Please comment on my website.

[jpon2]

http://jp.exposuremanager.com/g/

I am still working on it. Please help me figure out what else I could do to enhance it. Are the pictures presentable enough? Does my choice of sub-gallery headings make sense?

[photoguy6405]

I love your photos and I also love the simplicity of your layout. But, a couple critical comments...

- The initial page about copyright where I have to agree before I can enter. I can't decide if that makes me feel like I'm being scolded by a school teacher or if I'm entering a porn site. Either way it's a big negative for a first impression. A simple disclaimer somewhere would be better, IMHO.

- Like I said, I love the layout, but feel the comment stuff at the bottom of the page ruins it. Not so much it's presence, but the look and feel is too abrupt from the look and feel of the rest of the page.

- I wonder if you have too many galleries. Seems like some of then are even a bit redundant and could be combined.

[jpon2]

Thank you for your great comments. Once I am more secure about my staff I will remove the comment box. For now, since these pictures have not been displayed anywhere else, I want to know what people think about them. Each picture is special to me but I am curious if others get what I was after. You have raised some other important points, like the legal disclaimer which is history, who would want to read that. Thank's again.

[mdr]

Small point: consider first page to be shown in full (without scrolling) on most people's monitor (e.g. limited to 1024x768 monitor). E.g. remove comments part and reorder/resize images and consolidate some galleries. Also, what is the red menu with only feedback addign to this page?

[souporman]

Silhouettes is spelled incorrectly.

And I agree with photoguy6405, I think there are too many redundant galleries. Can you find a way to combine Waterscapes, Land and Water, Landscapes and Nature? You could probably get Impressions and most of Other into that gallery as well.

Have quite a few galleries isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they should be distinct.

[jpon2]

Thank's. I'll keep on working on it

[misskitty5077]

Silhouettes is spelled incorrectly.

And I agree with photoguy6405, I think there are too many redundant galleries. Can you find a way to combine Waterscapes, Land and Water, Landscapes and Nature? You could probably get Impressions and most of Other into that gallery as well.

Have quite a few galleries isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they should be distinct.

What about sub-galleries (is that a word?) within a larger all encompassing gallery such as "nature" then "waterscapes" and "landscapes" and so on?

[Fenster]

It looks horrible, TBH.

In the images themselves, there's a lot of repetition in what should be a showcase gallery. The same scene in different crops, different angles. Some images are muck, some are really great, although they could stand to be post-processed.

Remove the no-right-click script. It's both annoying and trivial to circumvent (disable javascript, reload page, fin). If someone wants to steal your images, then there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop them. The small uploaded image size and watermark will be enough on their own to deter serious thieves. They can even decompile flash galleries, or simply look at an XML configuration file to locate the images.

Where is your About page, any extended information at all? Who are you? Where do you shoot? Do you offer services? The Contact page is misleadingly titled, which is a little annoying. I expected some form of static comment page, not a form.

You do have an eye for composition, but as I said, they could stand to be processed a little bit. Contrast, cloning, colours, etc. Unfortunately though there's a lot of repetition and some photos are so unspeakably bland as to be not worth mentioning.

[photoguy6405]

Remove the no-right-click script. It's both annoying and trivial to circumvent (disable javascript, reload page, fin). If someone wants to steal your images, then there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop them. The small uploaded image size and watermark will be enough on their own to deter serious thieves. They can even decompile flash galleries, or simply look at an XML configuration file to locate the images.

Disagree with this. Have you removed the locks from your home and vehicles? No? Why not? If somebody wants to steal your car or television they're going to anyway if they want it bad enough, right?

You don't put locks on physical property to thwart theft in an absolute sense, you put locks on physical property to minimize the potential for theft. Same concept here. Not everybody knows how 'easy' the workaround is for stealing images. No need to accommodate them.

[Fenster]

I'm not going to get into an argument in this thread save to say that you'd be surprised how many people do know.

[jpon2]

The opening phraze "It looks horrible" establishes this post to be a criticism not a feedback therefore renders the rest of the post totaly useless to me.

[tbisaacs]

One last point about Fenter's comments about disabling right click-

Disabling right click functionality gives illusion of preventing theft. It simply doesn't work and it takes away an important browser behavior that many users rely on for other functionality. For example, many users on laptops right click for the "back" functionality.

Furthermore, it doesn't appear that you're really open to much feedback. You've had a sorted explanation for nearly every commenter's response. It's your website, but you did ask.

Best of luck!

[jpon2]

I looked into the right click issue and I think you are right. It is inconvenience more than anything else.

[Fenster]

+1 me.

The point I'm trying to get across about repetition of content is that a muggle coming to your website will just see the same photo over and over and over again, with very small variations, which doesn't advertise you well.

If it was a model shoot with strikingly different poses, I can understand it, but images like this (http://jp.exposuremanager.com/p/silhouettes/img_124054) and this (http://jp.exposuremanager.com/p/silhouettes/img_123153) and this (http://jp.exposuremanager.com/p/silhouettes/img_122952)...what's the difference? A single landscape photo of the tree would have sufficed just as well.

tbisaacs had the right of the matter. You came here asking for advice while having a ready argument over everything, so please at least take a moment before you come back with a retort.