New website...

<p>I've designed a new website for my wedding work. Any feedback or constructive criticism would be appreciated. Thanks!</p>

<p>www.noahaddisphotography.com</p>

<p>FWIW...Your portfolio should start with a different image than that of the home page. When I first opened it the home page photo did not load. Might just be our backwoods connection. <br /><br />It feels dry to me. The actions used on the photos give it an editorial feel. More grain than film feel. Very dark and forboding. Void of detail. Not sure if this style appeals to NYC folks or not, maybe it's just me I like color and detail. Lots of smiles but no detail. Almost disconnected...sad....I don't know how to put my finger on it. I think the color void and the fact that the border is so pale pink that it just drains the eye. There are no detail shots as in (shoes, dress, etc.) wedding details right? Is that on purpose? I think it needs a feminine touch or a edgy touch.<br /><br />To me, very few photos actually lend themselves to b/w. I'm not saying that you need to change you. Everyone should have their own style. I want to give you an example of b/w wedding pics with detail that speak emotion, try <a href="http://cheninboutwell.com/weddings/2.html">http://cheninboutwell.com/weddings/2.html</a> . While I'm not totally into that CA bleach bypass/50's film or what ever it is look, I really admire her ability as a photographer and especially when to turn a photo into b/w and how to keep the level of detail in post.<br /><br />I would crop to level the kissing couple in front of the brick that is slightly tilted, there is an almost identical shot I would use one or the other, but not both. I would not use the guy straighting out his cuffs he looks disgusted. I would not use the pic of the older brides butt. Brides want their butts to look as hot as possible. While this beautiful bride has a great figure, it's not the most flattering angle for a bride in the prime of her life. The focus is more on her butt than the embrace it appears to me.<br /><br />Great critique can be found here: <a href="http://www.zarias.com/?p=365">http://www.zarias.com/?p=365</a> Zack Arias and his wife chill and review websites. It's VERY eye opening and makes lots of sense.<br /><br />Nice layout and fully functional from what I saw. It will change as you go along. Hope that helps. I didn't check, but make sure you do a complete spelling, grammer and usage check. It matters and so many don't do it. I don't always do it in my posts and I should, drives some folks nuts. However, on a web site unless it's a style thing, it should be correct. What I liked best was the ease of use. The links are all right there. Great start!</p>

<p>I saw that cheninboutwell.com web site. Pretty good, lots of tilt and shift lens stuff right? <br>

I like most of them!</p>

 

<p>Fine Art Photography? This is from your web site. I am thinking that I find most of your wedding photography depressing and removed. In fact it is rather indulgent, so much so that I wonder if you are shooting for the couple or yourself? It may start with the fact that most, if not all of your photo's are WAY too grainy and soft. I'm too depressed to leave any more comments.</p>

<p>Well its definitely a style of its own, and I think you will narrow your prospective market with this approach. I quite like a lot of the images, and the website design is quite nice. But as a prospective bride I am not sure....</p>

<p>What is "fine art" about your photography? This term is thrown around with abandon, as is the term "art" when talking about photography. I am just a photographer, not an artist, but I would be interested in your opinion of this topic.<br /> What camera are you using?</p>

<p>After thrashing your wedding photography I took the time to look at your documentary work. Now I know where your love lays. I could go on about what I like in your doc work but the photos say it all. I am only going to eat half the crow pie.</p>

<p>I appreciate the honest opinions...possibly I should stick to my documentary work ;)</p>

<p>I am not trying to appeal to a mass audience, just a few who want something different. I've only done a few weddings and my clients were happy since they knew what to expect. </p>

<p>It's okay. The one thing that bothers me about is the lack of light on any of the faces. None of them seem defined. You can't see expression, which is a big part of the wedding day.</p>

<p>I wouldn't hire you for my wedding. I know that for sure after looking at your web site. And yet, there are others out there who will know for sure that they would like to hire you after looking at your web site. You have a definite style to your photography and it's very consistent. The consistency is what I like the most about your work. That's something I'm currently struggling with, so I look for it when I visit other people's sites. Sometimes when I visit a site it almost looks like 10 different photographers are exhibiting their work, but it all comes from just one person. Some of the images look one way ... others look another way. I like some. I don't like others. And I leave not knowing if I do or don't like the photographer's work. After looking at your images, I'd probably recognize your work if I saw it again one day. So, I guess what I'm saying is that if you're not looking to appeal to the mass, but just to people who like your style, then your Web site is a success. The only thing that kind of distracts me is the way the images kind of move when they're switching from one to another. But that might just be me. Otherwise, it's clean, it's clear and I think it works well. Best wishes! - Kate</p>

<p>I agree with Betty and some of the others. Grainy, out of focus and poorly lit faces. I'm also not a fan of the editorial copy. Why the narrator? My opinion is that you should revise the copy so that it's YOU talking and caring about the couple's special day. It would be less cold and much more personal...-Aimee</p>

<p>I use the same FlashDen template for my website. It's clean, simple looking and it's functional. But the two major things I didn't like about the template was the small font used and it only allowed room for a tiny logo. If you're comfortable with tweaking the FLA files, you can change all that and more. I had zero Adobe Flash experience, but I was able to tweak the template so it now uses a new and bigger font and allows for a bigger logo. If you want to do that also, maybe I can give a few pointers. </p>

<p>You're asking for a critique/advice on the site itself rather than the photographs, it would seem, so I will stick to the site itself. Part of this may be my high resolution, but more and more screens are being used at higher resolutions these days that building a site for 800x640 just isn't worth it anymore. I'm not saying that is what you did, but the thin and small fonts might make it difficult for people without excellent vision to read and quickly comprehend.</p>

<p>The simple and cut look of the site is nice, but it would seem you'd benefit greatly by increasing the height and width of your informational sub pages. If you're using a template, I'm sure the method to do this is in the somewhere, even if you have to ask someone with Flash knowledge. There's a ton of wasted space, and the small windows require scrolling (which people complain about constantly) when there would have been plenty of room to display your text with a slightly wider and longer window.</p>

<p>Some slight modifications to the site's "composition" might make for an easier dissemination of information. Remember - you can be deep and complex and hard to read - but your site shouldn't be! : )</p>