Thoughts on gf's studio/photo business website? Update 1

[bobdole369]

Her and I need to get our friends to let us shoot pics of them for free

Model releases for the win.

This is not a bad move. I can see some potential here. As others have said, The basic setup is very good. It conveys the point, unfortunately - I don't see pro level photography here. I don't want to comment too much about it, but the word "flash" as has been mentioned repeatedly - could be mentioned again. Focus on the subject, and try to get the distracting backgrounds out of there. ESPECIALLY on the wedding stuff.

Now the lomo style flowers and the dreary barn, WOW those are good. Unfortunately nobody really pays for that kind of stuff.

A few notes about the site itself - it's slow. Are you hosting it at home? It loads intermittently - by that I mean parts of the menu appear before others. I'm not a huge fan of the "move your mouse to scroll" but it works here.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: bobdole369

Her and I need to get our friends to let us shoot pics of them for free

Model releases for the win.

This is not a bad move. I can see some potential here. As others have said, The basic setup is very good. It conveys the point, unfortunately - I don't see pro level photography here. I don't want to comment too much about it, but the word "flash" as has been mentioned repeatedly - could be mentioned again. Focus on the subject, and try to get the distracting backgrounds out of there. ESPECIALLY on the wedding stuff.

Now the lomo style flowers and the dreary barn, WOW those are good. Unfortunately nobody really pays for that kind of stuff.

A few notes about the site itself - it's slow. Are you hosting it at home? It loads intermittently - by that I mean parts of the menu appear before others. I'm not a huge fan of the "move your mouse to scroll" but it works here.

We did a shoot Tuesday night actually for a friend of hers (pics for her boyfriend in Iraq ), and haven't gotten around to editing mine yet. Once I do though, I will be posting a thread up to get some critique and criticism.

The site is hosted on WIX servers I believe. We have a webhost, but it was easier for her to mess with it on there and then transport it over later. We just have yet to get to that "later" part . It's a very slow load, it's very choppy load, and it appears to use a lot of resources while it's up (very slow site on my work PC which I can tell that type stuff from a lot easier than home).

 

[Sushifiend3000]

Hello, here are my thoughts on her web site.

First and foremost, it's not yet ready to go live and be the online face of her business. The slow loading issue alone is losing her business. It should be addressed and properly tested before going live.

Regarding the design, the extensive use of color is competing with and detrimental to the presentation of the photography. I suggest ONE accent color and black-and-white for the rest of the interface. She should also stick to ONE typeface.

Don't dynamically resize the site and the images with the browser window.

Lose the reflections of the photos in the gallery. Also, when you click a particular image to enlarge it, it just sits on top of the rest of the interface, with word fragments and pieces of graphics sticking out of the edges of her photos. It looks messy.

It's unclear how to get back to the Portfolio menu. The Portfolio link in the lower right needs to be more obvious that it goes back to the Portfolio. The top Portfolio link should also take you back to the Portfolio menu.

Finally, she needs advice from photographers. There are other forums better suited to critique of her photography and its presentation online. Not to say that you shouldn't have posted here, just seek out the opinions of other photographers

One thing about offering work for free. If you put something on the sidewalk and label it free, it's junk. If you price it at $1, people will fight over it because it's now a "good deal." She should not offer her services for free. Anyone can do that. A professional believes in her work and assigns the appropriate value to it.

The bottom line is that the presentation draws attention to itself, and away from the photographs. Top photographers do this too, however their excellent work tends to own the page. By the way, protecting her feelings about her own work doesn't do her any good. If she's serious, she needs to face her critics. It's the only way she will improve.

I am a working photographer and I approve this message. Good luck to you both.

Jerome

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Sushifiend3000
Hello, here are my thoughts on her web site.

First and foremost, it's not yet ready to go live and be the online face of her business. The slow loading issue alone is losing her business. It should be addressed and properly tested before going live.

Regarding the design, the extensive use of color is competing with and detrimental to the presentation of the photography. I suggest ONE accent color and black-and-white for the rest of the interface. She should also stick to ONE typeface.

Don't dynamically resize the site and the images with the browser window.

Lose the reflections of the photos in the gallery. Also, when you click a particular image to enlarge it, it just sits on top of the rest of the interface, with word fragments and pieces of graphics sticking out of the edges of her photos. It looks messy.

It's unclear how to get back to the Portfolio menu. The Portfolio link in the lower right needs to be more obvious that it goes back to the Portfolio. The top Portfolio link should also take you back to the Portfolio menu.

Finally, she needs advice from photographers. There are other forums better suited to critique of her photography and its presentation online. Not to say that you shouldn't have posted here, just seek out the opinions of other photographers

One thing about offering work for free. If you put something on the sidewalk and label it free, it's junk. If you price it at $1, people will fight over it because it's now a "good deal." She should not offer her services for free. Anyone can do that. A professional believes in her work and assigns the appropriate value to it.

The bottom line is that the presentation draws attention to itself, and away from the photographs. Top photographers do this too, however their excellent work tends to own the page. By the way, protecting her feelings about her own work doesn't do her any good. If she's serious, she needs to face her critics. It's the only way she will improve.

I am a working photographer and I approve this message. Good luck to you both.

Jerome

Thank you very much for that.

All great points, and i wanted to post here where I know the people a bit before posting in places like POTN/FM/other photog dedicated sites. I would like to get it to 90% done before we go to those places, because we are getting a ton of information/advice from here that's going to be very helpful in creating a site that helps sell her business.

 

[troytime]

looks like the website is still flash.
seriously, biggest mistake being made at the moment. Unless of course, you don't want new clients to be able to find you without already knowing about you and having your url....

 

[TheDrake]

I dont know why so much hate with Flash, its much more flexibile to be creative with it and of course easy to protect pictures from being "stolen".

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: xchangx

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Maybe it's just me but I HATE flash websites.

A lot of photography websites are flash/java based.

After the initial site is up, we might create a HTML version for you flash haters

Originally posted by: Auryg
Aye, the pictures aren't good enough, and the website isn't all that special either. I would say have her concentrate on things less 'serious' than wedding photography (senior pictures and the like) until she's got the skills. Then, hire someone to make a better website.

In talking with her last night about the site, she said that she wanted to do portraits more than weddings (which I thought was the other way around). Her and I need to get our friends to let us shoot pics of them for free

If she doesn't want to use flash, then you'll need to get faster primes. Look into the 85 1.4 or 50 1.4 lenses. When I've done weddings, I do the ceremony ambient and found that a 2.8 lens @3200 still can't give me a good shutter speed.

Yeah, I am looking to buy faster lenses for both of us. I'm not sure if I want to go the prime route yet though (having to move to get myself into position vs using a zoom has drawbacks). I have thought about the 85L, and either the 24L or 35L instead of the 24-70L and 70-200 F2.8 IS L. For now though, I think that I'm going to stick with the zooms and use flash (or learn to). I might pick up a used 50 1.4 though, because IIRC those are $300ish new so should be able to grab one for $200ish used.

This is hilarious

I was like

:laugh:

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
I dont know why so much hate with Flash, its much more flexibile to be creative with it and of course easy to protect pictures from being "stolen".

Personally, I find it to be slow loading (I have a 6MB connection) and garish. I also don't care for pics in a flash "Slide show" format. I'd rather click to the next one after looking at the first.
I use Flashblock and usually skip anything in flash. So I guess if a site can still be navigated without flash, I wouldn't immediately leave it.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
I dont know why so much hate with Flash, its much more flexibile to be creative with it and of course easy to protect pictures from being "stolen".

flash is fine if it's used in moderation.
putting your entire site in a single flash movie breaks the fundamentals of the internets.

not only will your site be difficult to get ranked in the search engines, people can't share links to anything other than your homepage.
accessibility is gone. you rely on a 3rd party plugin to be present and 100% functional on your potential clients browser.

it is NOT more flexible.
it doesn't do anything for 'stealing' photos. a screen shot will produce the exact same thing as a properly sized jpg.

i think it is pretty important to get ranked in the search engines. that will be a free source of potential clients. Limiting that source is shooting yourself in the foot.
And then you consider the load time, missing plugins, hate for flash, etc - the bounce rate for the few potential clients that find your site will be even higher.
It is a lose lose situation.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: troytime
it is NOT more flexible.
it doesn't do anything for 'stealing' photos. a screen shot will produce the exact same thing as a properly sized jpg.

I'm guessing when people say flexible, they mean it's easier to do "cool" things with it, as well as ensure it looks the same across most browsers (given how 98% of the population has it installed).

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I agree that flash should not be used in excess, as it is being used right now. A flash photo gallery is ok, but you want to still keep separate html pages for their ability to be directly linked to and to show up in search engines.

 

[Deadtrees]

If I'm visiting artists' sites, I don't, or try not to mind Flash. It's their rights to control the website the all way they want it to, I think.
If I'm visiting a site as a possible client, I mind Flash because it gives me so little or no control over context. Of course, there's a level of differences; in some rare cases, Flash usage is done right but in most of cases, it's just outright terrible in terms of user experiences.

 

[zanago]

Nice design,thanks for sharing.In my opinion,most of the site are good, and the color is a little dark, light dark would be great.

------------------------------------------------
Thinkpad T40
laptopbatteriesplus T40
T40 battery uk