatible applications for cross-platform access and use."</em>... We can only hope so, but considering the Apple/Adobe feud on Flash and the rise of HTML5, I'm not holding my breath.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>@ Dan South: The 24-120 f/4 looks very appealing (even enough to consider the price), but I left it out of the list simply as it's not on the market yet, so feedback hard to solicit. I also want to see real-world image samples, I just don't trust any company's (usually best case scenario) promo images over user feedback, much like the honest goodness served on photo.net!<br>

<br />The 16-35 definitely looks like a worthy wide, but I was more thinking of an old Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 to replace the coming Tokina 11-16 when I leap into FX.</p>