DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> My new site
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 44 of 44, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/30/2004 01:07:27 AM · #26
Originally posted by EddyG:
A wise person would definitely buy your "Just the Facts I" package instead of your A la Carte 3-5 hours of wedding coverage.

I don't know too many wedding photographers who "give away" their negatives, especially at such a low price. Since the local Sam's Club/Wal-Mart will print 8x10's for $1.79, somebody could print up 200 8x10's for $358. Add in your $180 charge for the "Just the Facts I" coverage and the total cost to the bride & groom is only $538. That is a bargain for 7 hours of photographer coverage, digital negatives to make slideshows, screen savers, web pages, prints, etc. and 200 8x10 prints... kind makes the rest of your packages look over-priced. =] Just something to think about... offering low-res images (I'd call them "email friendly" or "web friendly") is one thing, but offering digital negatives seems risky.


My Just the Facts images don't get edited. If someone buys just 3-5 hours, I'll edit the best and put them on dpcprints for them, as well. :) Just the Facts, I work a few hours, get some money, and walk away from the wedding. As I said above, I'm going to revisit my pricing soon, so I'll look at that part as well. I want the prices to make sense.

Thx!!

M
 07/06/2004 11:12:18 AM · #27
I changed a lot of the text and removed the rant. I have fixed a few minor errors and am trying to incorporate more suggestions from here in the next 3 days. :)

Photography is THE easiest part of a photo business.

M
 10/21/2004 11:06:53 PM · #28
//www.pictureinfinity.com

Can you guys check out the new look.

It's QUITE different. :D

And yes, I think I spent another 7 hours on it (in the last 2 days). *laughing* At least....

:)

Thanks!!

M

PS. I know the "coverage" page isn't working yet.
PPS. Folio is also a work in progress.

Message edited by author 2004-10-21 23:08:29.
 10/21/2004 11:19:04 PM · #29
I'm guessing you are using images as your navigation bar? The background white looks different to the website white and there seems to be low compression artifact/jaggies. Otherwise I'm guessing you're trying to go for a handwritten scraps of paper thing, but that doesnt really go with the rest of the site's fonts.

You said you're working on the portfolios, but what I feel with those are the different sized images make it feel very haphazard and thrown together. The small images are lost next to the big ones and they are not clickable and so your viewing of them is limited.
10/22/2004 03:00:31 AM · #30
I generally don't go very in depth with these sort of requests because I don't want it to come across the wrong way but because I am mk and you are mav and you know I mean well and I know you can take it, here's my list of feedback and personal opinions, which you can take or leave as you wish.

1. I know we've discussed this before but you've got to ditch the free hosting. If you want to put across a professional front, the first thing I want to see on your site is not "I don't make enough money to pay for real hosting." Affordable hosting is extremely easy to come by. Hook it up.

2. The blue of the title logo feels a bit harsh. It also reminds me of the default link color. Maybe something a little softer would be more wedding appropriate?

3. Ditto what Moody said on both the link graphics and the portfolio photos. I'd also suggest a 1 pixel border for the photos.

4. Times New Roman is generally considered among graphic designers to be an unprofessional font choice for websites. Arial, Verdana, Trebuchet MS, etc. are all pretty popular ones.

Hope that helps!
 10/22/2004 08:04:05 AM · #31
All that helps muchly both of you. :) I am gonna keep working on it. :) I'll definitely look into all of this - the free hosting ... well they want 120 all at once and I have just bought the 10D, so .... lol We'll see when I can take care of that, even tho I agree.

Thanks, I'll post when I've changed it.

M
 10/22/2004 08:45:56 AM · #32
I notice you menu text images are JPG, mav. You should use GIF as I see you have obvious jpeg artifacts in the ones you have. Also GIFs will likely be smaller.
 10/22/2004 10:59:51 AM · #33
Sent you long ass email with everything I have to say (27k of stuff, man I can crap on haha).

Will say here though, just keep it up. You have done a tremendous job and I am extremely proud of you.

I do love the layout changes and the brochure. The front page is fantastic. It looks 10 x better than it did before. Also looks far more professional.

I want to see some architectural photos in your portfolio though since you do specifically mention doing that in your pricing (yes I know the portfolio is a work in progress lol).

Even add some of the shots of karen (with her permission of course) to the portraits because they are pretty good model shots :) Not just the usualy portrait of face close ups.

I guess just put in lots of examples of the various types of photography that you do :)

Oh I wanna see the ‘moo cow’ photo in there too ;) I tell ya if that doesn't get people calling you, I don't know what will haha

moo

Message edited by author 2004-10-22 20:44:02.
 10/22/2004 11:22:46 AM · #34
Originally posted by mavrik:
//www.pictureinfinity.com

It's getting there. :) I know it's not done and I know there are things a) missing, b) broken and c) a bit on the "huh?" side, but I just did about 7 hours of work on my site, so I want to show it off. (5 of those hours were on the g'd calendar if any html geniuses were saying "wtf did he spend 7 hours on this for!??!")

Thanks!

Mav


Sent you a PM.
 10/23/2004 01:11:25 AM · #35
Originally posted by moodville:
I'm guessing you are using images as your navigation bar? The background white looks different to the website white and there seems to be low compression artifact/jaggies.

Yes, they are the navigation bar. I fixed the jaggies and used gif format for them this time. I have a laptop and they looked fine. I brightened them up, fixed them and should look better.

Originally posted by moodville:
You said you're working on the portfolios, but what I feel with those are the different sized images make it feel very haphazard and thrown together. The small images are lost next to the big ones and they are not clickable and so your viewing of them is limited.

Fixed by shrinking the huge images down - they're all about the same size, which will have to work until I actually do the folio site. :)

Originally posted by PaulMDX:
I notice you menu text images are JPG, mav. You should use GIF as I see you have obvious jpeg artifacts in the ones you have. Also GIFs will likely be smaller.

Fixed - much smaller, faster loading. I love it. Thanks.

Originally posted by mk:
1. I know we've discussed this before but you've got to ditch the free hosting. If you want to put across a professional front, the first thing I want to see on your site is not "I don't make enough money to pay for real hosting." Affordable hosting is extremely easy to come by. Hook it up.

I did the best thing I could - if you check it out now, you'll see that it avoids the banner except on the main index site. All the rest have no banner now. At least non you can see without scrolling. Best we can do for now, but I agree on this point.

Originally posted by mk:
2. The blue of the title logo feels a bit harsh. It also reminds me of the default link color. Maybe something a little softer would be more wedding appropriate?

Actually we disagree on this one, but that's ok. :) I do know what you're saying - but so far we like the red/white/blue scheme and we're going to run with that. It's too far ingrained until we do a MASSIVE update to take it off brochures, business cards, forms, site, etc... Plus, my marketing director likes it. :) But opinion noted. KTHX.

Originally posted by mk:
3. Ditto what Moody said on both the link graphics and the portfolio photos. I'd also suggest a 1 pixel border for the photos.

Border on the folio images? Yeah, I was actually thinking of a 10px black border. I like a photographer: //www.beginwithagrin.com and she uses a black border. I like it and may take up her example.

Originally posted by mk:
4. Times New Roman is generally considered among graphic designers to be an unprofessional font choice for websites. Arial, Verdana, Trebuchet MS, etc. are all pretty popular ones.

I wouldn't mind changing this. I was actually thinking of (later) controlling all the links/text with css, but I've never used it. I'm not sure if it would be easier just to code into each page or CSS the whole dang thing. :)

Thanks for the ideas and suggestions - I'm still working on the site, but incorporated and changed those noted above. Anything else and I'm all ears. :D

Thanks!

M


10/23/2004 01:23:01 AM · #36
Its awsome :) Liove the new link buttons and I love the new reference points to skip the ads. OK I am bias to that one haha It does look superve though :)

Where is my moo cow? :p jk
 10/23/2004 01:36:02 AM · #37
Better and better. Still some line break issues when viewed on a big monitor (1600 x 1200).
 10/23/2004 01:37:16 AM · #38
Not sure exactly how to fix those. I can't preview on that size.
 10/23/2004 02:12:50 AM · #39
@mk - do you have any idea why the #top thing only works the second time you visit each page, but the #architecture one works for the pricing page every time?
10/23/2004 02:15:25 AM · #40
I think that since this site is for a business you might want to see about removing the ad banners on the top of the page, it takes away from being professional. I would even move the hosting if you can't remove the ads
 10/23/2004 07:30:06 AM · #41
Originally posted by mavrik:
@mk - do you have any idea why the #top thing only works the second time you visit each page, but the #architecture one works for the pricing page every time?


M does it make a difference that on the links for the tops of every page you gave the full url writen as: //www.pictureinfinity.com/index.html#top

while for the other page you have it written as only: "pricing.html#architecture

OK that sounds kind of stupid but maybe thats the reason its different. Even though you have the reference point, its reading the pi.com url first. It might be just confused lol

Just an idea and well you are smarter than me (well I let you think so anyway lol) so I could be wrong lol But try it anyway :) Its working for one so don't mess with that formular lol

I am very keen for you to fix this, because the idea was just so fantastic haha Nah I just wanna help you get it right :)
 10/23/2004 08:20:55 AM · #42
Originally posted by mavrik:
I wouldn't mind changing this. I was actually thinking of (later) controlling all the links/text with css, but I've never used it. I'm not sure if it would be easier just to code into each page or CSS the whole dang thing. :)


I would recommend you use CSS. You set up the layout within one file and if you then ever need to change something you just change that one file. Color scheme, layout, fonts, title header, everything. It also helps in keeping the whole site uniformly 'together'.
 10/23/2004 02:49:32 PM · #43
Originally posted by mavrik:
Not sure exactly how to fix those. I can't preview on that size.


For any commercial site, testing is incredibly important. How will it look and behave at various monitor sizes (640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, 1600 x 1200), in various browsers (Internet Explorer, AOL's browser, Netscape, Opera, ...). It's your brand and your image you want to create, but I'd really encourage you to find a way to do some testing along these lines.

CSS is a good idea.

And check out some sites that are hit a lot, like cnn, msn and such to see how they have dealt with all this.

Hope that helps.
 10/23/2004 03:00:20 PM · #44
Originally posted by mavrik:
@mk - do you have any idea why the #top thing only works the second time you visit each page, but the #architecture one works for the pricing page every time?


It worked for me on the first try, maybe you had old versions in your cache or something?

And yes, I'd second (or third, or whatever) the vote for css. It makes things much easier in the long run. And it's fun!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 06:10:21 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/08/2025 06:10:21 AM EDT.