Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 11 May 2009 (Monday) 13:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

C&C - Website and also advertising advice

 
smakelijk11
Member
Avatar
237 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Nov 2008
     
May 11, 2009 13:31 |  #1

Could you please give me some C&C on my website at

www.gourphoto.com/Otta​waFB1.html (external link)

Also, could anyone give me some ideas of where I could advertise my business for cheap. I have been trying Kijiji, but would like to try other stuff. I'm confident that my prices are very reasonable and that I offer a great product so those are two things that I'm not asking for help with at this time. I would like advice on other places that I could advertise and possibly get more traffic to my site.

Any and all advice is much appreciated.


Nikon D300, Nikon D80, SB-800, Nikkor 50 1.8, Nikkor 18-70 (Hope this won't be held against me :))
Canon Pixma i4300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
smakelijk11
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
237 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Nov 2008
     
May 11, 2009 18:07 |  #2

Nobody?


Nikon D300, Nikon D80, SB-800, Nikkor 50 1.8, Nikkor 18-70 (Hope this won't be held against me :))
Canon Pixma i4300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
int2str
Goldmember
1,881 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
     
May 11, 2009 18:30 |  #3

Shaun,

I've commented on your site before and even took the time to code up the changes for you and posted them here.

It seems like you didn't take many of the suggestions (if any) and didn't execute your new changes very well - sorry.

- The top logo on the intro page is all jagged due to poor anti-aliasing.

- The two images you have there now are still not properly sized and reduced using the IMG tag.

- The code is unecessarily messy and at least on my browser the two images don't line up which doesn't look very esthetically pleasing.

- The text on your FAQ is still largely the same and doesn't exactly scream "professional" to me; if I were a potential client that is.

I don't mean to sound un-supportive here, but I just don't feel like the website is very reflective of good artistry and imaging. I've tried to help before since my expertise is much more with web sites than with photo taking but it doesn't seem like my advice was helpful or appreciated, so I'll leave it at that.

Good luck with your site!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smakelijk11
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
237 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Nov 2008
     
May 11, 2009 21:16 as a reply to  @ int2str's post |  #4

Au contraire - your input was definitely valued. But it would be irresponsible of me to not query other people for their opinions.


Nikon D300, Nikon D80, SB-800, Nikkor 50 1.8, Nikkor 18-70 (Hope this won't be held against me :))
Canon Pixma i4300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smakelijk11
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
237 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Nov 2008
     
May 12, 2009 15:50 |  #5

@ inst2 - thank you for telling me about anti-aliasing.. I didn't know what that was!

Once again - your input is definitely appreciated and I am thankful.

Shaun


Nikon D300, Nikon D80, SB-800, Nikkor 50 1.8, Nikkor 18-70 (Hope this won't be held against me :))
Canon Pixma i4300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TrulyAlaskan
Member
188 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Anchorage AK
     
May 12, 2009 16:33 |  #6

Looks like you need a PNG fix for IE to read the top logo correctly. Also, I would recommend changing the color of the hyperlinks. You've got blue boxes around your photos. The photos should be processed to the size that they are displayed on that page, right now they are just compressed (I.e. 314x401 sized down to 251x320)

Numbering FAQ's are not a big hit in my eyes, but that's just my opinion.To reiterate what int2str said, the FAQ section is not really that professional.

That's just my $0.02


My Website (external link) .... My Flickr (external link)
Photographer of the long nights...No I can't see Russia from my house :eyes
Canon 50D, 450D, 70-200mm f/4.0 IS L, 50mm 1.4, 70-300mm is, Tokina 12-24mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peacefield
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ
     
May 13, 2009 07:04 |  #7

At the risk of sounding overly harsh and critical, I would tell you that your photography should be of greater concern for you than your site. Yeah, there are a few things already suggested to make your site slicker and more professional looking, but it's not a bad looking site.

But if I were a bride, even a budget bride, I would be turned off by the images in your gallery. A couple of good and interesting shots, but many ordinary snap-shot looking photos and even a few bad ones. And, of course, the average bride is going to correctly assume this is the very best of your best. I would tell you to spend your time going back and re-PP'ing some of those shots and see what you can't do to make them better.

All offered in a cordial spirit.


Robert Wayne Photography (external link)

5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 135 2.0, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Faolan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,204 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 135
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Scotland
     
May 13, 2009 08:28 |  #8

Lose:

The music.
The landing page.
Move the navigation to top.
Get rid of Flash.
If you're going to link to a PDF warn people. It's a security risk.
Get a professional email.
Externalise your CSS/Javascript especially if you use it on multiple pages.

If you want to know why read the link in my sig. Saves me retyping a lot of it!


Some call me the Heilan' Laddie, but others call me Rob.
Flickr (external link) - Lighting set ups using Canon Flash/Elinchrom plus some general work.
Celtic Shadows Design (external link) - Photography and WordPress Development.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smakelijk11
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
237 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Nov 2008
     
May 13, 2009 14:11 |  #9

Peacefield - thank you for the critique. I would vehemently disagree that my photography consists of "snapshot" photos and would turn brides off. They are definitely pro quality and I am confident in that area for the most part. Having said that, I would definitely be interested in hearing what photos you think I should re-work or possibly omit as they don't fit into the entire scheme.

Thank you,

Shaun


Nikon D300, Nikon D80, SB-800, Nikkor 50 1.8, Nikkor 18-70 (Hope this won't be held against me :))
Canon Pixma i4300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peacefield
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ
     
May 14, 2009 07:13 |  #10

Fisrt, I want to reiterate that I'm just sharing my opinion and these comments are not meant to be as critical as they will sound as I will be blunt. And if you're happy with them and your selling new work based on them, I guess that's what matters. So, here goes; I only looked at the flash site (I personally am not a big believer in blogs). Going through your wedding portfolio by number from left to right and then down:

Your first shot is exactly what I'm talking about. A nice enough picture, but there's nothing interesting, inspiring, touching or unique about it. I've had low-paid assistants pick up one of my cameras and grab the same quality shot. It's not a bad picture but it's completely unremarkable. Is that really the picture you want to lead off with?

Second shot may be your best. Nicely composed and the PP adds to it. I really like it.

Three is nice enough, thanks mostly to the wonderful expression on the officiant's face.

4, 5, 7, and 8 are all nice enough, but couldn't be more ordinary. Any bride would expect them to be taken, but there's nothing interesting, artistic, or inspiring here. The pose, composure, use of lighting and the environment are all very pedestrian; not what a bride would expect to pay good money for. Certainly, not images I would want to feature on my site as the best of the best of my work (unless this is the best of your work, in which case I would tell you to direct your efforts towards bulding your photography skills instead of enhancing your site).

9 suffers from the same problem except it's made worse by people standing on a slope. Same thing with 10 except the slope is now accentuated because you had the tall people stand on the high ground and the short grandma is down on the low end. And if you're shooting outside, why didn't you use a longer lens? The gentlemen on the right show some distortion.

6 is a poor picture. We don't know who she's hugging, there's nothing remarkable about her expression, and the flash is much too harsh.

Most of the shots from 12-24 are dark, sometimes very much so.

27 is terrible. The composure, the pose, the harsh flash; there is nothing good about this shot.

36, maybe it's an illusion created by the background, but it appears that it may not be straight.

38 is not how to shoot a bouquet toss. You can't see the bride's face, you can barely see just four of the people waiting to catch it, and the angle makes it look like someones about to get hit in the head with the flowers.

I'm not going to go into all of them. And you do have a few good ones: 2, 16, 19 (though it's too dark), 26, 28, 34, 42 and 43 are all pretty nice.

Interestingly, the only truly beautiful portrait on the site appears not in your portfolio but on your contact page. Not the one of the couple which is rather weak, but the headshot of the bride. This is an excellent portrait and the type of quality of photography you should feature. That said, at the risk of being insulting, when I look at that photo, I as a bride would have to ask myself whether or not you actually even took it. It's a style and quality of photography that clearly is not exhibited anywhere else on your site (some of your portrait shots are nearly, though not quite as nice, but brides are not going to look here) and I don't see any other shots of that bride's wedding exhibited. I'm not accusing you of photographic plagiarism, but that's what any bride should and probably will think to herself.

All for what it's worth.


Robert Wayne Photography (external link)

5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 135 2.0, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smakelijk11
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
237 posts
Likes: 67
Joined Nov 2008
     
May 14, 2009 10:57 |  #11

Thank you Peacefield..I appreciate the fact that you took the time to do that :-)

Shaun


Nikon D300, Nikon D80, SB-800, Nikkor 50 1.8, Nikkor 18-70 (Hope this won't be held against me :))
Canon Pixma i4300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,390 views & 0 likes for this thread
C&C - Website and also advertising advice
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Evans7up
686 guests, 230 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.