Home › Forums › Photography Showcase › website CC
- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by cameraclicker.
May 30, 2014 at 6:37 am #18868SassyParticipant
Hi everybody, I have now been charging for a little under a year. I think I am on the right track, and I do not think I am a fauxtographer. I will be increasing prices later this year again.
I have received some great CC from this site in the past and I would love some more if anyone has the time. I am thick skinned and have learnt what I have about photography mostly through CC from some awesome professional photographers, I find it a great way to learn.
Recently I created my website and I would love some feed back on it, it is quite basic and to the point and includes 2 portfolios, one of posed newborn portraits and one of lifestyle type newborn/family shots. I am not overly impressed with the mobile version of it but i guess it will do.
And this is my FB page if anyone wants to see a little bit more.
thank you very much for your time.May 30, 2014 at 9:30 am #18869cameraclickerParticipant
Your page seems easy to navigate and it has a clean feel to it. Your ‘About’ story is simple and compelling. I like it.
There does not seem to be an easy way to identify the photos in your opening slide show, and it says you have disabled downloads. So, computers download everything they display for you…
I have a question about this photo
It looks like it was taken with a really short lens and the lower half of the baby’s face looks disproportionately large because of it. Without EXIF data it is difficult to decide if it was the lens, the lighting, the pose, or if the representation is accurate. Can you provide your thoughts?
I liked the rest of your photos and if all your photos are of that quality you will have happy customers.
Your Facebook link did not work for me.June 2, 2014 at 12:07 am #18915SassyParticipant
Hi CC, thank you so much for taking the time to look at my website, I’ve only just had a chance to jump back online!
I am glad that my about section is up to scratch, I really really struggled trying to write about myself!
I don’t understand about the opening slide show remark? while I disabled right click on my site I know its perfectly possible for people to still steal my images (screen shot), I have also not watermarked them on there as i find it unprofessional as a potential client and a bit distracting. All the images on my site are shots which have been paid for in full so it wouldn’t be clients who would be stealing them if that makes sense, and anyone else who wants to and has the capabilities to screen shot probably would also remove a water mark if they were desperate. I do watermark my ‘sneak peeks’ which I put on FB after a session, this is mostly for advertising 😉 so that when they share it (if not how I guide them in the contract) friends and family still know where its come from 😉
That photo was taken with a 30 1.4 , the lighting is a bit flatter than I would have liked as baby turned his head back a little, and baby does have some moulding in the back of his head which has elongated it a little. I sort of fell in love with the image due to his expression and eye contact, its difficult to get an awake shot of a newborn with ‘personality’, I have had that image critiqued and no one has mentioned the odd shape to the head which i can now see (photographer blinders) so thank you. People have either loved it or hated it, I included it because i loved it but im thinking that maybe i should remove it and pop another shot up? I liked it so much it was going to be one of my pics to enter into the aipp awards 🙂 which i didnt end up doing btw, as i wasnt confident enough!
This is another link just incase the last link wasnt working, it may not work depending on where you are as i have blocked some countries which i was getting click farm likes from.
thank you so much
🙂June 2, 2014 at 6:56 am #18921nesgranParticipant
a 30mm lens is really short unless you do environmental portraits when it can work well, a crop camera won’t magically change the lens to be any longer.June 2, 2014 at 7:37 am #18922Worst Case ScenarioParticipant
The site is fine, only problems being the pic on the about us page took forever to load, and having the cursor turn into a giant forward icon (in the galleries) seemed a bit weird. Apart from that, the only problem is the picture mentioned above. I think it’s you weakest image and probably shouldn’t be on the site, let alone starring as the first pic you see. There’s something not right with the way the baby is looking at you, and it’s starting to creep me out!June 2, 2014 at 9:03 am #18924cameraclickerParticipant
Several web sites have right click disabled, which I find funny. It is a bit like watermarks, though I understand and agree with a tasteful watermark for photos posted to Facebook since that site strips EXIF data. Web browsers have to download files from the server in order to display them. The downloaded files are stored in a set of folders on the machine viewing the content. Like right click, you can disable Print Screen, but the file will still be sitting in cache so you can get it from those folders if you want it. I suppose there is a population disabled controls and watermarks will defeat and perhaps those are the ones who should be the target of such controls. I seldom watermark, and so far have not posted photos to Facebook. If I start posting to Facebook, I will definitely add watermarks first.
Entering contests is a way to see where you fit in, but a lot of contests only offer feedback if you are in the top three, or five. Contests that get a lot of submissions just announce First, Second, Third and sometimes Honourable Mentions. If you are in that group, you are told what the judges thought. If you aren’t, you don’t hear anything. Here, some local camera clubs have member’s contests where everything is critiqued during judging. Volume is smaller and members are encouraged to improve.
That the photo is loved or hated suggests different viewer priorities. On one level there is the little human who is in a sleeveless T shirt an old man might wear, looking a bit like he just woke up and is both vulnerable and curious. On another level the exposure is good, with catch lights in both eyes. But the ear seems to flare out, the near cheek appears quite large and the far cheek gives the appearance the lower face extends well beyond the plane of the forehead. The other curious feature is the plane of focus. The background pattern on the left side is very sharp. The fabric looks quite coarse in the lower left corner and loses focus to varying degrees across and up the photo. By the crown of his head, the background fabric is quite soft, yet around the neck above his left shoulder the texture of fabric is coming back into focus while his hand is quite soft. The right shoulder seems closer to the camera while the conflicting impression is the baby is lying flat with the camera above. Sigma’s 30 mm seems to be a standard prime lens for crop sensor bodies. I can’t get my head around the depth of field unless you used a tilt-shift lens or there was some post processing with a blur tool. Possibly those who don’t like the photo see, or feel, conflict?
The new Facebook link does not work for me, either. I still end up looking at my Facebook news feed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.