is my color off?

[kai_jones]

i recently switched from pc to mac... i am LOVING my mac btw! but anyway, i made

a little website to start off with, its cozyphoto.com. i played with my color on

photoshop and lightroom and thought i had made it more colorful and vibrant..

but i just looked at it w/ my pc and it looks very dark! which is the true

color? i am guessing mac, but is everyone with a pc seeing my website portfolio

very dark? also, i would love some feedback on my website to make it better.

thank you in advance to everyone who replies...

[mendonphoto]

I can't see your site - just advertisements from godaddy.com. Perhaps you haven't set up your DNS.

 

You should calibrate your monitor(s). That will tell you if your colors are correct or not. But, you should also know that most people that view your site will not be using a calibrated monitor.

[jacopo_brembati]

Images are small, but not dark.

 

Jacopo

[ellis_vener_photography]

All I get is the godaddy.com " this page is parked ad page.

 

photos for your website should be in the sRGB color space. it maybe that you have your display set at a very bright level. Most people have their displays set too bright. As Aaron points out , if you are doing this to make money you need to calibrate and profile your display. Even if someone else's display is funky you'll know yours is not

[ellis_vener_photography]

I got to work on the third attempt. The right link is http://www.cozyphoto.com

 

My advice?

 

Yo ureally need to work on some things: the presentqtion is to oscatter shot, you need to learn where to focus in a portrait and your digital darkroom skills need a lot of work; colo, tonality, and simple retouching.

 

The good news is that you have a lot of good basic photos to work with and a dynamic style. But it is buried under the mess.

[g_w2]

i disagree with ellis vener. i think the pics are very nice. if you like them, that is what

counts. i believe appreciation of photography is very subjective. it's a matter of personal

taste.

 

by the way, i viewed the pics on a mac. - gw.

[keith_clementson]

If anything else, learn what your images should look like on your Mac once they look right on

a PC. As far as site layout is concerned, yours may be just fine for your target clientelle. A

wee bit of spicing up wouldn't hurt. I think your overall style and artisitic sensibilities are

spot on for childrens' portraits. When adding steroids to your color, avoid a total-image

color shift. Instead, localize saturations.

[martijn_houtman]

Look fine to me, even on my Macbook Pro screen. One thing though: I find the images lack

sharpness. Personally, I think images for on-screen display look better when they are

sharpened up a tad bit more (than, say, for print).

[the black rabbit]

[i believe appreciation of photography is very subjective] g w...if you work as professional photographer then to apply this statement is potential suicide! I agree that 'Appreciation of *...*' is subjective, but when you are providing a product there are certain aspects which need to be addressed,such as knowledge of photography and your target audience [the people who will pay you money!], composition, lighting, depth of field, when to use blur or when not, how to get the subject in focus...so-on so-on...the list is endless, but i'm afraid Ellis is 100% correct. It is important to have a style, but you have to have a grasp of what is happening and why...and can't just take things hap hazardly and hope for the best. You can be lucky and get the shots but ultimately you will get exposed and as a professional with a product to sell...you cannot be losing customers because your style is subjective! You could be a fine art photographer etal no problem...but not a social photographer. You won't make very much money if you think it's a matter of personal taste! You need to be trying to maximise your potential, and that means appealing to a wider audience. If g w likes them you got a customer...however you have lost me and Ellis as possible customers. 1 in the door...2 walk away...that's not good business sense!

 

No disrespect to Kim what-so-ever...I think you have some nice work on there but I do totally agree with Ellis in terms of what you have on show, and how some of the images look to have basic problems...or should I say need improving [in terms of the image, camera/post production settings, lighting...and not in terms of composition, although your depth of field seems strange on some of the group portraits].

 

But in terms of your original question the colours look fine on my screen.

[the black rabbit]

...7581901.jpg . boy on the swing is an example of a perfectly executed photo...with great style, emotion, and the correct sharpness. It isn't subjective...and appeals to the greater audience...becuase every box is ticked. You could say you don't really like it but you can't say it is technically weak, because it is technically and photographically beautiful! You will get customers with this shot.

 

However the pic of the 3 [baby, boy in green and boy in blue] is an example of just taking a snap...wrong depth of field, bad composition, noisy and the tonal range/colour is way off! You may lose customers because of this shot, why? because...

 

This is nothing to do with me being subjective...I am pointing out the problems inherent in the task of producing photographs, it might work for some, but technically it isn't correct...and doesn't for this one. If you are using a shallow depth of field then get the other 2 to look at the baby and focus on the baby...etc. It seems that you needed to get a pic of all of them and didn't have enough light...thus used a high iso, lowest shutter possible and smallest depth of field and just hoped it would work. Except the focus should be on all of them really.

 

It has nothing to do with subjectivity...but everything to do with technique.

Anyway, you have great potential with these and a great future...but just improve a little on the technique and your 'product' will sky-rocket.

[g_w2]

i am a professional photographer who shoots regularly for major magazines, advertising

clients, movie studios, television networks,etc. i have pics in the permanent collection of

moma. i believe many folks concentrate too much on technique and take lousy pics.

 

martin's contribution seems to support my statement about appreciation being subjective,

rather than negating it.

 

"and so it goes". - gw.

[keith_clementson]

Kim, I think this guy's portraiture - and his mastery of digital processing - has really got it

going on:

 

http://www.adamfriedberg.com/

 

But you have a good thing, too! A little technical polish and you're going to get plenty of

work.

[Spearhead]

How come all the "professionals" don't have last names or web links to their galleries?

[g_w2]

keith - i agree. i really like adam friedberg's work. his style is very different to kim's style. -

gw

[kai_jones]

thank you all for your comments & constructive critiques.. i really appreciate it. i am going to weed through all the photos tomorrow & only use the best ones. i have another question... why on some sites you do not have to use www, but for mine you have to in order for it to work?

[michael_darnton1]

Kim, I'd take a good look at the thumbnail bar on your presentation. The ones that don't work big because they're too dark work even less well when they're small, and jump right out.

[Brad_]

>>> i have pics in the permanent collection of moma.

 

OK, you've piqued my curiosity. How about a name and some links - would like to see your

work.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

g w, states he/she is a bang up pro photographer, but doesn't have a link to his work or a

PN gallery. Not one pic to back up his claim. And he's been a PN member for about 4

years.

 

What's up with that?

[the black rabbit]

"martin's contribution seems to support my statement about appreciation being subjective, rather than negating it."

 

No...I think if you read what I wrote [in English] I do actually disagree with your statement! Thus I do negate :)

 

In gw's defense he/she doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. However, what does 'i have pics in the permanent collection of moma' mean? I don't care if you held hands with the picture editor of the National Geographic for 25 years...I still don't agree with your assumption that Kim should not improve her technique in order to improve her sales in her portrait business. Maybe being the CEO of a major photography advertising company, and have pics in moma, can give you the chance to create subjective work that people who wear armani and drive Hummers can pay $20,000 for...but when you are charging $200 for your work you need to maximise and become objective...or you'll sink, and the only place you'll have a 'permanent collection' is up in the loft, card board box marked: 'subjective photography'.

 

I'm not trying to preach, i'm trying to explain that technical ability is important, especially when you are in business. Knowing how to improve your work and how to get the best out of a situation is imperative...and when folks create subjective work they are also demonstrating an ability of the technical side to their craft.

 

...and you don't need to have your second name....or a website to show work on PN to be a pro tog! Surely you can't be suggesting that unless these requirements are fulfilled you would dismiss the advice from such people as myself...or g.w? Being a professional photographer means you earn a living from photography, and more importantly as you will know Tim, you can offer advice to help people, and get advice from others to help ourselves, thus we use these forums. That's what's up with that ;)

[Spearhead]

The point is that anyone with a library card can post on the internet. People should know they are getting advice from someone who knows what they are talking about. When someone is talking about technique, there's a very simple way to validate that.

 

There's no good reason for someone to have no last name and no pointers to anything that would justify their claims about being a "pro."

[Brad_]

>>> Surely you can't be suggesting that unless these requirements are fulfilled you would

dismiss the advice from such people as myself...or g.w?

 

Well, that's how I feel as well - too much bs on the net. Talk is cheap. I choose to be picky -

a body of work is easy to post and it helps me assess the validity of what's being said.

[wogears]

<i>and you don't need to have your second name....or a website to show work on PN to be a pro tog! </i><p>

 

If you claim to be in the permanent collection at MOMA, then you can surely post a half dozen outtakes that will blow us all away. You would also have gallery representation and an online presence of SOME kind to show for it.

[._._z]

"The point is that anyone with a library card can post on the internet."

 

Damn libraries.

[the black rabbit]

You have valid points...but I only state I'm a porfessional photographer because that's what I am! And yes i also have a library card :)

 

However, I have an online presence, and have a working presence, perhaps there are legal issues to why I cannot post my work...but also I am not professing to have work hanging in a gallery.

 

I don't need to prove my worth by posting my photos on here, I have enough knowledge and experience, which is either accepted or not. The choice is yours, not mine...as I already know the stuff I talk about :) and as not to sound arrogant...I too listen to the advice of others on here and in the photographic world [without seeing a single image].

 

What would you like to know Brad...Jeff? Les I can't show you anything from any gallery i'm afraid :) HAVE any of the points I have mentioned on PN appear to come from some 13 year old in a library?

 

'People should know they are getting advice from someone who knows what they are talking about. When someone is talking about technique, there's a very simple way to validate that. '...yes by knowing what they are talking about!

 

'too much bs on the net. Talk is cheap. I choose to be picky'...Brad, you and Jeff are obviously friends judging from your websites. I looked at both your websites and have seen no indication of wether or not you know about the zone system? or exposure? or lighting techniques? or knowing what a grad filter does...or the sunny 16 rule...or rules of composition...or how to run a business...or how to use bounce flash...or what reciprocity is...or yawn yawn yawn...my point is this, I f you held a discussion with me on anything to do with photography, something I know about or don't know about then I would listen and make the assumptions from the info you provided. Your websites show me nothing other than that you can take great pictures. Yes, i agree it demonstrates you are a photographer. But so does giving other people relevant advice. And i could quite easily dismiss what you were to say because you only photograph a certain way. Every lecture I ever had was with someone who never once showed me their work...however here I am earning money and advising others on photography.

 

So, yes I do have a web presence and a second name :) but at the moment I choose to keep them private, as it is my wish to give advice, not prove who I am, or advertise the fact of my abilities. However, maybe I should put some pictures and more info about myself...then perhaps I wouldn't get into so many arguments on PN :)

 

Plus, Kim has, I guessed taken what I said and interpretted it in a constructive way...and she doesn't know me. 'thank you all for your comments & constructive critiques.. i really appreciate it. i am going to weed through all the photos tomorrow & only use the best ones.'

 

Anyway...i'm off to get my mum to join PN and she'll tell you all how good a photographer I am :)

[r_johnston]

Opinions, are just that, opinions.

Most of the time a combination of people may render better advice than from a single person. Take what you like, ignore the rest. The recommendation of Fiedberg for portraits of Babies or Young Children I'd take with a spoonful of salt.

 

Your photos of babies come much closer to what a MOM is looking for in photos of her children. Mothers want close up pictures with typical expressions of _their_ children. Most MOMs do not even know what a technically excellent photo is, but if you do not capture their childs expression or personality, they will not buy it.

 

Learn Photoshop.CS, many of these could be as technically correct as needed, with a few corrections. Ive restored over 300 family photos going back to the civil war tintypes, glass negatives, etc. Many that you would not believe had any image they were so dark or so light.

 

After photographing thousands of children a year, for over 30 years, you have some good, creative ideas. Expand upon them, get the experience by handling lots of children, you can be as technically excellent as you desire in a short time. If you can find a book by Schneider on Children's Photography, it can help.

 

No matter how TECHNICAL capable a person is, if they do not capture the personality of a child, MOM will just not buy it. Technical ability is a lot easier to come by, anyone can learn it. Getting photo's of small babies, that so MOM wants a copy of every one, and extras for all family members is more difficult. Generally if it takes you more than one to three minutes for a session, you do not get the best.

 

For some help in the technical, you can read it in the Digital Darkroom on Photo.net. For some ideas working with children, check this link. http://daddytypes.com/2007/04/13/harvey_kurtzman_josef_schneider_and_the_art_of_child_photography.php

 

 

Josef Schneider's books helped me make more than any other Photographer of the dozen who worked out of our studio in Boston. We went to homes all over New England to photograph children. The sales staff used to argue over who would get to show my proof, as they made double or triple the commission on these orders. The best pictures we got of children, were in their own home where they felt comfortable.

 

But, never had to use "candy" to get the shot. I'd take a dozen pictures in a sitting, and have them in less than 3 minutes. Mostly by sending the mother out of the room to get something for me, so she would not interfere. Had some tricks that worked better. Like asking them if they knew my name, when they said no, "Its Peanut Butter." They would laugh, then the smile would come. Sometimes Id tell them my Wife is "Jelly."