December 8, 2013 at 4:54 pm #15629matt79Member
let me know what you think of my most awesome website 😀
http://www.wilsonfauxtography.com takes a minute to load 😀December 8, 2013 at 9:02 pm #15632
What exactly are you looking for? Website critiques…Photography critiques? Both? My first couple thoughts upon looking at your website. It takes too long to load. Not a fan of the way your main page is set up. The scrolling up photos makes me dizzy. And a lot of them look really grainy. Your “About Me” page tells me nothing about you. Why would you call it “Fauxtography”? Your webpage tells me absolutely nothing about your photography or even really why you have a webpage…I think it needs quite a bit of work.December 9, 2013 at 7:45 am #15648cameraclickerMember
Your link to your “most awesome website” results in “Problem loading page”. Perhaps less awesomeness would be better?December 9, 2013 at 11:49 am #15652
CC I had the same problem. Then I realized its because it adds a space to the end of the link. Just erase the link and you should be able to get to it.December 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm #15653adentMember
I could be wrong, but I think that a few legs are being pulled here. I’m pretty sure this is a joke page setup. If not, then WOW!December 9, 2013 at 1:14 pm #15654cameraclickerMember
Thanks, Cass335. Removing the space worked.
Matt79, your “most awesome website” needs quite a bit of work to gain a “good” rating. The first time I successfully opened it, the bug was the displayed photo, and I scrolled down to the tombstone photo, where the site died! When I got back into it again, I scrolled up and discovered a number of photos I’m not fond of. I discovered the photos should loop as eventually I got back to the bug. Some of what I don’t like is caused by post processing, which I think has imparted quite a bit of grain/noise, and part of it is subjects I don’t identify with, or don’t find interesting. I don’t see an easy way to identify a photo beyond describing it, so I will only speak to a few.
The tombstone, could be a lot better. It looks like it might be concrete and there is some scroll work, but colours are odd, the angle is strange, the background is both blurred and partly blown out. It looks like someone named Coon died, but there is not enough detail to show “Who”, “What”, “When”, Where” and “Why”. I think I may have determined why I thought your page died the first time! The arrows are white and are sitting on the white part of the stone which causes them to be very hard to see.
Steam Show 11: Having 50 bad photos is not the same as having one or two good ones. The engine looks as though it could start a forest fire. I got that from the first photo, and the second, and the third, … Unfortunately, I didn’t get anything more from the next dozen, and I gave up. One really clear, low grain photo that is sharp would be much better.
Leaves on asphalt: This would be better with a polarizing filter. Presumably your main subject is the little pile of leaves in the middle of the photo? Portions of all of them are blown out and the upper-left one has barely more than the outline! I don’t know if you collected the leaves or found them there. I am reminded of a photo that was put on the screen at a photography club meeting, probably in the fall of 1975. The photo showed more leaves than yours, most of them were shades of brown or yellow, and none were blown out. Near the middle there was a bright red maple leaf, which the presenter mentioned was not there by accident.
I like the cow. I would like it even more if the camera were back a foot more so there was space between the bottom of your frame and the cow’s nose.
Possibly a swing of some sort hanging from a tree limb with sun behind it: I can’t see anything I like about it. Some photos just turn out that way, and this is one of those.
Ants on cheese: An interesting concept wrecked by post processing. What I like about it least is the noise.
And that caused an Idea. If I shrink the window with your page to about a quarter of my monitor, your photos look a lot better! Most still do not appeal, but the grain is much reduced. A truly awesome web page will fit the monitor displaying it and will limit photo size to what will look good.December 9, 2013 at 8:11 pm #15659matt79Member
adent 😀December 10, 2013 at 12:24 pm #15676
adent: that was my first guess…but at the same time I wouldn’t have been shocked if it was serious. We’ve had some “characters” on here. So ya never know.December 10, 2013 at 3:21 pm #15681ebiMember
meh…your responsive site is responsive in a bad way. but you seem to care more about having a laugh. laugh had…all around.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.