Raised price to 5 digets today. RE website

<p>My feeling is that anyone who is going to dig back through a couple hundred (or thousand) forum posts to see if there is anything sketchy, probably isn't the kind of person that any of us want to work with anyway. You can track my whole professional photo career through my PN posts if you look hard enough. But I've gotten far more work because of being on PN than I could possibily have lost.</p>

<p>I am not keen on the fullsized webpages, I always click them right off.<br>

Also guys, she is posting anonnymously on here. So I don't think anyone will be googling her photo.net name. She knows better than that :)</p>

<p>Wow. Such hostility!! Are all of you boys who have your panties in a bunch jealous? Are you not doing as well as Candice? Perhaps you should check your attitudes - if you are this nasty online I can't imagine what you're like in person.<br>

Candice - I think your work is gorgeous!! And yes - you absolutely should be charging as much as you do, if not more. Keep rockin' it!!</p>

<p>You can't spell.</p>

<p>Comments on the images - really overall they are great, if I was in the position to pay the prices you are asking I wouldn't disqualify you because of the images in the slideshow. Some of the images have the verite feel to them, which I would opt for in a wedding photographer, others have the studio/staged feel which I'm sure others would opt for. That said, the site is very static, there is no control over the slideshow speed, I tried going back after a few images seemed to fly by and there are no controls at all. You may want to have an actual gallery/portfolio section to show a wider selection of images, as people making this decision may show the site to various people and quicker access to a specific image that they like may take too long in the slideshow format.</p>

<p>The 2 images you currently have on your intro/home page are a bit odd, as both of the brides seem to be pulling away or mentally somewhere else. I can only assume that's why you like the images. Plus on a simpler level they are both at dusk with the same blue sky tone, maybe try a different image for the blog link with a different color scheme.</p>

<p>Also, I looked at the blog and I see more unique & stronger images there than you are displaying on your site.</p>

<p>RE: Raised price to 5 digets...<br>

Love your photos, but how much is a 'diget'?</p>

<p>Josh,<br>

You mean it won't go on her "Permanent Record"? ;-). For her own sake, I think she should worry. There was an awful lot of criticism in the posts above. I would certainly think twice about my work and my attitude if I read all of the remarks above. If she can just erase them by waiting or posting (on other topics) I think something will be lost.<br>

Just my 2 cents. When did they take the cents sign off the keyboard?</p>

<p>Howard</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And yes - you absolutely should be charging as much as you do, if not more. Keep rockin' it!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't you think that someone who is making that much per wedding should pay for the music she rips off?</p>

<p>Honest assessment:</p>

<p>The photos are excellent. Your English is horrible. The music is illegal. The website is user unfriendly in some ways. Calendars can discourage sales.</p>

<p>Unless you obtained an authoring (or "synch") license from the artist (NOT just a performance license from ASCAP or BMI) the music presented is illegal. A performance license is for when the music is used by itself, like at a disco. An authoring license is when the music is used as part of another artistic creation, like a slide-show - it can be difficult or impossible to obtain, and may be very expensive. Permission has to be obtained from any and all publishers, administrators, etc. who have any rights to copyrighted piece. Ergo, the compelling reason for royalty free music.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.themusicbridge.com/clearance-and-license/all-clear-a-music-clearance-primer.php">www.themusicbridge.com/clearance-and-license/all-clear-a-music-clearance-primer.php</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.sesac.com/licensing/faq_obtainlicense.aspx">www.sesac.com/licensing/faq_obtainlicense.aspx</a></p>

<p>Forced full screen is pushy at least. The photos are large and require a continuous download stream, which is OK for broadband users with decent service. There's no navigation once in the slide-show, so it's all or none when viewing it. And there should be a way to turn on or off the music, minimize forcing your preferences on a visitor.</p>

<p>As for your logo looking like that of Chanel, be careful. Citigroup is suing a NYC pawn shop over a logo they say infringes on their trademarked logo:</p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/03/news/companies/citi_suit/index.htm">http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/03/news/companies/citi_suit/index.htm</a></p>

<p>I can only hope to have your skills behind the camera someday, if I live that long! I highly recommend you focus on staying behind the camera and editing, and get others to do everything else for you - like writing, speaking to clients, etc. Congratulations on being able to charge five figures (digits) for your services.</p>

<p>Best wishes, honestly. Rick</p>

 

<p>You pictures are fantastic. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, as mentioned above, there's a few problems with your site that make it very difficult to navigate. Not only that, but the logo is a blatant rip-off as stated above, and you should get the legal issues sorted out surrounding what you use on your site. </p>

<p>I'm not sure if this is your fault, or the web designers, regardless it should be addressed. I would also take some more time to spell and grammar check any kind of correspondence you distribute, although it doesn't seem to be having an effect on your business so far, it could turn some people off. Like it or not, spelling and grammar are sometimes the basis of judgement for professionalism. The tone of your original post is also a giant put-off, maybe that's why people are reacting in the way they are.</p>

<p>Colleen Donovan: why is it that when people take the time to point out blatant and unacceptable faults some people jump to the conclusion that they are jealous? Almost everybody in the thread pointed out that they thought the photos are fantastic, but there is a lot more to to being a professional than simply snapping a good photo.</p>

<p>As mentioned before, excellent images. If you were to show me a portfolio in person or in a .pdf I would not hesitate to hire you to shoot a wedding. However, as mentioned before, there are critical problems with your site. I think people need to acknowledge that, although you approved the site, the technical issues are the fault of your web designer. They should know that one needs nav buttons on a slideshow and that playing music automatically is amateurish. One of the reasons people hire designers is so they don't need to know all of the conventions and technicalities. My advice? Tell your web designer he/she needs to do a serious overhaul, and you should address the possible legal issues surrounding your music and logo. All of this criticism is harsh, but think of this as a series of growing pains towards refining the professional facet of your craft.</p>

<p>I have a question:<br>

Are your images models or real brides?</p>

<p>Rick,<br>

off topic but:<br>

LOL about the Citi story - well not really... I wonder if Citi has other things to worry about that may devalue their brand.... if my logo looked like Chanel's, I'd worry.....</p>

<p>Lovely images, but fails dismally on every accessibility test I ran the site through. Employ a designer fluent with W3C/WIA guidelines.</p>

<p>Lets see.</p>

<p>Blown hightlights in many of the pictures.<br>

Contrast is whacked out.<br>

Color balance is all over the place.<br>

Depth of field and focus issues in many of the images.<br>

Your about picture is terribly unflattering. Camera mounted flash with no diffuser against a white background (plane). This will produce horrible shadows especially when using portrait mode.</p>

<p>If this is what you intended you did well. I personally think the images all look over processed.</p>

<p>Your site also resizes my browser window. That sucks.<br>

You are using music for which you have not provided credits which probably indicates you do not have the rights to use the music.</p>

<p>As for pricing, I am guessing from the images that I saw that "5 digets" (sic) pricing you tried to impress us with also includes the numbers after the decimal point. As that is certainly all that I would pay.</p>

<p>Well its all been said already, and I hope you've gotten the message: your images are excellent - they alone should be all you need on your site. The pages are big, I can deal with that - but the load speed is painfully slow (and I'm on broadband). Your writing skills need to be polished a bit - so that your verbage comes across as professionally as your images. I quite frankly never saw the purpose of a blog, so that would be a nit that I could do without.</p>

<p>The music - I have mixed feelings about it (who's ripping off who) and it seems that alot of folks seem to be annoyed by it as a distraction - not so much for me, but the licensing thing needs to be addressed by your designer. The part I have an issue with has nothing to do with your site and I'll save that nit for another post.</p>

<p>Nice job overall.</p>

<p>--Rich</p>

<p>(for Colleen Donovan) I think you're confusing frank and constructive criticism with hostility. I don't see anyone here being mean or hostile to this lady. A little sarcasm and admonishment, perhaps, but I don't think anyone here is being hostile.</p>

<p>I think the overall point we're making is that if you're going to brag that you've hit the "5 diget" big leagues, you'd better darn-well have your act together (and know how to spell "digit"). She clearly does not. But, if she takes the advice here constructively and does something about it, she'll be better for it. And I wish her the best.</p>

<p>[[(for Colleen Donovan) I think you're confusing frank and constructive criticism with hostility]]</p>

<p>Indeed. </p>

<p>I fail to see how this website is in any way shape or form professional. Full-screen pop-up with no other choice? Automatic music? A secondary front-page image with a hack-photoshop job to put a "blog" button? Conflicting styles? Text covering background objects? Black text over dark objects, white text over light? A, quite frankly, lousy photo /of/ the photographer? </p>

<p>Whomever you are paying for this work should be fired.</p>

 

<p>Honestly, I'm keeping my feelings about using music to myself. I have no issue giving away my pictures, in all honesty. But that's another discussion for another time! I have "different" views on copywright and use of art.</p>

<p>I gotta agree with some of the above comments, Candice you should look into getting some licensed music for your site. Any music I use for teaching videos or any other work is either licensed (mobygratis.com is a great resource) or I create it myself (i'm also a musician).</p>

<p>Moving on.... The site is nice, not mind-blowing, but nice. Images are pretty good for the most part, however, nothing really jumps at me to convince me to pay $10K+ for your work. It seems like you are pretty experienced, shoot lots of weddings... but I didn't jump out of my chair like I have for some work that i've seen.<br /> I'll be totally honest.... just based on your website alone, I don't know if you are charging way to much or others are charging way too little. I'm not saying your work isn't worth 5 digits.... i'm just saying I didn't get that impression from your site. If i'm going to pay $10,000+ for anything, it had better be absolutely top notch, something that stands well above the rest.</p>

<p>Or maybe my perception is skewed and i'm charging way too little for my work.</p>

<p>To be fair, as I perused the code in her site closely, she offers destination weddings in Hawaii. I don't know how many she's done, but with the travel involved, a wedding package could hit $10K or better for such coverage, travelling from CA to HI and back, depending on how much she's doing for them.</p>

<p>Hi Candice. Just a thought on music. Most brides secretly troll the net while at work and if they open yours and music starts they will delete it and move on.</p>

<p>It's pretty obvious the site is a Blu Domain template. So many photographers use them now they're easy to spot.</p>

<p>Candice, your photos that I saw look nice. However, I couldn't sit through the entire slide show. I would suggest you go to a short 5-8 image slide show intro with a skip option and then use a gallery that can be either skimmed or seen as a slide show, let the viewer decide.</p>

<p>Also, concerning the music, there are 3 problems with the music. First, music for the sake of music on websites is annoying. Second, because the images are not timed to the music, it's annoying and dizzying. Third, what everybody else said about copyright.</p>

<p>The problem with slide shows on the web is that the timing is symmetrical. Some images need to be seen for longer than others. If you really want a great looking slide show, the best way to do it is to create it in a program made for slide shows or video editing and time the images to the music. Post it online as an FLV.</p>

<p>Betty, I'm not gonna 'beat up' on the unauthorized use any more. Despite personal feelings about usage, the Federal Law supercedes and specifies it as illegal. Sooner or later, it's likely that criminals get caught...and in this case it's a $10,000 fine per instance (cease and desist NOT required prior).<br /> <br /> So I suppose the msg for those who feel differently is to hope their website doesn't get a lot of publicity for fear that the more people who see it, the more likely it is they will be "busted"...both literally and figuratively...after paying the fines, legal bills, suffering reputation hit, etc.</p>

<p>Christopher...I appreciate your warning and I understand your concern.</p>