Raised price to 5 digets today. RE website

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>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?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

[bms]

<p>Inspiring images! Beautiful!<br /> OK, I am just going to take a shot, by no means am I an expert:<br /> What Natalie said about the lake.<br /> 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.<br /> The couple sitting on the stairs, the leg with the stocking really sticks out. A very interesting shot.<br /> There is a shot of a couple in front of a house, he is lifting her leg... not the most flattering, IMHO.<br /> There are two shots of (I think the same couple) against a glass facade - maybe drop the first one?<br /> The "almost" naked dancer - butt is right in the center - crop to the right of it? :)</p>

<p> </p>

[nishnishant]

<p>A slideshow of images without navigation buttons or thumbnails is kinda annoying. There should be a way to skip ahead or go back.</p>

<p>Also websites that popup a window are not considered appealing these days.</p>

<p>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) :-)</p>

[bms]

<p>Chris, I think you have a very valid point, this topic has been much discussed..... however, in these posts, I would give people the <strong>benefit of the doub</strong> 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...</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>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.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>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 <a href="https://secure.gettyimages.com/Music/PumpAudio?esource=googMusic_Licensing&country=usa&kw=pump+stock_music">Getty Images</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>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...</p>

[ronny1]

<p>Candice, I would suggest to make the logo of the company smaller. IMO It goes to much over the images.<br>

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)</p>

 

[sherijohnson]

<p>the images are great</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Ok - so no one else thinks the lack of navigation (in the slides) is an issue? Damn! :-)</p>

[ronny1]

<p>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.</p>

<p>BTW I will go live with my new website in couple of days, and I will really need your help guys!</p>

[danaher_dempsey__jr.]

<p>Spelling on your prices page: "including" rather than includeing. Probably the editor will catch it.<br>

Very nice an impressive site.</p>

[ronny1]

<p>Oops .... <em>stricter</em> instead of striker.<br /> English is not my mother tongue & and it's late here ...but I'm doing my best.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Christopher...how do you know she doesn't personally know the artist?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> This is especially appalling given that the artist is an "indie" artist, without major label backing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p >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) :-)</p>

<br />

</blockquote>

<br />

In California $10,000 is relative chump change when standard 900 square foot condos can sell for $550,000.

 

 

</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>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.</p>

<p>a) Your images are stunning. Nothing more needs to be said, you know how to handle a camera.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. <br>

<br>

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!" </p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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:<br>

<title>candice cunningham, Ventura county wedding photography leader, Hawaii destination wedding photographer</title><br>

It should look something more like this: <title>Candice Cunningham Photography - Ventura County, Malibu, and Hawaii destination wedding photography</title><br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I hope you'll find all this helpful and not offensive. Good luck.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>While there are many strong images there, the use of textured overlays is a fad, which will probably pass with the wind.<br>

I would put more like your landing page.</p>

<p> </p>

[ejder]

<p>How interesting. Considering your pricing:work ratio, I think I should charge more than I do.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Amazing, people think copyright violation and theft of creative works is just fine. How much do you value your own work?</p>

[joshroot]

<p>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.</p>

[htarragon]

<p>Candie,<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Google your name Candie. The first thing that comes up is <img src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Owner/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /> your Photonet listing. When you click on that you get a repeating list of</p>

<h1>Raised price to 5 digets today. RE website</h1>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Correct the errors and do good work<br>

Howard</p>

[joshroot]

<p>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.</p>

[icog]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Lionel</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>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".</p>