Hello,
During the lockdown I decided to create a separate blog as less formal place than my portfolio site to post my photos and articles.
I already have a photography portfolio/store website. This is designed to be a less formal and fun place to share my work. I try to keep things light hearted with a bit of humour.
Any feedback on the design, ease of use and content is much appreciated. I've tried to keep the layout as simple as possible.
Photography with Barry - Photography and Travel Blog
It's readable and the humor is good.
You have some content concerns. You're aware of some of that and handle it by dismissing it with a denigrating "humorous" comment. Some of your content issues you deal with by just leaving them hanging. For example:
"
In photographic terms, exposure refers to the amount of light that enters the camera lens and hits the digital sensor (or film) inside the camera.... We can control the amount of light by adjusting two settings: aperture and shutter speed. A third setting, ISO can also have an effect on the final exposure." But you just said exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor and we control that with two settings: aperture and shutter speed. And also ISO? Is ISO also controlling the amount of light hitting the sensor? You just leave that comment hanging and move on. If ISO is also effecting how much light hits the sensor why are you mentioning it separately like that?
In the post What is ISO? You ask the question that's the title of the post, what is ISO and you never answer it. An analogy is not a definition. The amplifier analogy is a common one and it's fair but also weak. You dismiss angry guys in their parents basement but also say they're correct:
"
We also learnt that people who say that… 'ISO works by by having amplifiers in the image sensor’s circuitry increase the gain before sending the analogue voltage read from the photon well to the A/D converter to be digitised.' … are perfectly correct but probably need to get out more."
But that's not correct.
Another example of how you just drop something and then leave it: "
Exposure is measured in “stops”. If you find that your photograph is too dark (underexposed), you will need to increase your exposure by a stop or more. If your photograph is too bright, you will need to do the opposite and decrease your exposure by a stop or more. Stops can also be divided into half stops or one third stops for more detailed adjustments." So if we're measuring exposure in "stops" a stop is ___________?
In your post about aperture you note that fractional stop values are often encountered and you list f/16 as one example -- oops. The printed f/stop scale just above that comment is in full stops but with f/16 missing.
Also in the post on aperture you note that DOF distributes in a 1/3 front 2/3 back ratio and suggest focusing 1/3 into the photo with a rather odd method: "
Where do we focus in a scene when we want everything to be sharp? The answer is about 1/3 the way up from the bottom of the frame. This is because (as I mentioned earlier), there is twice as much depth of field behind the point of focus as in front of it."
I'm not sure where it came from, I have heard it before, but the 1/3 front 2/3 back rule about DOF distribution is just wrong. You're handing out faulty info there.
Joe
P.S. I'm not angry and I don't live in my parents basement.