It has a nice, calm feeling to it, but something about it seems a bit cluttered, mainly in the upper light-blue area.

The navigation is nearly impossible to read. I'm sure it is impossible for people with vision problems, or on certain monitors and screens.

I think the logo is good. Not sure I like the styling done to it, but I guess your just going for the "Web 2.0" look -- gradients, glows, transparency, bright-candy-colors, etc.

And the Valid CSS | XHTML | 508 stuff probably isn't necessary, it just seems to be a trendy, ego-boosting thing.

I think the "clutter" factor is created by the text running over the background image. Images behind text will always do this I think, unless they are extremely faded - even more faded than you currently have it.
Another thing that would make it much better (to my eye) would be to remove all extra letter-spacing from the body copy and the copy under "Our news" (just use default font spacing between letters). <opinion class="warning">Nothing ruins an otherwise lovely block of body copy like letter-spacing</opinion>. Also, add a touch more line-spacing and give the text more contrast (fraction darker text in top panel, and lighter in bottom reverse panel). These things will make it more pleasing to read and help the overall look.
I also strongly agree that the navigation text is far too light. I think they need to be at least as easy to read as "Home" currently is, meaning you would have to rethink how to highlight the current page.
Hope this helps you in some way.

I just looked at the current site at your domain. I think you should expand on the existing look if feasible, as it is clean, modern and professional looking. The layout could do with some attention and the coding could definitely be improved upon (remove inline styles and get rid of the unnecessary javascript tags as they only go to a 404 page and seem to be the reason why the site is so slow). I think the visual queues of this site are a great base to expand upon. The logo displayed there is much more professional looking than the one in the new design also.
If there is a good reason why the current look is not suitable that I am not aware of then I apologise for this post and wish you good luck on the new one.

# thumblewend
Thanks a lot for your comments!
Do you really think that old design concept is better? I was always thinking it is not good and finally found time to change it now. Why do you like the old logo? I think it is too simple and actually the whole design is too simple.
New logo has modern look with rounded corners, it is glossy and actually web 2.0 :) I am not sure if it good or not but I just like it.
Really waiting for you further comments.

# PettyRider
Yeah, maybe you are right about logo, but for now I just like this web 2.0 style :)

# locomotive
Do you mean make top of the website (logo + nav) with the same design like bottom? I think I didn't get you right :)
What's your opinion in general about the website?

Updated version is here: http://horisont.ru/horisont_site2.jpg

# thepowerofed

What do you mean when say "copy"? Actually didn't understand what you say :)

"Do you really think that old design concept is better?"

Yes I do. It's simple and clean and isn't trying too hard. All you need to do is create a better layout whilst retaining those colours, typography and graphics, then you will have quite a professional and timeless design.

"Why do you like the old logo? ...New logo has modern look with rounded corners, it is glossy and actually web 2.0 :)"

I prefer the old logo precisely because it does not have the rounded corners, gradient and so on. A logo is simply an easily identifiable mark (the more unique the better) which ideally resonates with the business it stands for. Adding common effects works against the goal of creating something unique. I think you can know when you have a good logo when it is instantly identifiable whilst still being as simple as possible. Simple shapes and flat colours are fine. Adding lots of features that are currently trendy and hoping that they all add up to something better than what it was before does not work - it just obscures the original idea and attaches your logo to a particular time when the effects were all the rage. The logo will age. Better to keep it as simple and timeless as possible and focus on something that makes it unique - its shape for example. Speaking of shape, the type in the logo looks better as the font designer intended - as opposed to round corners that make the logo lose its shape at smaller sizes. The corners the font designer chose helps it to be readable and distinctive.
Sorry for the rant - I just have trouble expressing my point unless I ramble on a bit. I do hope it made some sense to you.

"I think it is too simple and actually the whole design is too simple."

Simple is good. If you don't want it simple then you should rethink it completely not just add effects. I think adding effects often gives things an amateurish look. Better to have a simple design that conveys confidence - which the original logo does better.

Have more faith in how good nice type can look and trust the font designer. Don't add letter-spacing to the main copy (text) and do make sure that you have a bit of space between the lines and adequate clear space around blocks of text. Don't try and distort what a font should look like. Good design is often unnoticed - just try and make the text effortless to read. Once you have achieved that, then you can focus on using subtle graphics and colour to enhance the feel of the design.

Okay - that's certainly enough out of me! Good luck.

Can we please stop describing graphic elements as "Web 2.0"? It is a vague and frankly annoying descriptor. Web 2.0 (co-opted by marketing suits) used to imply an open, semantic, social web - not a look & feel.

http://horisont.ru/horisont_site2.jpg doesn't do anything for me I'm afraid.

There's not enough contrast, no real structure or grid to the layout, and why is "Contact us" in that funny shape?

I don't get the logo either... it's hard to read and a bit of a mess I think...

I really don't care for the new design. I think that the existing design works - the current logo is fine. The look of the current site is clean and the content is laid out pretty intuitively. You could probably focus on presenting the work in your portfolio a bit more dynamically. Perhaps create a case study or two, break the aspects of your work apart into seperate pages (logos, print, web, etc.)? I also don't care for the sunflower graphic in the header and footer of your existing portfolio page, but I prefer it to the look & feel of the comp you're exploring.

it look so "template -ish" to me. sorry for the term, it may be politically incorrect for a some.

if your biz will be concerning web design or anything on the context of design. i guess you should do something more enticing rather that carbon-copying design element or style that you will see regularly on the net. that is my opinion, sorry if you find it offending or something, i never meant it to be that way.

i think you have the capabilty to pull-off good design concepts, just don't let design trends dictate your aesthetic intuition.

thank you very much.

PettyRider ...

Design goes through different phases, and those are called trends. The term "Web 2.0" is based on user-generated content, community, open source, etc. Not design trends. You can't forget the site that reallly started this sense of an "online community," Craigslist. I see no gradients or diagonal lines (2 current design trends) there.

And to Adjustafresh's point, the term is getting a bit annoying. But maybe that's becasue I have Web 2.4 installed on my computer.

Okay, why are we arguing over this Web 2.0 (excuse my french) crap! This isn't what this post was about in the first place. Nothing after about comment 15 or so is even about his site. It's simply an argument over Web 2.0. Plus, it doesn't matter what Web 2.0 is -- as PrettyRider said, "Gimme your money b'for I bust a phat cap in yo ass." We all understand what's meant!

I think like anything it is a definition for a moment in time – an association for the masses. Take terms like “Cold War”, “Renaissance” or “Dark Ages”. With all of these terms we can identify style, time, technology and culture. “Web 2.0” is the same thing – it is a defining moment in time that people can associate with a specific style, time, technology and culture.

“Web 2.0” doesn’t equate to gradients and rounded corners, but it does refer to a moment in web design when it was popular to utilize technologies like CSS or JavaScript to display a box with stylish backgrounds and rounded corners that couldn’t traditionally be done using the default background-color and border properties. The catch is that this style was done while adhering to the standards and best-practices of the time.