Raised price to 5 digets today. RE website

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by candice, Feb 3, 2009.

  1. I raised my prices to 5 digets today. If you have 6mins can you look over my images to make sure I dont have any weak links I am hanging on to.
    I dont need comments on blog or any text the editor is that up this week. I know what my editing skills are and that why Im outsourcing.
    Thank guys, happy shooting
  2. Good luck with that pricing. It is definitely "contrarian" to the general economic trend.

    Comment: Where are you located? Your website doesn't seem to give any clues. People do generally like to know if you're located in their geographic area.
  3. the layout on your About page is for the most part unreadable.
  4. Should I reword the post, How were the images?
  5. I like your site. On the "About Candice" section there is a gray box that pops up with the wording "Candice Cunningham is a professional wedding photographer...." but it pops up over the background photos and writing that you have. There is a photo of you and a man, and I can only partly read the caption. I don't know if that is only on my screen or not, but just letting you know. You said you don't need comments on the text, but just letting you know, on the "Investments" page "specizlaed" (specialized?) and "includeing" (including) are spelled incorrectly. But I think you were trying to say you have someone editing for you, so you probably don't need to worry about it. Nice job, congrats on being able to to raise the prices. Good luck! :)
  6. The images are nice. :)
  7. Again, I have a very full understanding of ALL text on the site. That is being redone by an editor.
    ARE there any weak links in the images?
  8. Hey Ashley, thank you for taking the time to read all of that, but it is being all redone.
    Did anyone watch the slides all the way though?
    I really regret saying how much I am raising them too, I now fear no one is going to be able to look past that when looking at the site and the images.
  9. This site is incredible... images are really beautiful.
    I have a few thoughts:
    The brides hands are up when she's putting her gown on, but the fingers are in your logo, I dont know if that was intentional, but my eyes were drawn up.
    I think I might look at the image with the bride and groom (where he's dipping her) with the blue lights in front of the band light, I see several other images I would place ahead of this in the site.
    There's a scene with a large lake, the horizon seems like it needs to be adjusted clockwise 2-3 degrees. *** I love the teary eyed bride, LOVE IT!
    There's harsh lighting on the mothers face (shes of indian descent), perhaps that could be adjusted a bit. The photo is underexposed and needs a bit of tweaking.
    The wedding w/groom and bridal party in white suits, in front of a green building should possibly be adjusted because the text interferes with the grooms head.
    The pic of the B G under the boardwalk is very overexposed, perhaps a small adjustment would great. It just appears a little too bright.
    The bride walking the dog has her head in the logo/company name.
    These are just a few thoughts in my humble opinion. Great site!
    Best of luck - Natalie
  10. Usually I don't like music on websites, but I really like the song you've used. What song is it, and who sings it?
    Some beautiful images in there, too :)
  11. Sorry, now I see it - Camarillo, Ca.

    Are you singing the lyrics? Paying a Royalty? Stealing someone's music isn't any different than stealing their images. Did you steal images? It's probably not a good association, huh?
  12. I think it's a very good selection of photos. It seems to give a good selection and presents your style nicely.
    I didn't watch the entire slide show ( I have a very limited attention span for Flash slide shows, sorry!) but I did get through quite a few. The only shots that might be "weak" for my taste would be the one of the three East Indian ladies (Do you have another from the same wedding? Assuming it was a East Indian Wedding, that is) and maybe one less of the couple walking on the dirt road towards the hill in the distance. It's a beautiful shot that I like very much. I just find more than one or two redundant even though there are differences.
    But otherwise I think you have done a fine job. Good luck.
  13. Natalie You rock. That is what I needed.
    Hey Lara thank you, It is Amy Seeley - Gravel Lines

    >Christopher Im sorry your so grumpy, you must of had a bad day :) Hope you have a better one.
  14. I've seen the whole slideshow... the only thing I've picked up in terms of website stuff is that when it replays for the ?second time, at about song no 4 (? sorry - lost count, just have the music playing in the background now!) the music skips at the start of the song. Just for a beat or two (maybe it was just my computer doing silly things?)
    30 seconds later, and it seemed to just stop halfway through that song and start at the beginning again.
    Don't know, as I said, if it's just my computer....
  15. <p>Scot I know you are right, I agree, .... You ever been just stuck with an image, thats really hard to give up. I am stuck on that image!!!<br>
    I dont know why, LOL well I guess that is not true. I know exactly why. It was done a long time ago, ....... I hung around 2 hours after I was &quot;due&quot; to go home. So I could play with some light. I shot it in bar room style light, hand holding at a 1/10th or an 8th and I was sooooo excited when I got it home.<br>
    Goodness LOL I will print it and hang it in my office thank you Scot!<br>
  16. Thats really good to know lara, what type of internet connection do you have?
  17. Sorry for the multiple posts... one more thing, along the lines of Scott's thoughts about doubling up on images - there are two of a bride and groom against a wall, her legs wrapped around his, very close together. They're very similar.... maybe to include both, put them a bit further apart in the slideshow - at first I thought it was the same photo before I realised her hands were in a different position.
  18. I have a broadband connection.... it's at the beginning of the month before I reach my download limit, so it's still fast (though I don't know the speed!!!!)
    Sorry - doesn't help you much, does it?! I'm useless with computer speak :)
  19. Nope, had a really good day today. It's kind of difficult to respond when you rip-off another artist's work, huh? A lot of photographers do it, but how would you feel if a band ripped off one of your images and put it on their CD cover without paying or crediting you? It's a serious slap for one "artist" to rip off another's work. It's also a Federal Felony. Check out the Assn for Recording Artists Website for specifics.

    Here's another practical question for you (my assistant raised it) : Why do you tout your wedding experience and have a picture of yourself shooting a non-bride in an airplane hangar? How does it fit? Wouldn't a Wedding image be more appropriate?
  20. Hi Candie,
    I'm not 100% sure as to what you are asking. It appears that all of the links work with the exception of a link that sits on your about Candice page. The link http://www.elysiumblog.com/ dosn't work but perhaps it is not supposed to? The biggest problem is not the links but the layout of the about Candice page. If the page is viewed on my 30 inch monitor the type shows fine. If I view the page on a 17 inch monitor your logo ends up over the bio type. Overall the design of the bio page is poor and needs to be taken back to the drawing board. There are to many type fonts and other issues that could be improved to compliment your new pricing. Just my 2 cents. All the best in 2009
  21. Christopher. I wrote out a long post to respond to that and I snapped out of it.
    But I will tell you: I had so much fun on that shoot at AA. It was amazing!!!!
    Last month I had the photo of me in the cock pit.
    Month before shooting photos of cars.
    It is who I am and that is what my clients are paying me for, they are paying to have me my style.
    So thank you everone including chris, for letting me know your thoughts.
    Have a great night hope to see some of you at WPPI
  22. Christopher...how do you know she doesn't personally know the artist? I had friend's bands on my site....just playing devil's advocate here.
  23. Betty L, Just for grins, I did a "rights" check on the rip from Amy Seeley's track on that website and found it was <erased> (which is why there is no "performer" on the notifier) and downloaded via bitTorrent (LimeWire, most likely). To the Devil's Advocate I would respond, if Candie is a buddy of Amy Seeley's, I suspect Amy would have given her a copy thus avoiding the LimeWire download...but hey, that's just me.
  24. I am sorry if I sound extremely rude, but this is honestly how I feel... After reading your subject line, "Raised price to 5 digets today." and then being introduced to your site by The Fray's copyrighted song, I want nothing more than to NOT view your site. I find it downright disgusting that you are gloating that you have raised your prices to more than 10k (that is if I am understanding "5 digets" correctly) this year in this economic turmoil yet you STEAL from another ARTIST to further yourself. Shame on you. Good luck with your 5 digit bookings this year.
  25. Christpher Hartt does have a point. In the old days I worked as a musician, actually have a music degree from Peabody Conservatory and I made a decent living playing in The Washington Air Force Band, playing with the Maryland Symphony, and teaching college. Sadly the clarinet reeds were full of pesticides, which ended my music career. I still have a lawsuit against the reed company Rico. I won the lawsuit againt the pesticide companies. Long story short almost all musicians fail to make a living, only 2 percent of the college graduates make it into a symphony or a military band. I have very strong opinions and I support Christophers actions that the artists need to be paid. In 1982 I played the sax for a Cher tour and I still get royalty checks from the recordings. I also make a few bucks from symphony recordings. I'm a member of 2 musicians unions, although they are great to belong to there simply isn't enough funds to fight every website, so the actual artists have to sue, but they don't have the money either, to find an attorney, try to get paid for the usage, so frankly speaking it's easy to get away and it's a no win situation for the artist.
    With that history, lets work together as artists and support other artists by paying a small usage fee for the musicians.
    Another comment is a magazine in Washington State used an image of mine and didn't pay me. After hiring an attorney for his opinion he charged me $400. He suggested to sue in small claims court. I did. The judge awarded me $250. I asked for $5000. I was pretty hurt emotionally and this is why I no longer have a website.
  26. OK Betty, you saw this coming - Are you friends with all the performers who you have on your website? Same question as Candie - how would you feel if one of those performers (providing you aren't best buds...) took one of your images without paying for it and used it on their CD cover?

    Supposing a musician DID actually steel your image...Wouldn't you post your tale of woe here on PNet? And wouldn't you get a lot of responses from photographers advising that you sue, write a demand letter to the offender, etc., etc. Knowing that - how can any photographer use music on their website from another artist whom they have not gotten permission, paid a royalty, etc.? It's beyond me how we can expect certain behaviors from others, yet neglect the same standard for ourselves.

    As for the appropriateness for the OP request for C&C, I think it's very appropriate. It's a question of offending a certain number of viewers who realize the gravity of using an artist's work without paying them for it. As viewers in general (of the website), it would be a valid criticism to advise against it because it will certainly offend some. Or, you might say, "It's politically incorrect" for one artist to appropriate the work of another without compensation, credit, or express permission.
  27. bms


    Inspiring images! Beautiful!
    OK, I am just going to take a shot, by no means am I an expert:
    What Natalie said about the lake.
    There are two pictures of a couple walking away on a dusty country road - I would keep one. Nothing wrong with the picture, but a little repetitive. There s a very similar shot later in the show.
    The couple sitting on the stairs, the leg with the stocking really sticks out. A very interesting shot.
    There is a shot of a couple in front of a house, he is lifting her leg... not the most flattering, IMHO.
    There are two shots of (I think the same couple) against a glass facade - maybe drop the first one?
    The "almost" naked dancer - butt is right in the center - crop to the right of it? :)
  28. A slideshow of images without navigation buttons or thumbnails is kinda annoying. There should be a way to skip ahead or go back.
    Also websites that popup a window are not considered appealing these days.
    The photographs were all stunning though. Interestingly, none of the people in the pics look all that rich (considering they can afford 10K per wedding) :)
  29. bms


    Chris, I think you have a very valid point, this topic has been much discussed..... however, in these posts, I would give people the benefit of the doub t and leave the rest to the lawyers.... I would assume anyone who has put that much into a website has made fairly concious decisions about the music...
  30. If I'm not mistaken, it happens from time to time, the website is a ShowIt Site from David Jay. He has deals from bands and labels so that photographers can use their songs on the sites and ShowIt Web slideshows. If this is the case then Candie is doing nothing wrong legally, just hijacking my speakers which I find annoying.
  31. Candice, your site looks great. Although you might consider having a non-flash (plain html) version for those who are technologically challenged. It would be a bummer if you lost a booking because someone couldn't view your site. Don't assume that because a couple can afford Hawaii that they have flash installed on their computer (or know how). I know several affluent people who don't even own computers.
    As far as five digits go, I'm sure that planning a wedding in Hawaii is probably expensive all around anyways! Best of luck to you.
  32. By the way, also based on Christophers comments it is easy to pay, but not paying too much, so here is a link for everyone to go legal; there are several sites, but here is one to look at, such as with the Getty Images
    Although it is Getty images, there is a music section, and prices vary such as for movie use or website use and how long do you wish to use the music.
  33. Bob - I know how difficult and expensive a royalty-usage of music is, and that's exactly why I made the statement so strongly. I didn't mean to imply it was easy...or affordable. So unless we get written permission - because we're "buds" with the person - we just shouldn't use music. Personally, I don't like music from an aesthetic standpoint, but there ain't any "Aesthetics Police" so I have no cases I can cite...
  34. Candice, I would suggest to make the logo of the company smaller. IMO It goes to much over the images.
    I think that your images look beautiful, but I have to admit that your selection surprised me once or twice. (for example the B&G dancing with the band on the background.) If I were you, I would make a striker selection. Another issue is that you don't give the viewer the opportunity to navigate back & forward, I've found it inconvenient. And now I'm coming to the "biggest" problem, I could see spots on some of your images. Looks like dirty sensor to me. If it so, I would take care of that immediately. You don't want to show your clients that you don't clean your sensor property. (take a look at the wide angle shot of B&G sitting on the stairs)
  35. the images are great
  36. Ok - so no one else thinks the lack of navigation (in the slides) is an issue? Damn! :)
  37. About an hour ago I've ordered the "Grace" template from bludomain. This is my first year as a wedding photographer. I also charge less than 10th of what you charge. But if you really want to set yourself apart from others, get a web designer. So you can have a website that answers on all your needs and as I've said will set you apart from the other 1000 photographers who have the same template.
    BTW I will go live with my new website in couple of days, and I will really need your help guys!
  38. Spelling on your prices page: "including" rather than includeing. Probably the editor will catch it.
    Very nice an impressive site.
  39. Oops .... stricter instead of striker.
    English is not my mother tongue & and it's late here ...but I'm doing my best.
  40. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Christopher...how do you know she doesn't personally know the artist?​
    Let's be really clear about this. The music is being ripped off in violation of copyright unless there is an ASCAP or BMI license. Since the poster apparently doesn't have the license, based on comments above, this is a blatant copyright violation. How someone that claims to be a creative person can so willfully rip off another creative person is something I don't understand, but it is clearly happening.

    It doesn't matter if someone personally knows the artist. A license to use is not granted by the artist. If the artist wants to give someone an unreleased song that has not yet been licensed through ASCAP or BMI, that is fine. But any song that has been recorded and licensed is not "fair game." It's theft, outright theft. And it's funny, the people that so often worry about other people lifting their images are often using unlicensed music on their website.

    This is especially appalling given that the artist is an "indie" artist, without major label backing.
    Once again, it doesn't matter who you know, it's whether you are legally allowed to use the music. Anyone offering up excuses has no right to claim that anyone is ripping off their images, since they apparently don't believe in the value of licensing creative work.
  41. The photographs were all stunning though. Interestingly, none of the people in the pics look all that rich (considering they can afford 10K per wedding) :)

    In California $10,000 is relative chump change when standard 900 square foot condos can sell for $550,000.
  42. Candice, I'm going to be very frank with you about a few things, and I hope you'll take them seriously and in a constructive way.
    a) Your images are stunning. Nothing more needs to be said, you know how to handle a camera.
    b) I'm very put off by websites that blow your browser window out to full screen without giving you a choice (letting you pick same window or full screen). I think a lot of other folks are too.
    c) I'm also put off by businesspeople who charge $5K and up for their services, and can't spell or compose sentences with proper grammar and punctuation. And I'm not just talking about your website, which has some unforgivable errors. I understand you've got someone working to fix that...do it in a hurry, before clients see the errors. But if you communicate with your potential clients via e-mail, and pay as little attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation as you've done in your posts here, then you have something serious you need to work on. I get very frustrated with the world around me when I see SO MANY people who made it all the way through high school and college, yet they don't even have a mastery of basic English skills. You're not alone, and I don't mean to put you down, but trust me...it's important to fix this. You're working in the big leagues now (obviously). Use spell check. Take a night course. It's worth it.
    Here is a passage from your blog: "Watching the fires on TV is bad enough, but driving though the hills of Montecito and seeing the devastation first hand is quit another!!! It was so awful to see entire neighbors burned to the ground and others completely untouched. It was a literal game of roulette with the mother nature! The emotions one feel seeing home after home burn is quite an emotional event. My heart and prays goes out to the families who’s life will be ever changed by the fires. I am truly so sorry for you tragic lost!!!" If English was not your native language, I could understand these kinds of errors. Spelling and grammar errors like this do not present a good image.

    By the way, the images you shot in the burned out wooded areas are stunning, but the ones in the burned home leave one with an opportunistic impression of you. It's like you're saying, "We're so sorry you lost everything you had, but we're gonna use your burned out house to make some really cool TTD shots!"
    d) As stated above, you need to specify the geographic area you serve. The About page says you're from Camarillo, CA, but it's not clear that you're there now. The keywords that appear in the code on the initial page of your website spell out some of these areas, but you need something on the contact page that states it more clearly.
    e) On your About page, the photo shows you sitting on the ground shooting the subject in front of the plane. Your shirt is riding up in the back showing what looks like pink underwear (I dunno), and it's not the most flattering photo to use. Think about using another one, or do a little photoshop work to bring your shirt tail back down. I'd also think about shooting a more flattering photo for your headshot. Marketing yourself is front line work, and for something like that, a trip to a salon beforehand would help. You're an attractive woman, but I'd seek a professional opinion on looking your best for this photo. These photos on the About page would be one of the weak links you asked about in your original post. If you're going to charge big bucks, you need to LOOK like big bucks.
    f) Get with your web designer who came up with all the keywords on the initial page of your site, and tell them to get a clue about creating proper keywords. You've got the word "photographer" in there about 50 times. Some search engines will see this as a spammer technique and can lower you in the rankings or exclude your site altogether. You've got way too many keywords in the list and they're not well thought-out. Seek a pro's advice on this (i.e. NOT your web designer).
    g) When you get with this web designer, also tell them that they need to get a clue about your "meta description" tag, and what text goes there. All they've done is put a bunch more of your keywords in this meta description, which is incorrect. The meta description tag should contain text that looks something like this: "Welcome to Candice Cunningham Photography, serving Ventura County, Malibu, and surrounding areas with stunning wedding coverage and impeccable portrait photography." It doesn't have to be more than a couple of sentences, but this is the text that will show up when people find you in a Google (or other) search. This text is supposed to entice people (in a split second) to click the link and visit your site. It should succinctly tell them what you're offering them. If all they see are a bunch of keywords, it won't exactly entice them to click your link.
    h) Once you and your web person get THAT straightened out, you should also revise your Title tag. The one you have looks like this:
    <title>candice cunningham, Ventura county wedding photography leader, Hawaii destination wedding photographer</title>
    It should look something more like this: <title>Candice Cunningham Photography - Ventura County, Malibu, and Hawaii destination wedding photography</title>
    You can tweak the wording as you feel necessary, but notice how the words are properly capitalized, and not as redundant? This appears at the top of your browser, and it's important to get this right.
    i) About your calendar page...I'd think seriously about (not) including a calendar page, unless you are more booked with $10K weddings than this. I only could see two weddings booked so far. The note "colored dates are available" seems confusing, as the dates you have something booked are dark gray and the rest are white. The only time one should have a calendar page on their website is a) when they're heavily booked, so everyone knows how popular and in-demand they are and b) when they have someone who can take the time to keep it properly updated. And if you're not booked any more than this page suggests, then perhaps that's a clue that raising your prices to "5 digets" might be premature.
    I hope you'll find all this helpful and not offensive. Good luck.
  43. While there are many strong images there, the use of textured overlays is a fad, which will probably pass with the wind.
    I would put more like your landing page.
  44. How interesting. Considering your pricing:work ratio, I think I should charge more than I do.
  45. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Amazing, people think copyright violation and theft of creative works is just fine. How much do you value your own work?
  46. Beyond that, sites that just play music automatically are the worst of web design. I never EVER stay on a site that starts blaring music at me. I guess it's a great way to drive people away, if that's what you are looking for.
  47. Candie,
    Your logo looked awfully familiar and then it clicked - Chanel. Did you do it purposely to give the site a "rich" look? If Chanel finds out, their lawyers will have a field day. It's not a good idea to swipe a registered trademark.
    About the website, nice pictures. The navigation leaves a lot to be desired as does having to wait for flash to load. Most people will not wait. On the "About Candie" page, as someone else said, the text overruns the picture.
    Google your name Candie. The first thing that comes up is [​IMG] your Photonet listing. When you click on that you get a repeating list of
    Raised price to 5 digets today. RE website

    How are your prospective clients going to feel about that? Might I mention the words insensitive or greedy? By the way, if you are texting your friends, they probably don't care about bad spelling. Prospective clients see it as carelessness and inattention to detail - great for a wedding photographer.
    To be honest, the site annoys me because of the lack of the initial bad spelling and lack of punctuation in the title of your post, then I read about possible copyright violation, my own discovery of trademark violation, the flash delay, lack of navigation tools until one figures it out. You also keep saying "That's my editor's responsibility" - guess what? It's yours! That's not delegating - it's evading responsibility.
    I'm sorry to come off this way, but you might want to think about the fact that your potential customers will be reading this thread and will have reactions to all the things that the others and I have mentioned. We may have articulated them (what are friends for?) but the clients who don't read this will have similar reactions.
    Correct the errors and do good work
  48. As long as Candie stays active on photo.net, the google results will just show other posts or her member page. People worry too much about PN posts.
  49. Only one point. I know this is a personal thing with me. Any site that plays music and expands to full screen without asking is left as quickly as I can get the information I need. I clicked to open, heard really annoying music, checked your prices and was gone. Good luck.
  50. Josh, my feeling is that anything that is "Google-able" about a business person is subject to scrutiny, and not always the kind we need. I'd be more worried. That's why I'd recommend staying anonymous on PN, particularly if you are discussing sensitive areas like raising your prices to "5 digets".
  51. 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.
  52. I am not keen on the fullsized webpages, I always click them right off.
    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 :)
  53. 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.
    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!!
  54. You can't spell.
  55. 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.
    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.
    Also, I looked at the blog and I see more unique & stronger images there than you are displaying on your site.
  56. RE: Raised price to 5 digets...
    Love your photos, but how much is a 'diget'?
  57. Josh,
    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.
    Just my 2 cents. When did they take the cents sign off the keyboard?
  58. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    And yes - you absolutely should be charging as much as you do, if not more. Keep rockin' it!!​
    Don't you think that someone who is making that much per wedding should pay for the music she rips off?
  59. Honest assessment:
    The photos are excellent. Your English is horrible. The music is illegal. The website is user unfriendly in some ways. Calendars can discourage sales.
    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.
    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.
    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:
    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.
    Best wishes, honestly. Rick
  60. You pictures are fantastic.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  61. 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.
  62. I have a question:
    Are your images models or real brides?
  63. bms


    off topic but:
    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.....
  64. Lovely images, but fails dismally on every accessibility test I ran the site through. Employ a designer fluent with W3C/WIA guidelines.
  65. Lets see.
    Blown hightlights in many of the pictures.
    Contrast is whacked out.
    Color balance is all over the place.
    Depth of field and focus issues in many of the images.
    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.
    If this is what you intended you did well. I personally think the images all look over processed.
    Your site also resizes my browser window. That sucks.
    You are using music for which you have not provided credits which probably indicates you do not have the rights to use the music.
    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.
  66. 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.
    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.
    Nice job overall.
  67. (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.
    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.
  68. [[(for Colleen Donovan) I think you're confusing frank and constructive criticism with hostility]]
    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?
    Whomever you are paying for this work should be fired.
  69. 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.
  70. 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).
    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.
    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.
    Or maybe my perception is skewed and i'm charging way too little for my work.
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. It's pretty obvious the site is a Blu Domain template. So many photographers use them now they're easy to spot.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  74. 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).

    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.
  75. Christopher...I appreciate your warning and I understand your concern.
  76. <p>Betty - outstanding! That's really what I hope all photographers will do.<br /> <br /> The internet is both a wonderful and a frightening thing. It's wonderful that we can put up a website and show our work to the world. By the same token, it's frightening, because our choices and actions are suddenly under the World's microscope. <br /> <br /> It's like being a Presidential nominee - we might enter with the best of intentions but leave in disgrace if we haven't considered the ethical ramifications of our actions.
  77. On the positive side:
    Wow. Quite the impressive website. The shots are good and I hope your clients will stick with you. Good luck with the new price structure.
    On the opportunity side:
    Photographing a lot of musicians I would hope that I knew them well enough they simply sent me a letter asking me to not use their music, versus having their attorney call me to court. Especially if they found out how much I was getting for my services…using their music as a potential “Advertisement”, or worse yet an “Endorsement”. That could be quite costly. And your web designer could be liable as well. They took money to add the music to the site. Apparently most people (and I found I am one too) like to keep some form of control while surfing. Have the webpage go full screen and the music start automatically is off putting.
    I’m not saying you’re not worth the money. Only your clients can say that. What I am saying is you should get some business advice. Either an attorney or some other (not sure what your area has) business professional or company who helps out businesses with some of the basics of being in business as you seem to have a hand on the photo part.

    Good luck with everything!
  78. The music thing isn't just a Candice problem, she's a professional wedding photographer and brings us all into the problem. Do we really want the music industry to start going website by website to catch wedding photographers using unlicensed music? Can you imagine what the headlines would say about the wedding photography industry? And now, even those who don't use unlicesened music or who don't use music at all are now a part of the issue. So for those of you who do use music because you have "different feelings" about copyright, please think of the industry before thinking of just yourself.
    However, I just took a look at the Chanel logo and I would be much more worried about them coming after me then the music industry.
  79. Do we really want the music industry to start going website by website to catch wedding photographers using unlicensed music?
    Wow. I think we need to take a step back and look at this situation seriously. If you really think the music industry is going to start going "website by website" to target wedding photographers...oookay.
    I would suggest supporting artists who allow free downloads and use of their music because they care about the music, not that paycheck. And that's what I'm going to say about that.
  80. hehehe... I know photographers who go from website to website looking for stolen images.
    As for websites with lots of flash and music that expand to full-frame - photographers and web designers hate them but brides love them.
  81. The arrogance of Candice is surprising, nice shots and it all goes to the head. The comment by Colleen Donovan is disappointing, as it is clearly unacceptable to steal other peoples work. Both of them seem to think that thieving is okay, my mother taught me otherwise. Colleen, the posts above have nothing to do about a bad "attitude" - look it up in the dictionary. Oh well, the world contains all types of people. Strance Candice has suddenly gone quiet, come on Candie, please post a reply to all those who took the time and effort to contribute!
  82. Betty - Have you not been paying attention to what the music industry has already been doing? And now they are targeting the ISP's to help enforce their draconian world view. As far as going website by website, maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but not out of the realm of possibilities, you at least must admit that. And stealing is stealing, no matter the personal feelings. YES! Support those who give their music out for free, they need the exposure and some of them make damn fine music. This isn't a question of supporting free musicians, this is about doing what is right, for everyone.
    You have about 30 seconds to grab the attention of most people surfing the web, if your site is still loading music or a flash slideshow at about the 20 second mark, you are loosing potential clients, period.
    As far as pricing goes, she is doing the right thing. If your not raising the bar every 3 to 6 months, your doing your business a diservice. Her 5 digit package maybe her Wopper Package, designed to draw more attention to the middle packages she really needs/wants to sell. And who knows, maybe she just might actually sell some of the whopper packages because you can't sell what you don't have listed. Try it for yourselves right now, create a gigantic package that has everything in it including a day at the spa for the ladies and a round of golf for the gentlemen. Then price it high, really high, then start your selling with that package and work your way down, you might be surprised how many more of your current top packages you start selling.
  83. Let's remain constructive to the OP.
    I think the site, personally, was a bit of a mess. I use BluDomain too and have gotten good and bad feedback (bad being mostly from this site) but the bad you have to take, sometimes, with a grain of salt because as a previous poster said, it's the brides and grooms who are hiring you...not other photographers or web designers. Brides like my site, and I have no shortage of work. I think a little "clean up" on Candice's site would do her well..make it easier to follow and read. I do think that flash sites are the best way to show off your art, I think it's simply embracing the most updated technology.
    As far as the music issue, there are many artists (mostly independent artists) who offer their music for use to get their name out there. I suggest maybe contacting local, upstart artists who would love to have you use their music on your site.
    It's along the same lines of offering the rights to use your pictures for free to brides and grooms, like I do. I want my brides and grooms to use my images any way they choose. The more people who see the work the better. If it wasn't for the brides and grooms IN the pictures I wouldn't HAVE pictures, so I see them as their images, not mine. I've had brides cut and paste images from my blog to use and it doesn't bother me at all. I realize, however, that other people feel differently. BluDomain added a little "images owned by Type A Images" on my site but I pay no attention to it, honestly. I'm a small-time photographer...not Annie Liebovitz. I don't really worry about having my work "ripped off".
  84. As soon as your site took over my screen and started playing music, I killed it...so I didn't look at the photos. I never do business with someone that messes with my computer :) My wife is more forgiving...but she can't stand the slightest spelling mistake, so she would have never read your post to begin with. All in all, I think it needs a ton of work, good luck -jeffl
  85. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I would suggest supporting artists who allow free downloads and use of their music because they care about the music, not that paycheck.​
    So I assume you also support wedding photographers who give away photos and allow use anywhere because they care ab out photography, not that paycheck.

    That's going to go over very well here.
  86. Do we really want the music industry to start going website by website to catch wedding photographers using unlicensed music? Honestly? Wow. I think we need to take a step back and look at this situation seriously. If you really think the music industry is going to start going "website by website" to target wedding photographers...oookay.​
    Betty - The music industry has people that go restaurant to restaurant to make sure the piped in music is being paid for - why not websites?
    "I would suggest supporting artists who allow free downloads and use of their music because they care about the music, not that paycheck. And that's what I'm going to say about that."​
    Betty - I don't allow free downloads of my photography to other sites without my permission. I don't know why musicians should. I care about photography but that doesn't mean people can use my work to promote their businesses. I have to care also about a paycheck or I can't pursue my love of photography.
    I just got a check from a real estate company that lifted my images off my pn portfolio. I did a search on Rio Rico (because I'm moving there in a few years and like to look at the market) and low and behold, I found a huge real estate company out of Florida that is selling land in Rio Rico - AND they were using (without my permission) MY photos to sell property. Even though the shots they took were just snaps I made of my property and some houses I liked the style of - THE NERVE of them.
    What it means is - Rather than pay a photographer, or a stock agency for work - they just lifted my photos to promote thier effort to sell land.
    FUTHERMORE - the header photo and a few others that where on the home page and some of the other property pages were stunning and made the site look very professional.
    Problem is - I figured - if they stole mine - they probably stole someone from another photographer as well.
    Since I'm somewhat of a search guru... I did a search on "Arizona" hot air balloons (one of the photos on the site) and hit paydirt. Niebrugge Images out of Alaska - confirmed after I emailed them that all the photos were theirs and were not used with permission.
    Betty - Bottom line is - There are sites where you can pay a nominal fee for rights to use music. There are artists who will allow you to use their music for exposure providing you link to their site and give them credit. There are sites where businesses can use free or minimal pay photos. That would be ethical and right and lawful.
    Bbottom line -is that stealing music or photos without permission is against the law. We, as artists, should be the first ones to respect that. If our art/music was free for anyone to use without having to pay for it, we'd be out of business in short order.
  87. Generally good photography. Without knowing your local demographics or what those starting prices actually include not sure about your pricing. As others have pointed out forced full screen is a big big turn off. I find it very pretentious and presumptuous for a site to assume I want their site to fill up my entire screen. Typically those site I close and move on to another. Which is what I did with your site after looking at some of your images on your home page.
  88. PS - I'm dial up and your site is still not loaded. It's been about 20 min and I'm still waiting.
  89. Images look nice but I'd like to see a separate portfolio gallery and a way to navigate the photos without just having to watch the slideshow.
    If you are servicing high end clients, everything about your site should scream "high end photographer." Look at investing in a custom website instead of a template and having someone proof-read everything before you send it out for clients to see. Your logo also does not look "high end" I would consider just dropping the whole camera (with the "CC" in it) and using just the name part. It looks much more sophisticated and the camera thing cheapens it.
  90. Jeff- it probably won't go over well, but yes, I allow people to use pictures I take without causing a stink about use fees. But, I understand that's probably just me.
  91. I'm sorry, I must have missed that paycheck remark. Some of us use our photography to feed and clothe our family. Some of us are actually trying to run a profitable business that hopefully will stimulate the economy by our purchasing power and maybe, just maybe provide jobs to others because we need the help. I have nothing more to say about this because its obvious that there are photographers who just happen to have a business and business people who make their money from photography on here and the two really never see things the same way.
  92. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I allow people to use pictures I take without causing a stink about use fees. But, I understand that's probably just me.​
    And you would happily allow them to use your photos to advertise their services, whatever they might be? Polygram can put your photographs on their CDs and you're just fine? That's quite generous.
    I have nothing more to say about this because its obvious that there are photographers who just happen to have a business and business people who make their money from photography on here and the two really never see things the same way.​
    Actually, plenty of them do. Watch on these forums as people go beserk when someone uses their photos on a website, even if it's not marketing anything. Then they take music without a license and put it on their site.

    BTW, there is some confusion here about the music industry and downloading of songs, which mostly has to do with RIAA programs, and licensing of music for usage. These are not the same thing.
  93. with borrowed music and a borrowed logo it makes the viewer wonder what else is borrowed :))
  94. And you would happily allow them to use your photos to advertise their services, whatever they might be?
    Have and would. I understand it isn't the norm, but if I take a picture of someone at their wedding, or of someone's child, and they choose to release that picture for use to advertise something that's fine by me. They've paid me to take their picture. What they choose to do with that image is up to them.
  95. Polygram can put your photographs on their CDs and you're just fine? That's quite generous.
    If someone felt my work was good enough to put on a CD I would be totally flattered!!!!
  96. with borrowed music and a borrowed logo it makes the viewer wonder what else is borrowed :))​
    thats what i was wondering
  97. Candice, Here are a few suggestions:
    Rework your logo - it does look very familiar (Chanel) - a lot can be done with two c's so you shouldn't have much trouble getting something unique and fresh.
    Always spell and error check your site. First impressions are priceless.
    Is there really a need for a full screen pop-up? I use a 30" cinema Mac display and I can't stand it when a site automatically opens a page in full screen mode.
    Getting an ASCAP Internet Music License is a piece of cake: check out www.ascap.com for more info. You can download the appropriate forms for your specific business and then pay the fee - then you're covered.
    With your photographic style, and the right web-developer, you could have one of the most sought after websites in Southern California. I wish you the best of luck!
  98. As far as the website goes, I think your photographs are beautiful. Although I could never afford your services, I get the sense that there is something more to what you offer than the usual wedding photographer. As a matter of fact, I could imagine being back at the stage of looking for a wedding photographer and being willing to stretch or change our budget because your work is so good. I agree with many of the other comments, particularly about your underwear sticking out in the about me section. For "10 diget" customers you might want to look more professional.
    Finally, I think your attitude sucks and is quite off-putting. Admonishing people to only comment on what you assigned them and getting snippy when they stray is rude. Don't let your online personality detract from the incredible work you do.
  99. Congratulations at penetrating the affluent market :)
    Care to tell us how you did it?
  100. The opening page is what I call a "mystery site." There's no clear link that says "click here" for various types of content.
    The technical notices at the bottom are nerd speak. If those things are necessary to make your site work, consider getting rid of the technology that requires it. My own sites are pure html and nothing else.
    So-called professionals are likely to load your site with technologies that are costly to maintain.
  101. Certainly, in this very August group of P-Netters, we all know that "Asking" a price is very different than "Getting" the price. We can "Ask" for anything...
  102. I look at websites on the go, so if there's mo plain HTML site then it's a turn off right there, because I can't view it on like a iPhone. There's a photographer Viktor Zerga from WA, that has just as good pictures (and better in my opinion) and his prices only around $2,000.00 and up. With travel and all, it would still be cheeper to hire him for instance that to pay $10,000.00. And it could be the same with other photographer, not just Viktor; I just used him as an example. All I can say is good luck.
    I think everyone should calm down a bit.

    Candice does very nice work. She is one of those newcomers that has had some great success in a short 4 year period. Clearly one of those that had some raw talent. I believe we helped her with her first wedding in 2004. We should all be very civil with regard to making suggestions about her site. They are, in my opinion valid suggestions.. The suggestion that she make sure she has rights to the music is an important one.

    But, may I ask that you all please be civilly constructive ;-) Saying things like "so-called professionals", or deriding her for her spelling in a mean spirited or sarcastic way is not necessary. Or, making insuations like: "with borrowed music and a borrowed logo it makes the viewer wonder what else is borrowed :))" is just uncalled for.

    I think we can all find ways to make suggestions/critiques without ripping someone apart.

    The music copyright issue is not an opinion as Betty would offer.. It's a legal issue that should be respected. I think we've addressed that subject enough here.
  104. To clarify, I wasn't saying it's my "opinion" that people should just go out and steal music. It is my opinion that people should seek out artists who offer their music for use and go through those channels. I hope that makes sense. I'm aware that laws are not a matter of opinion! : )

    Chris Witcomb said:

    "If I'm not mistaken, it happens from time to time, the website is a ShowIt Site from David Jay. He has deals from bands and labels so that photographers can use their songs on the sites and ShowIt Web slideshows."

    So - I'm hoping Candice can clear that up. Perhaps Chris is correct.
  106. All politics of this thread aside, your images are absolutely superb and very classy. Very emotion filled!
  107. Yep I read it but the site she is using is called "George" and is from Blu Domain......I have the exact template.. although it never went live. I'm keeping it for another idea down the road. Where oh where did Candice go? Thank you all for amusing me during my long editing days in the office.
    Chris Witcomb said:
    "If I'm not mistaken, it happens from time to time, the website is a ShowIt Site from David Jay. He has deals from bands and labels so that photographers can use their songs on the sites and ShowIt Web slideshows."
    So - I'm hoping Candice can clear that up. Perhaps Chris is correct.​
  108. I like your photographs. The site seems plenty nice. I don't much care what others are arguing about (it is just photo.net). When I shopped for my wedding photographer I was busy looking at the photos. Unless the site design is bad (and that is not the case here) my focus was on the photos.
  109. Thanks Mark... Good to know
  110. Mark M - "It is just photo.net" I don't know if that comment of yours came out exactly as you intended...I mean, this IS P-NET! That's a phrase you can use on another forum with more success ;-)

    The discussion did get sidetracked with the focus taken away from the pictures themselves. IMO, Candice is positioning herself as a top-rank photographer (visa vi' pricing). I don't see that working with many of the images she has on the site. Many are quite nice, but there are also a lot of heavily clipped highlights (over exposure problems), most of the color pictures show a poor WB - many B&W's on the site which eliminate the WB problems, but the WB issue remains. There is a lack of dynamic range due to extensive PS H/S adjustments (also tell-tale algorithm "noise" in the black of tuxes), etc. In short, many images show skillful Photoshopping but tell-tale signs that the original image was not so great.

    A top end wedding photographer should demonstrate excellent technical mastery IMO. Candice' site does that for relatively few images. While there are no hard and fast rules about "style" in wedding photography - and some people even like the overexposed, ltd dynamic range look - the site images of a top wedding photographer shouldn't make anyone wonder if the shooter has a good grasp of technical issues (exposure, lighting, general capture techniques). I don't look at Candice' site and come away convinced of that. Just my opinion. And also, a top-end shooter should have clear evidence (website pics) of high-end venues on their site, and I don't see much of that. IMO, the site is about a photographer with moderate experience and high expectations. But then, I only had 2 weddings in '08 that booked over $15K so that doesn't put me in the high end (very often, at least) crowd either.
  111. Btw - both of my '08 high-end weddings were "off the menu" special requests. One in L.A., one in Orange County.
  112. Duck!!!
    This has been a fricking bloodbath.
  113. Certainly, in this very August group of P-Netters, we all know that "Asking" a price is very different than "Getting" the price. We can "Ask" for anything...​

    You have not because you ask not. Stop thinking so small.
  114. Good point Thomas. I agree. After following this discussion and coupled with a few requests I've had, I'm rethinking my price structure now...and a beret...don't high-end photographers need to wear a beret or is it a fedora?
  115. it's irritatingly slow to load. i didn't get past picture #4. but what i saw looked decent. good luck with 5 figures.
  116. rethinking my price structure now...and a beret...don't high-end photographers need to wear a beret or is it a fedora?​
    Nope....it's a bucket :) ....wear a bucket and you'll have something to throw up in.
  117. Candice, Your photos are beautiful. There is so much criticism about flash sites with music that you would think it was not good practice to use flash and music. Out of curiosity, I looked at each photographer's site on this list:
    Most were Flash. But only one played music when opening the site.
    It was interesting to me how large the images were being presented -- like yours.
    Each of these sites is beautifully orchestrated, whether static html or flash driven. I'm sure when yours is done and all of the kinks are worked out, it will reflect your five figure asking price :)
    Please, make sure you get a license for your music, if you still want to use it. Another place to find good music to license is triplescoopmusic.com, oh, and readbeardmusic.com
    Wishing you well,
    Jo Ann
  118. Coming to the party very, very late...hehehe.
    The wikipedia entry for Chanel has a section about the Chanel logo and counterfeiting. Seems they are aggressively going after people who use the Chanel logo on counterfeit goods. It also talks about when the double C was first trademarked, etc.
    Also, I couldn't get past the site opener, because it insists I allow pop ups, which I wouldn't do for the queen herself. I don't care for the two pictures on that page, though, looks like the timing was off a little on both.
  119. what are "digets"?
  120. This thread makes me wonder if the real Candice Cunningham had her computer hacked, and someone's having "fun" with her passwords, vandalizing her web site and posting stuff as her to photo.net.
  121. David - I was wondering if she's still part of the conversation. And the English appears to be a second language. We may have been punked?
    Still, I think there's been a fairly decent exchange of info, ideas, and opinions...
  122. I watched quite a bit of the slide show, too long, images are nice. Hope you get the price you are asking and have many people asking and paying.
  123. Jennifer, I think 5 widgets equal 1 diget. Not sure though.
  124. Candace lives in Ventura County, California.
    There's a lot of money there- TV and movie stars building houses up the coast to Santa Barbara, where a lot of rich people have houses.
    Some of those people will spend 5 figures without blinking, even if it's not a destination wedding.
    Photographers need to pay less attention to their package prices and more attention to their customers' ability to pay. Some have $1,000, some $40,000.
    Don't leave money laying on the table.
  125. You need to hire a copy writer for your marketing materials. The number of typos and misspellings is very unprofessional and really detracts from your "branding" efforts.
  126. MODERATOR NOTE: To clear any confusion for those returning to this thread.
    1) closed the thread because things got a little contentious
    2) Some seem confused because the name has changed and does not match with the website.
    Candice requested a name change through the photo.net system to Everton.
    Initially it was Candice Everton. Then seeing the link was someone who already had an account on here, the accounts were merged. It was confirmed that it was the same person because the emails and passwords were exactly the same on both accounts as was the IP. The thred was merged into her business name as it was the account with the most posts and images. Now she prefers to remain anonymous and asked for a name change to Everton which is her legal name.

Share This Page