My New Website -2 Options-Which is Best?

[philn]

Hi All
Im a Newbie here, been doing photography for just over a year and thought I should get a website sorted.

Ive been busy working on my website which I have built myself, I was as hoping to get some feedback on the visual appearance of it.

I have actually two options:

http://www.philnortonphotography.co.uk

Most of it is complete, bar a few tweaks here and there and a few graphics to downsize, and images, but done in essence. The “Galleries” page shows a page of images that are the links to each Gallery, which are not loaded yet, so there are no galleries to view, just yet. There are quite a few images on “Most Recent”. Its working well, and its ready to have the galleries uploaded.

I have another variation:

http://www.philnortonphotography.co.uk/black

A slight variation on layout, but visually different. The graphics need tidying up, but no point until I decide whether to invest more time in this or go with the first site.
Also on this variation there is a link at the bottom of the menu “Gallery Option” which shows a different option for the gallery entry page.

Which is visually better / more triking?

Im wondering if anyone would take a moment and offer an opinion as to which is visually better? And on the /black site which gallery page works better.
It starts to get hard to be objective because Im so close to it, so I really would appreciate opinions.

Thanks

[Slapo]

I prefer the first one.

[pigginell]

Hi Phil and welcome

I like the new website very clean and crisp looks good so far only comment is the hosting servers seem a little slow.

Good website and pictures for a year into photography

Well done

Pete

[philn]

Hi Phil and welcome

I like the new website very clean and crisp looks good so far only comment is the hosting servers seem a little slow.

Good website and pictures for a year into photography

Well done

Pete

Thanks Pete!
Just had a peek at yours......blimey how many guns....shouldnt you be called Terminator ;-)

[pigginell]

Thanks Pete!
Just had a peek at yours......blimey how many guns....shouldnt you be called Terminator ;-)


You need to clean your glasses son, out of all the scantly clad women and fast cars you managed to find the guns:eek:

Pete

That Estonian hospitality for you they turn up with a bag of guns you say which you like then you jump in a chopper for a short flight to a closed island and away you go..:naughty:

[philn]

You need to clean your glasses son, out of all the scantly clad women and fast cars you managed to find the guns:eek:

Pete

That Estonian hospitality for you they turn up with a bag of guns you say which you like then you jump in a chopper for a short flight to a closed island and away you go..:naughty:

hahahaha....yeah but they looked scary! The guns...not the women!

[CarlukeDave]

Both sites are good, probably slightly prefer the first one. Excellent photographs considering you've only been doing it for a year!

[bod]

If you have javascript disabled you just get a blank page! You might like to put something there for those of us who use NoScript to only allow javascript when we want it. When I'm tired I often forget that some sites don't work till I let them :)

The thumbnails are cut off along the bottom in the gallery view (Firefox 2.0.0.12 on Linux).

The "philnortonphotography" logo on the first design is pushing the menu down further than on the second. This is most noticeable in the gallery again.

Otherwise it's looking good. I have a slight preference for the first design; the second is a little too minimal and the block at the bottom on every page doesn't seem right.

[Richard Peters]

My vote is for the first one, some of the text is a little on the small side and I'm not %100 convinced I like the way you select the gallery, with the image sliding out as you roll over them. Seems a little clunky. But otherwise I think its a winner :D