My new website (+ a great cms for photographers!)

Posts: 952 - Karma: 2,314

Karma: 2,314

Posts: 952

Insane

Real nice. Very clean. Great Photos

I would say you almost have too many photos in some sections (mainly portraits). If this is suppose to function like a portfolio I might edited them down to the best of the best

I might be wrong but it is a personal opinion

Mar 11 2013 10:15PM

1 0

Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039

Karma: 12,039

Posts: 7791

Crazy Fool

I agree. There are some good photos, but a lot of them are basically the same thing. I made it through the first ten or fifteen and moved on, and I'm a photographer. People don't have a lot of time these days so I've always stuck with quality over quantity, short and sweet. I post a lot more content on my blog, my website is just my 20-25 absolute best shots. Also, if there is a way to make the photos auto resize definitely do that. I'm on a 15in macbook and I had to scroll up and down to see some the hole picture, messing with the composition. Thought the exif info was cool, never seen that before.

Also, are you editing with vsco by chance?

Mar 11 2013 11:34PM

2 0

*ninja*

Posts: 2108 - Karma: 1,143

Karma: 1,143

Posts: 2108

Addict

i think it's pretty cool!

Mar 11 2013 11:37PM

1 2

top_lel

Posts: 56 - Karma: 47

Karma: 47

Posts: 56

Wannabe

I really like this!

The page is clean/not campy, not some stupid interface in the way. I don't see a problem with the amount of pictures in the portfolio. I mean if a customer is serious they want a wide array of pictures to look at!

A successfull blog is not made to spam with your half-assed pictures that don't fit the portfolio, I would rather keep them away from the net. A blog, to me, is a place for articles and writing about your life in a cool way.

Mar 12 2013 4:58PM

1 0

jeremy.g

Posts: 4931 - Karma: 459

Karma: 459

Posts: 4931

No Life

i would get rid of the exif info. really trim this down to your best shots as well (like 9 -12 per category). also for each different part of your portfolio, keep the interface the same. i liked the first category where you could just click each image and it cycled to the next then it jumps to a scroll down page for your next category. its weird, you want a consistent layout

Mar 13 2013 2:44AM

2 0

Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508

Karma: 82,508

Posts: 11075

Crazy Fool

Thanks for the feedback everyone! Here are my two cents on a few points you guys made. Please try and prove me wrong if you still disagree with me -- I can be a bit biased when it comes to my work.

- I've cut down both portraits and b&w (and still plan to cut a few more), but there's no way I'd be able to trim it down to anything less than 20 or so in each... and I think 9-12 is way too little for a respectable portfolio. Clients and individuals looking to build their modelling portfolio want to see a really wide range of images, and 90% of the time they refer to my previous shoots to communicate what kind of photo they are looking to get.

- Simple was the objective, but I'm always open to suggestions. How would you make it "less" simple? Also interested in knowing what portraits you think are meh -- my feelings towards some shots are a little skewed, because some have something personal tied to them.

- In terms of blogs, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Like you said, people don't have time -- so why would they spend it looking at throwaway photos on a blog? I plan on adding a blog, but all the content will A+ and worth the read. And yes, I'm using VSCO to edit the majority of my photos.

- What don't you like about the .exif info? So far people seem to really dig that feature. I've thought about running the slideshow on all pages, but then I lose the .exif info... I could always have the slideshow at the top of the page, followed by the album photos. Or is that too much?

Thanks again for the feedback everyone! Much appreciated

Mar 13 2013 11:32AM

2 2

bigbromskier

Posts: 1175 - Karma: 330

Karma: 330

Posts: 1175

Insane

Pretty cool!

I'll add that a little more space between the title and the menu bar might help if that's possible--not a ton but I think a little white space in between would help. that way it adds more hierarchy by making the title a bit more prominent than the list, which it should be. Kinda nitpicky, but i think it'll help.

also, this is more of a question, but in the portraits I'm wondering why some of the subjects aren't in focus. I guess it could make sense given something specific to the subject, but isn't the idea of a portrait to draw the attention to the person in the photo? Just curious.

Really liking the ski set for sure!

Mar 13 2013 9:54PM

1 0

Posts: 952 - Karma: 2,314

Karma: 2,314

Posts: 952

Insane

I am kind of in the same place as you. It is terribly hard to cut down your work and I hate when people tell me to. I am currently trying to get a website/ online portfolio going.

If you are using this to get a job or something along those lines, an employer is going to have the time to look through over 20 photos in each section. I have been told (I dont completely agree) that an online portfolio should have around 15 pieces throughout the whole site.

People get super caught up in what they, themselves, want. When if if the motive of your site is to get you employed, you need to be thinking the employer has time and wants to see. You can show a extensive amount of work and your experience in very few pieces.

This is just what I have been learning

We really need Twoods to comment

Mar 13 2013 10:52PM

1 0

Posts: 952 - Karma: 2,314

Karma: 2,314

Posts: 952

Insane

Sorry for double post

I had more thoughts

Maybe take your best 5-10 photos for each section and have them on the initial page. Then link to more of your work on another page. This will allow people to see your work quickly, which is how people will be looking, and if they like what they see they will continue on to look at the rest.

Mar 13 2013 10:58PM

1 0

SamColby

Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006

Karma: 2,006

Posts: 644

Ridiculous

Wow your portraits are very nice. Your style seems very unique and un conventional. The site look nice too

Mar 13 2013 11:06PM

1 1

Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039

Karma: 12,039

Posts: 7791

Crazy Fool

You must not follow fashion very closely.......

As for VSCO, I personally can't stand it, and yes, I do own it, I would never ever use it for professional or payed work. If you want the film look buy a medium format SLR and shoot film, end of story. My main problem is that it makes everyone's photo processing look very identical. Yes you can customize or work off the filters, but in general, you can tell it's VSCO and your photos will look like every other photographer's of the ten/hundred thousand people using the program.

Mar 13 2013 11:14PM

3 0

Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508

Karma: 82,508

Posts: 11075

Crazy Fool

This post might come off as harsh, but well, I think you're wrong.

Do you follow fashion photography? I don't -- I just go and do my own thing... but looking at your website it doesn't seem like you have much experience shooting fashion, so I'm wondering what makes you say that.

Why would you spend $200 on something you can't stand? You would never use it for a contract? That's your opinion, but my guess is that you don't do much paid work, because you'd realize;

a) People want and request that look

b) Shooting film would add very high costs to a shoot requiring more than a few photos

c) Clients don't give two shits if it's shot on a micro 4/3 or on medium format film, as long as the end result is what they're looking for

d) And honestly, get off your high horse -- who are you to say "end of story"?

And last but not least...

d) Hundred's of thousands of people using VSCO? Really dude? Where did you pull that number from?

e) According to your logic, before people started shooting digital, every single photographers' photos looked exactly like every other photographer, because they all shot on film.

Just my 2 cents!

Mar 14 2013 1:19PM

2 1

Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508

Karma: 82,508

Posts: 11075

Crazy Fool

Good call -- I'll make that change today and see how it looks. Maybe even add a little "-" below it to separate the title / nav.

Yes generally portraits should be in focus... and I should probably just change "portrait" to "people" or "faces" or something, but I just like the word portrait more. These were shot with a particular goal in mind for the clients needs (dead space, no faces, specific colours, etc.), but I like the shots and wanted to include them.

Thanks for the feedback!

Mar 14 2013 1:24PM

0 0

Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508

Karma: 82,508

Posts: 11075

Crazy Fool

Yeah, definitely tough!

The website isn't meant to be a means to get new clients, or to be a photography portfolio -- more of a platform to show my work (which will include more sections such as writing, design, resume, clients, recommendations, etc in the near future).

My worry isn't about having too many photos -- I just want to make sure I'm not putting anything there that shouldn't be because I'm biased towards particular images.

Thanks for the post and feedback

Mar 14 2013 1:35PM

1 1

1337

Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,248

Karma: 29,248

Posts: 31054

Basement Dweller

Thanks for introducing me to koken, this is dope

Mar 14 2013 2:58PM

1 0

Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508

Karma: 82,508

Posts: 11075

Crazy Fool

My pleasure! And yes, it's truly a great CMS for photographers and I can't wait to see what else they have coming with future builds. Let me know if you have any questions regarding themes/tweaks.

Cheers.

Mar 14 2013 3:03PM

0 0

Posts: 952 - Karma: 2,314

Karma: 2,314

Posts: 952

Insane

Shoot film for fun

Mar 14 2013 7:00PM

0 0

Posts: 11075 - Karma: 82,508

Karma: 82,508

Posts: 11075

Crazy Fool

I do! Just b/w though

Mar 14 2013 7:17PM

0 0

SamColby

Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006

Karma: 2,006

Posts: 644

Ridiculous

Yeah I agree, ZB thinks he's able to teach others, but just come off as a dick. He's also not the most experienced (or atleast how his website shows)

Mar 14 2013 7:35PM

0 0

SamColby

Posts: 644 - Karma: 2,006

Karma: 2,006

Posts: 644

Ridiculous

Sorry for double post, but I also agree with the fact that you don't need to "follow" something specific like fashion, you can forge your own way through photography to find your own style. ZB is too critical

Mar 14 2013 7:37PM

0 0

Posts: 7791 - Karma: 12,039

Karma: 12,039

Posts: 7791

Crazy Fool

Don't worry man, this is only Newschoolers, you can say whatever you want.

I don't shoot fashion, but I do follow quite a few fashion photographers and blogs quite closely. The looking off, dazed style is quite common, nothing against it at all, some of your composition is fantastic, it's just quite commont.

Didn't purchase VSCO 1-3, http://thepiratebay.se ftw.

a/b) I'm just starting to do payed work, but the majority of my personal work is done on film. I do agree, the costs are high, and I do understand the 'digitally made film look' is really popular these days.

c) Good point, I definitely need to think how much a person actually cares about your equipment/process when dealing with a client.

d) Fair enough, I personally don't try and make my digital photos look like film, to me it's just not as good as the real thing. I'll leave that to Fuji 400h and Ilford hp5 with my Epson.

e) Exaggeration

f) TBH not really, how you shoot or process film has a huge impact on the look. Also, different lenses will produce different effects obviously. Even film made in different times or films that have aged will yield different results, it's not a computer, it's not perfect. I find with digital because everything is 'automated', this is more noticeable. What I don't like about vsco is the decreased sharpness, the 'white fade', and the added grain. I just find when I see an image it's pretty easy to tell it was done with vsco because it look so similar to everyone elses. IDK, again TBH as you said clients don't care about any of this, that is my opinion as a photographer (which really, doesn't mean a whole lot).

Mar 14 2013 8:46PM

0 0