New website up -- comments please

[RustySterling]

Since I have folded the band, I'm using my website for my photography and other things (but mostly photography). My site host doesn't have tools that I particularly like. I'd like to have the photo gallery in a slide show but I'll have to do that later. But for now it is pretty rudimentary -- given the constraints imposed upon me by my host (I will build this very differently on my own outside of the templated constraints of my host) but I'm pretty satisfied with the results so far.

Let me know what you think:

Rusty Sterling - Photography by David Schumacher

[OsmosisStudios]

Initial Impression:
No flash. Thank GOD. Seriously. Go and pray now, because you owe him one.
Fast loading (see previous).
HOWEVER
It's boring. Grey on grey, with grey boxes and beige. Yawn.
The logo is dated. And I dont mean like "has been out with a few people" dated, but "belongs in a geocities site circa 1999" dated. Sorry.
The portrait on the front page, while technically correct, feels creepy. And for this comment I apologize.
The menu is in the, entirely, wrong place. It's almost below the fold, and while that *can* be good, its rarely done well.
The entire layout is too narrow. Traditional conventions were to size for a 800x600 screen, but the more conventional contemporary sizing is for a 1024x768 screen (960px wide)
The footer of the page should omit, unless its a part of your agreement, the host. If it's part of the agreement, find a new host.

Home:
The home page is NOT an About page. Let's make that clear. Your news feed, which is "below the fold" is too far down, too narrow and too out of the way. It actually looks like a Google ad. Move it to the main section, adjust the menu to fit across the top of the main content section and have the news span the entire width. I also dont like the rollover effects you've chosen: there are too many changes on a rollover (hover). Pick one.
This is also not the place to be showing a sample of work. That goes in the portfolio.
The two paragraphs below the images should be omitted entirely. People know to click on the portfolio to see images and, if they want to see your band, you can link them in the About page.

Portfolio:
And please use the word "portfolio", not "photo gallery". It may come off as more pretentious, but it is what it is.
I wont comment on the layout, but in this case it really hurts the flow of the page. 2 columns is too narrow, unless youre using large (~400px wide) images. Which leads to my next point: use a common size or width. It keeps things lined up nicely.
I'd be tempted to condense Portraits, Fashion/Model and Black and White into a single gallery, weeding through to get the best of the best. As it is, each one has too many images. You should be limiting yourself to 10-12, maybe 15 at the MOST per section. That being said, some galleries are too small as well.
The Still Lifes section doesn't work. Id condense it with Food anyway.
Self Portraits doesn't work either. I'd remove it.

Contact:
First things first: this should be LAST on your menu. Contact always comes last.
Secondly, the page should provide a bit more info about where you are and why people would contact you.
The form is fine, though I didn't test it.

About:
There's no about page. That's a problem. See the "home" section for my suggestion

Blog:
If youre linking to an external site, just link it. That being said, the blog doesn't fit with the photography site in either content, tone or style. I wouldnt connect the two, to be honest.

Final words:
The site is a good form to start from, but needs some rather major adjustments to get it to fit contemporary style and technical specifications.

Note: these are my personal recommendations and are my opinion. They are by no means personal. I try to be as objective as possible.

[RustySterling]

Thanks. Frankly some of your criticism I can address on the website. As far as the look and feel, I'm tied right now to my hosts templates until I can get my own tools to what the host offers. They had some other templates that had a lot more what some might think of as "interesting." But I would have been tied to photos for the header that were not mine. That was totally unacceptable.

So what part of "My site host doesn't have tools that I particularly like" didn't you understand?

And what rollover? I'm not aware of doing any rollovers. Are you talking about labels for the photos? What rollovers are you talking about. I'm totally confused. I didn't designate any rollovers.

I said this was temporary until I can develop what I really want. Some of your criticisms are useful and valid for the page as it stands. If I could adjust the menu across the top I would have. But I didn't have that option. So for awhile I have to live with what the host provides. Once I do my own thing it will look a lot different.

As far as the logo, I had an earlier post looking for suggestions about my logo. Why didn't you respond then? Then again you would have been in the minority. And no one said it was dated.

I could probably get rid of the footer when I develop WHAT I WANT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE HOSTS TEMPLATES.

And the news feed I have no control over. I tried to get rid of it but couldn't. As far as the placement of the menu, again I'm tied to the hosts template.

I didn't put contact last, because I knew the blog was out of context. THAT IS MY PERSONAL THING. And it stays.

As far as Photo Gallery vs. Portfolio, well, I could have gone either way. And the suggestion is valid.

That said, I am a little disturbed about my photo being "creepy." I mean, it's a guy holding a camera. So Fing what.

From what you've said, I probably should have explained in a lot more detail the limitations I was constrained by in developing this site with the limited tools the host offered me.

[OsmosisStudios]

A proper host doesn't require you to use their template: you can make your own. And if you cant, then it'd be in your best interest to find someone that can. If you're trying to attract clientele, it's a cost of doing business. Editing this template should be a fairly simple affair, depending on how they've got their system set up. If you MUST use the template, even edited, that would be a deal breaker.

The comment on the photo was not meant to be an insult: the pose and eye contact is unnerving. From a strict aesthetic point of view, it isn't welcoming. Perhaps creepy was the wrong word.

EDIT: you've edited your post after I posted this one. Well after. I won't comment on the new content.

P.S. You asked for honest opinions. I gave them to you. Even if there are things you have no control over (and really, you do, but no matter), there is some stuff that is my opinion (as stated). You asked for it.

[RustySterling]

In the past I've always built my webpages on my machine and uploaded them. The new host has a very confusing directory structure and when I tried do what I normally do not only did it not show up for my webpage, I had no clue where the files were going. So that is something I have to sort out with them.

For expediency, I used what they made available just to get something up -- other than my old band page. That was EXTREMELY DATED and didn't need to be there.

So I did the best I could temporarily with what they offered until I can do what I know I can do: Which is a whole lot better.

As far as the logo, why didn't you chime in with my much earlier post when it was in development? Many others did and I ended up with what I did based on there recommendations. So you are a little late telling me you don't like it with nothing really constructive to say about it.

We've been compatriots in the past. So let's not let this distract from that, if you please.

[private]

I would suggest something about pricing - how can they buy your fine art prints? What is a typical session like? You also have to "sell" your services as well. I would make it easier for them to contact you - maybe a phone number on each page - I know its on your contact page...

I know you are in the early stages - You list many different types of photography but there are not samples of all of them...

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by RustySterling

In the past I've always built my webpages on my machine and uploaded them. The new host has a very confusing directory structure and when I tried do what I normally do not only did it not show up for my webpage, I had no clue where the files were going. So that is something I have to sort out with them.

For expediency, I used what they made available just to get something up -- other than my old band page. That was EXTREMELY DATED and didn't need to be there.

So I did the best I could temporarily with what they offered until I can do what I know I can do: Which is a whole lot better.

As far as the logo, why didn't you chime in with my much earlier post when it was in development? Many others did and I ended up with what I did based on there recommendations. So you are a little late telling me you don't like it with nothing really constructive to say about it.

We've been compatriots in the past. So let's not let this distract from that, if you please.

If you dont announce a new site, you dont need a new site. I'd have waited until the situation was settled with the host. But that's neither here nor there.

I didnt chime in with the logo because most of the time I either A) dont have the time, B) dont have the inclination or C) agree with the vast majority that have already chimed in. No need to. Had I seen this in it's development stage, I'd have certainly said something. If youre interested, PM me and I'll see if I can whip something up in the coming bit.

[RustySterling]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I didnt chime in with the logo because most of the time I either A) dont have the time, B) dont have the inclination or C) agree with the vast majority that have already chimed in. No need to. Had I seen this in it's development stage, I'd have certainly said something. If youre interested, PM me and I'll see if I can whip something up in the coming bit.

Well the majority that chimed in didn't say sophomoric bullshit like you did. So maybe you should have should have chimed in. I took some serious advise from others here on dPS to decide on a final design. You obviously didn't have time to chime in regarding their GOOD ADVICE which resulted in what I developed.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by RustySterling

Well the majority that chimed in didn't say sophomoric bullshit like you did.

I'm actually not even sure what to reply to this. So I won't say anything further. Im sorry I couldnt be of any help to you.

[RustySterling]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'm actually not even sure what to reply to this. So I won't say anything further. Im sorry I couldnt be of any help to you.

Well, you should have replied to the original thread about the logo like so many others did before I decided on a final logo. But you didn't. Instead you decided to criticized it when I posted it on my website AFTER getting feedback from a lot of other people.

What makes you think you have a better opinion than they have about my logo?