Hi guys, my website has now been fully updated to include orangutans in Malaysian Borneo through to shots of Joss Stone, Coldplay etc etc. Please do take a peek if you've got a moment as I'd really value all constructive feedback on it. Images Worldwide.com Cheers all, Neil
Painfully slow site - the thumbnails are VAST (file size). Some nice photo's to be sure ... but even on broadband the site is really too slow to be usable. This for example is over 100K but you are displaying it as a tiny postage stamp on the index page; http://www.imagesworldwide.com/images/travel/Italy/full/1.jpg You need to make small proxies of your images. I'd suggest Jalbum as a free automated tool for doing this if you don't have something available. Roger
Roger, two things - firstly can you tell me how you extracted that jpeg from the site as I have paid for images to be copy protected. Did you take that from the thumbnail or the expanded photo - because the developer has 30KB files for the thumbnails... Also, both on my half meg broadband at home, and whatever we have at work (and it isn't great), the site loads nice and quickly for me. Thanks, Neil
If you just View > Source you can find the jpeg. elephants Im on 256k ADSL and its fairly quick for me.
Neil, I like the design and the pics are cracking. Loading time was OK for me (2 Mb/s ADSL), but as Roger said, the thumbnails on some of the travel pages appear to be the full-size images with width & height parameters added so the browser will re-size them. As well as increasing the time the page will take to load, the image quality will suffer as it will be up to the browser how to resample them. I think it's just the Paris and Italy pages that are affected. As for protecting the images, unfortunately, it's even easier that viewing the page source. I'm using Firefox and I can just right-click on the image and select Properties. Internet Explorer may be different, but if I were you I'd have words with the developer on this Paul
>firstly can you tell me how you extracted that jpeg >from the site as I have paid for images to be copy >protected. Sadly there is no way of copy protecting images on the web. Period. Although your developer used a technique that can deter the casual browser, its protection strength depends on the browser the user has and their determination. I happen to be a developer so unpicking it wasn't that hard. >Did you take that from the thumbnail or the expanded >photo - because the developer has 30KB files for the >thumbnails... It was from the thumbnail - quite a few of the thumbnails seem to be the full sized image. Incidentally even 30KB is really too large for thumbnails that size. At that sort of display size, you should be aiming for sub 10KB and for the commercial sites I work on, typically sub 5KB would be achievable. It does make a huge difference, not just to the person browsing, but to everyone else visiting the server at the time. Roger
And if you're being charged by bandwidth used you must have money to burn! Your copy-protection relies on the user's browser having Javascript enabled; it's trivial to disable it and make right-click work as usual. Assuming the browser even supports Javascript! If it's on the 'net it's not safe.
Re: Site updated... one thing sucks.... ...and that is, in your travel photography, you have not visited Kanada . Morning Neil, A really nice site. Very clean and easy............as the bishop said about his actress . Cheers, Jack
Re: Site updated... one thing sucks.... Thanks Jack!! I have visited Canadia, but it was many years ago before I was into photography properly, so the photos are distinctly average!! Really must get there again - stunning place!!
Re: Site updated... one thing sucks.... Morning Neil, Look forward to seeing you at some point . Cheers, Jack
