Advice on making a name for yourself as a landscape photographer
Kieran Simkin
I'm just looking for your ideas on how to get established as a landscape
photographer. My background is in web development and marketing and I
think I've done a pretty successful job of setting up a website and
getting it seen by people, as a result I was contacted by my local TV
news who wanted to interview me about one of my projects. I've had my 2
minutes of fame on the local news, but I'm still not really satisfied
that my work is being seen, and I've yet to pick up any commissions.
So I'm really just looking for my next step - should I be contacting
galleries to see if they're interested in exhibiting my work? (and how
exactly do you go about doing that?). Should I be contacting publishers
and trying to get a book out? What other options are there? I'd be
interested to know about your successes and failures on the road to
becoming an established and successful landscape photographer.
If you're interested, you can see my website here:
http://slinq.com/
And my TV interview here:
http://slinq.com/gallery/features/bbc-south-east-today/
Cheers,
~Kieran Simkin
http://slinq.com/
http://digital-crocus.com/
philo
> Hi There,
> I'm just looking for your ideas on how to get established as a landscape
> photographer. My background is in web development and marketing and I
> think I've done a pretty successful job of setting up a website and
> getting it seen by people, as a result I was contacted by my local TV
> news who wanted to interview me about one of my projects. I've had my 2
> minutes of fame on the local news, but I'm still not really satisfied
> that my work is being seen, and I've yet to pick up any commissions.
>
If you've had two minutes of fame then you have 13 minutes left...
so use your time wisely.
There are no magic answers but you need to be in the right place at the
right time.
Example:
I know an artist who comes into Chicago once a year to sell her art at
Old Orchard. (I've been there with her a few times)
Since the booths are setup alphabetically...each year the same
photographer sets up next to her.
He is from Kentucky and sells nothing but photographs of horses out in
the fields. Nothing wrong with them...but hardly anything special.
The guy honestly cannot sell them fast enough. Each year people just
stand in lines to purchase his photos.
I had to ask myself why...then I figured it out.
Kentucky is known for horses...and I bet he could not get people there
to line up and buy his photos..
But you don't see too many horses out grazing in Chicago do you?
I've worked in Chicago and it's a real rat race. The sight of horses out
grazing in the fields...to a Chicagoan has got to look pretty tranquil
and inviting. A good way to get away from the rat race.
You want to promote landscapes...
then go to a major urban environment...
maybe Chicago
Peter
news:fdydnQN2BvujjqPW...@bt.com...
Great person, if she will accept you as a client. She can show you how to do
more for yourself, than anybody else.
http://www.mvswanson.com/
--
Peter
Robert Coe
wrote:
: Hi There,
: I'm just looking for your ideas on how to get established as a landscape
: photographer. My background is in web development and marketing and I
: think I've done a pretty successful job of setting up a website and
: getting it seen by people, as a result I was contacted by my local TV
: news who wanted to interview me about one of my projects. I've had my 2
: minutes of fame on the local news, but I'm still not really satisfied
: that my work is being seen, and I've yet to pick up any commissions.
:
: So I'm really just looking for my next step - should I be contacting
: galleries to see if they're interested in exhibiting my work? (and how
: exactly do you go about doing that?). Should I be contacting publishers
: and trying to get a book out? What other options are there? I'd be
: interested to know about your successes and failures on the road to
: becoming an established and successful landscape photographer.
:
: If you're interested, you can see my website here:
: http://slinq.com/
Those pictures are not helped by the background against which they're
displayed. Some dark pictures can handle being displayed on a black
background, and some can't. The ones on your home page can't. The sunset
picture, for example, might be very nice on a lighter background, but it gets
largely lost in the black.
Also, you should guard against displaying too many pictures that are nearly
alike (e.g., the rainbow pictures), since some will inevitably be better than
others. A good photograph doesn't look best when displayed with mediocre
photographs, especially lesser versions of itself. It looks best when
displayed with other photographs of equivalent or greater merit.
I suspect that much of success at landscape photography is in the
presentation. From the little I saw of your Web site, I'm not sure it presents
your work in as flattering a light as it could. (The picture of you on your
home page is wretched; it's virtually impossible to see your face!) You say
you're a Web designer, so go do for your site what you'd do for the site of an
important client. Because that's what you are if you're going to use the site
to help sell your work.
Bob
Charles E Hardwidge
news:fdydnQN2BvujjqPW...@bt.com...
> I'm just looking for your ideas on how to get established as a landscape
You've got a narrative angle, a sense of presentation, and are patient. It's
hard to avoid sounding generic but developing that will help. The obvious
thing is having great photos. A more better focused, arranged, and coloured
web site helps content presentation. Whoring yourself on the student lecture
circuit and writing a column for a local newspapers helps generate face
time. Set achievable targets and *hit them*.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Kieran Simkin
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:22:33 +0000, Kieran Simkin <kie...@digital-crocus.com>
> wrote:
> Those pictures are not helped by the background against which they're
> displayed. Some dark pictures can handle being displayed on a black
> background, and some can't. The ones on your home page can't. The sunset
> picture, for example, might be very nice on a lighter background, but it gets
> largely lost in the black.
Thanks but I wasn't asking for advice on the design or content of my
website. Nor did I claim to be a web designer - I'm a developer; there's
a big difference.
Kieran Simkin
> Great person, if she will accept you as a client. She can show you how
> to do more for yourself, than anybody else.
> http://www.mvswanson.com/
>
>
Presumably she charges for her services? As I'm just starting out, I
haven't really got any money to pay for anything yet (I pretty much
spent all my money on a camera heh).
tony cooper
<kie...@digital-crocus.com> wrote:
Doncha just love the arrogance of some people who come here asking for
advice and then get all snotty when the advice offered is not what
they want to hear?
The observation offered by Robert Coe is both valid and helpful.
There is an easy solution, though, that doesn't involve changing the
website design: Just open the image, "Select All", and Stroke with
the setting at White, 5 px. This puts a thin, white line around image
and sets it off from the black background. Since my photos in SmugMug
are also on a black background, I do this to all photos I put up.
Images put up on the "Shoot-In" pBase (black background) site also
benefit from this.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Kieran Simkin
> Kentucky is known for horses...and I bet he could not get people there
> to line up and buy his photos..
>
> But you don't see too many horses out grazing in Chicago do you?
Thanks Philo, that's an interesting thought that hadn't occured to me -
it's not something that's necessarily immediately obvious, but it does
make a lot of sense; People don't want to see photos of the things they
see every day, they want to see something different.
I think you're probably right and I'll get a lot more interest in my
pictures in somewhere like London (I'm based in the UK) rather than down
here on the south coast where most of my pictures are taken because down
here we drive past these landscapes fairly regularly, whereas in London
it's something a bit different. I'll definitely take up your advice and
see what I can do about trying to get my images seen in London.
Thanks very much.
~Kieran
Peter
news:9v1fk55ho604loqeh...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:27:26 +0000, Kieran Simkin
> <kie...@digital-crocus.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:22:33 +0000, Kieran Simkin
>>> <kie...@digital-crocus.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> Those pictures are not helped by the background against which they're
>>> displayed. Some dark pictures can handle being displayed on a black
>>> background, and some can't. The ones on your home page can't. The sunset
>>> picture, for example, might be very nice on a lighter background, but it
>>> gets
>>> largely lost in the black.
>>
>>Thanks but I wasn't asking for advice on the design or content of my
>>website. Nor did I claim to be a web designer - I'm a developer; there's
>>a big difference.
>
> Doncha just love the arrogance of some people who come here asking for
> advice and then get all snotty when the advice offered is not what
> they want to hear?
>
No different than those who ask for fair comment and reject constructive
criticism. There is a lot of info on Mary Swanson's site and she also has
written some books on the subject, which are available at librarys. My guess
is that if one guy posts a question there are lots of others who have
sinmilar questons, but for some reason don't ask. That is the only reason I
post this supplemental information. I suspect that is also the reason you
posted the rest of your response.
> The observation offered by Robert Coe is both valid and helpful.
> There is an easy solution, though, that doesn't involve changing the
> website design: Just open the image, "Select All", and Stroke with
> the setting at White, 5 px. This puts a thin, white line around image
> and sets it off from the black background. Since my photos in SmugMug
> are also on a black background, I do this to all photos I put up.
> Images put up on the "Shoot-In" pBase (black background) site also
> benefit from this.
>
Tony, that is not the way I do it in PS. What program are you referring to?
--
Peter
Kieran Simkin
>
> Doncha just love the arrogance of some people who come here asking for
> advice and then get all snotty when the advice offered is not what
> they want to hear?
Sorry if I come across as arrogant, but the advice offered wasn't in any
way related to the question I asked - I was asking about how to
establish myself as a photographer, not how to best display photos on my
website. I will admit that the two aren't entirely separate but I think
if you read my original e-mail it's pretty clear that I'm not asking for
feedback on my website. I only provided the website address so you could
have an idea of the kind of work that I produce.
I do appreciate anyone taking the time to evaluate my work - however if
I'd been asking for feedback on my website I might also have added an
explanation of why there are so many photos on my site and I haven't
trimmed it down to just the best ones. This has to do with my website
being more of a documentary record of a particular landscape (Cuckmere
Haven) which may not be here for much longer - I place a lot of emphasis
on being thorough and covering every possible path and track across this
landscape, even though some locations simply do not make for good
photographs. It's about providing a complete historical record of a
landscape, not about selling my photographic skills per se. That said, a
website dedicated to showcasing my work is a project that I have
lined-up for the future, but this will be an entirely separate website.
How to best display my photos is something I've put a lot of thought and
work into and have no intention of changing, it's also something that's
almost entirely subjective. You may prefer a white background or white
borders, I do not. That's my artistic choice, and not something that I
was asking for feedback on. I will admit that borders will make some
images stand out from the background better, but my website is a huge
database of images (over 3000), and I don't intend to have some with
borders and some without - I could enable borders across the entire
collection, but I don't believe that they are needed in the majority of
cases. I'm apologise if that appears arrogant to you, but I just see it
as confidence in my own style decisions.
--
~Kieran Simkin
http://slinq.com/
http://digital-crocus.com/
Kieran Simkin
> No different than those who ask for fair comment and reject constructive
> criticism.
Except that I didn't ask for comments on my website!
tony cooper
Photoshop CS4, but I've been doing it in earlier versions of Photoshop
and Elements. Pretty basic. Select "All" puts a line of "marching
ants" around the entire image, and "Stroke" follows that line with
whatever thickness of stroke and color of stroke you choose.
Here's one down with a red stroke. Red because the white stroke won't
show when used as a link if it opens on a white screen. I'd use black
except that it might open on a black screen.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/110wred.jpg
BTW, the stroke should be either "Inside" or "Center". Set it for
"Outside" with Select "All" and the stroke won't show.
How do you do it?
Robert Spanjaard
tony cooper
<kie...@digital-crocus.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> Doncha just love the arrogance of some people who come here asking for
>> advice and then get all snotty when the advice offered is not what
>> they want to hear?
>
>Sorry if I come across as arrogant, but the advice offered wasn't in any
>way related to the question I asked - I was asking about how to
>establish myself as a photographer, not how to best display photos on my
>website. I will admit that the two aren't entirely separate but I think
>if you read my original e-mail it's pretty clear that I'm not asking for
>feedback on my website. I only provided the website address so you could
>have an idea of the kind of work that I produce.
A newsgroup is not a Help Desk, an Agony Aunt line for wannabee pros,
or Answers.Com. It's a discussion forum. There's no mandate to reply
to questions or provide helpful advice. People respond with whatever
comments they are in the mood to provide.
Your arrogance is not in rejecting the advice, but in your
toffee-nosed attempt to tell us what and how we should respond. You
don't decide that. We do.
I suspect your attitude has cut-off some possible helpful advice on
your specific question. People will not want to help you.
The proper response on your part is to acknowledge helpful comments on
what you did ask about, and offer no comment at all on what you don't
consider to be germane to your question.
You may not be interested in my suggestion about a stroke border, but
others may, and this is an open forum read by many people. That's one
benefit of reading a newsgroup. Often we learn things we didn't ask
about or would not have another way of learning about. (Although I
can't imagine many Photoshop users who don't already know about this
particular technique.)
>I do appreciate anyone taking the time to evaluate my work - however if
>I'd been asking for feedback on my website I might also have added an
>explanation of why there are so many photos on my site and I haven't
>trimmed it down to just the best ones.
You are John Sisker and ICMFP.
Robert Spanjaard
>> Doncha just love the arrogance of some people who come here asking for
>> advice and then get all snotty when the advice offered is not what they
>> want to hear?
>
> Sorry if I come across as arrogant, but the advice offered wasn't in any
> way related to the question I asked - I was asking about how to
> establish myself as a photographer, not how to best display photos on my
> website. I will admit that the two aren't entirely separate
That's a bit of an understatement. And Robert Coe didn't just tell you
_how_ to display them, but also _what_ to display.
> but I think if you read my original e-mail
Yor original what?
> it's pretty clear that I'm not asking for
> feedback on my website.
Yes you did. You didn't get very specific in your original question. So
anything that could help you make a name for yourself is a valid answer.
> I only provided the website address so you could
> have an idea of the kind of work that I produce.
>
> I do appreciate anyone taking the time to evaluate my work - however if
> I'd been asking for feedback on my website I might also have added an
> explanation of why there are so many photos on my site and I haven't
> trimmed it down to just the best ones. This has to do with my website
> being more of a documentary record of a particular landscape (Cuckmere
> Haven) which may not be here for much longer - I place a lot of emphasis
> on being thorough and covering every possible path and track across this
> landscape, even though some locations simply do not make for good
> photographs.
On my first and only visit, I already spotted way too much extremely
similar images of coastguard cottages in snow. That's not "covering every
possible path and track", it's a simple memory card dump. And that kind of
presentation and selection will certainly _NOT_ help in making a name for
yourself as _any_ kind of photographer.
Robert Coe
wrote:
Well, I thought you did in a way. As your subject line says, you asked for
"Advice on making a name for yourself as a landscape photographer". Part of
achieving that success might be to have a Web site that makes it appear that
you know what you're doing as a photographer. But I guess none of are so thin
skinned as to actually give a rat's ass whether you take our advice seriously
or not. Maybe you were just trolling, in which case you at least have a lot of
company in this newsgroup.
Bob
Peter
I make the canvas slightly larger than the image and fill in a border color.
thanks, I wasn't aware of that technique. It sounds a lot quicker than mine.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:g2gfk5ln4tb52s9m8...@4ax.com...
Kieran is in his 20's. He doesn't have the extra decade of experience to
understand or value some of the comment in here. However, it's probably also
true to say that some comment could've been better.
There's a smoking stub of charcoal where John Sisker's tail used to be but
even he's got a slight clue. That's the *beginning* of change and if Kieran
wants to do the same he's going to have to drop some of the BS as well.
It's not *not* what you do.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4b47c6aa$0$19501$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> Photoshop CS4, but I've been doing it in earlier versions of Photoshop
>> and Elements. Pretty basic. Select "All" puts a line of "marching
>> ants" around the entire image, and "Stroke" follows that line with
>> whatever thickness of stroke and color of stroke you choose.
>>
>> Here's one down with a red stroke. Red because the white stroke won't
>> show when used as a link if it opens on a white screen. I'd use black
>> except that it might open on a black screen.
>>
>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/110wred.jpg
>>
>> BTW, the stroke should be either "Inside" or "Center". Set it for
>> "Outside" with Select "All" and the stroke won't show.
>>
>> How do you do it?
>
> I make the canvas slightly larger than the image and fill in a border
> color. thanks, I wasn't aware of that technique. It sounds a lot quicker
> than mine.
This is an old technique for punching out an image and can be effective. I
haven't checked but I expect a tool like ImageMagick can do the same thing
if you need a batch job done. You might also be able to set up an action in
Photoshop to semi-automate the task or process batches as well. If the
images are destined for the web doing it with CSS that might be better.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
I'll do that in some situations, but mostly when I have an image that
is not cropped to a traditional ratio and I want to frame the results.
Or, when I want a very wide border and don't want to cover up that
much of the image with the stroke. I don't do that often, though.
The max I generally use is a 5 px border.
The problem is that I generally crop to a standard ratio size (4x6,
5x7, 8x10) and crop the image before adding the border. If I then
expand the canvas, my image is not longer a standard size. I can
re-crop, but too much calculation is necessary to get an even border
at a standard size.
.
Peter
Assume standard size & I want a 1/4" border. I shrink the image by 1/2" on
each dimension. Then make a standard canvas size and click the center image.
Next I fill in the border color. Your way seems much easier for digital
projection images, though. That's one of the beauties though of PS. There
are several ways to do almost everything and no one way is always better.
--
Peter
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
At my bi-weekly camera club meetings I often sit at a table with five
other regulars who also use Photoshop. We sometimes stay a few
minutes after the meeting and compare notes on how we do something in
PS. Everyone's got a different way to do the same thing.
One guy likes artsy borders with fuzzy edges, so he lays a
color-filled layer under a duplicate of the original and uses the
eraser tool with a soft brush on the image layer, holds down "shift"
(to keep a straight line), and runs it along the edges. Fuzzy border.
I don't like it, but he does.
Last meeting we stayed for 20 minutes discussing various ways to
convert a color photo to black and white. I learned the high-contrast
version using a gradient adjustment layer. I like it.
Peter
You just reminded me of a sharpening technique that eliminates halos. I
convert to Lab color, highlight only the lightness channel and sharpen only
that channel. then I convert back to RGB.
this works very well especially with monochrome conversions.
--
Peter
Peter
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:36:57 -0500, "Peter"
> Last meeting we stayed for 20 minutes discussing various ways to
> convert a color photo to black and white. I learned the high-contrast
> version using a gradient adjustment layer. I like it.
>
Oops! I forgot to mention that by creating layers and masks, I can
selectively control the areas to be sharpened.
--
Peter
krishnananda
Kieran Simkin <kie...@digital-crocus.com> wrote:
> Sorry if I come across as arrogant, but the advice offered wasn't in any
> way related to the question I asked - I was asking about how to
> establish myself as a photographer, not how to best display photos on my
> website. I will admit that the two aren't entirely separate but I think
> if you read my original e-mail it's pretty clear that I'm not asking for
> feedback on my website. I only provided the website address so you could
> have an idea of the kind of work that I produce.
An excerpt from your original post:
> I'm just looking for your ideas on how to get established as a landscape
> photographer. My background is in web development and marketing and I
> think I've done a pretty successful job of setting up a website and
> getting it seen by people, as a result I was contacted by my local TV
> news who wanted to interview me about one of my projects. I've had my 2
> minutes of fame on the local news, but I'm still not really satisfied
> that my work is being seen, and I've yet to pick up any commissions.
I read this as you saying that you are a photographer who has "done a
pretty successful job of setting up a website"; however, "but I'm still
not really satisfied that my work is being seen, and I've yet to pick up
any commissions."
A reasonable person reading this in the very first paragraph might just
come to the conclusion that, after looking at your website you did not,
in fact, do a "pretty successful job" at all. And that might explain the
dearth of commissions you were expecting.
If you are not seeking input on your website, which you seem to want to
use as a marketing tool, you really shouldn't toot your horn about what
a successful website designer you consider yourself to be. Obviously in
the collective opinion of those who have answered here, there is quite a
bit lacking in that department.
As to some of your other questions:
> So I'm really just looking for my next step - should I be contacting
> galleries to see if they're interested in exhibiting my work? (and how
> exactly do you go about doing that?).
Yes. Put together a portfolio that shows that your photography -- and
the way you present it -- is in the top 1% of all photographers.
Contact all photo galleries in London and ask when/if they schedule
portfolio reviews. No worthwhile gallery accepts walk-ins.
Bring your portfolio to the reviews. Most galleries make you leave your
portfolio overnight. If you get a face-to-face interview on the first
shot make certain to keep your mouth firmly shut. Do not, ever, explain
a photograph. Gallery owners are business people who know how to sell
art and couldn't give a damn what the artist/photographer has to say.
Chances are you will not get an appointment, but the rejection
experience builds character. In the mean time enter all photo contests
you can find. All photo magazines in the UK, USA, EU sponsor contests.
Manufacturers sponsor contests if you use their equipment. Look for
local and regional contests from Land's End to John O'Groats are
generally less picky.
> Should I be contacting publishers
> and trying to get a book out? What other options are there?
No. Publishers won't even open the envelope unless they have already
heard of you. You can put together a photo book on Lulu.com or other
print-on-demand site and either use it as a portfolio adjunct or as a
give-away. Make sure your name is all over it.
> I'd be
> interested to know about your successes and failures on the road to
> becoming an established and successful landscape photographer.
You can't. I'm surprised that no one else has pointed this out but it is
absolutely impossible to make a living as a landscape photographer.
Landscape falls into the "fine art" category and the market is just shy
of zero, with National Geographic photographers (all 50 of them) just
squeaking in under the wire.
You may be able to license some more generic images to a stock agency
but the income will be minimal. If you want to make a living in
photography you have to photograph what people (people like art
directors, collectors, etc.) want to buy. Look through magazines and
besides travel and wildlife see how few publish landscapes. You can
always do commercial photography _and_ landscape, or you can work in
some other industry and take landscape photos. Success isn't always
monetary.
Another point about your original post. Go back and read it again. I
have quoted most of it here, and I have an observation. Nowhere do you
ask for opinions about your photography. you spend most of the first
paragraph on your website. Your second paragraph is about marketing. And
just before the link to your website you say:
> If you're interested, you can see my website here:
NO mention of, for example "...you can see MY PHOTOS here:" And yet you
got pissed off when people responded to what you very clearly focused
on: your website.
So, I offer no advice whatsoever on your website, since you've said you
aren't going to change it (not even the illegible font used for text);
and no advice on your photography because, in fact, you did not ask for
opinions on your photos.
Since you are a programmer you might be interested in the errors on your
home page according to the W3C validator:
-----
The following notes and warnings highlight missing or conflicting
information which caused the validator to perform some guesswork prior
to validation. If the guess or fallback is incorrect, it could make
validation results entirely incoherent. It is highly recommended to
check these potential issues, and, if necessary, fix them and
re-validate the document.
Character Encoding mismatch! The character encoding specified in the
HTTP header (utf-8) is different from the value in the <meta> element
(iso-8859-1).
Line 35, Column 231: Attribute "profile_id" is not a valid attribute.
Did you mean "profile"?
Line 35, Column 252: Attribute "stream" is not a valid attribute. Did
you mean "scheme" or "frameborder"?
Line 35, Column 267: Attribute "connections" is not a valid attribute
Line 35, Column 276: Attribute "width" exists, but can not be used for
this element
Line 35, Column 289: Attribute "height" exists, but can not be used for
this element.
Line 35, Column 298: Attribute "css" is not a valid attribute. Did you
mean "charset" or "accept-charset"?
Line 35, Column 334: element "fb:fan" undefined
-----
Chris H
<kie...@digital-crocus.com> writes
Try "up North"..... It's Bleak Up North :-) I expect the pictures would
go down well in Northern towns too.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
<kie...@digital-crocus.com> writes
Yes you did! You asked
"I'm just looking for your ideas on how to get established as a
landscape photographer. "
That will involve comments on your current image and marketing. IE where
to go next.
The comment is don't start from here :-) Ie adjust your web site
before you chase the audience. Otherwise all the hard work will send
punter to a web site that will not help sell your work.
I run my own company and the first thing we did when we wanted to
develop in to a new direction and markets was assess the web site and
redesign it so it was suitable for the direction we wanted to go in.
Actually we worked out where we wanted to go. Identified the targets
(trade shows, where to place advents and articles etc and the image,
website etc etc we would need. Then we put it in place before we set
off...
BTW my son a Graphics artist also says web *developers* have no idea of
colour form and layout! On the other hand whilst he can design a good
web site for form, colour and layout he cant actually
write/program/build one :-)
Chris H
<kie...@digital-crocus.com> writes
>tony cooper wrote:
>> Doncha just love the arrogance of some people who come here asking
>>for
>> advice and then get all snotty when the advice offered is not what
>> they want to hear?
>
>Sorry if I come across as arrogant, but the advice offered wasn't in
>any way related to the question I asked - I was asking about how to
>establish myself as a photographer, not how to best display photos on
>my website. I will admit that the two aren't entirely separate
They are in fact part of the same question.
>but I think if you read my original e-mail it's pretty clear that I'm
>not asking for feedback on my website. I only provided the website
>address so you could have an idea of the kind of work that I produce.
The web site is your public face. If it is not right you have no hope
of establishing yourself as any sort of photographer.
The web site gives a visual representation of your work in a visual
medium. If you don't understand that they should you be trying to peruse
a living in photography?
Also biting the hand that feeds and getting uptight does not help you.
If you can't handle the replies you have had so far do NOT go into
business. You won't survive.
>I do appreciate anyone taking the time to evaluate my work - however if
>I'd been asking for feedback on my website I might also have added an
>explanation of why there are so many photos on my site and I haven't
>trimmed it down to just the best ones.
Too late. IF it is not obvious in the first 10 seconds most will have
moved on and YOU will loose customer, sales, money, business and
home....
>This has to do with my website being more of a documentary record of a
>particular landscape (Cuckmere Haven) which may not be here for much
>longer - I place a lot of emphasis on being thorough and covering every
>possible path and track across this landscape, even though some
>locations simply do not make for good photographs. It's about providing
>a complete historical record of a landscape, not about selling my
>photographic skills per se.
You do not understand it IS about your skills as a photographer. Re-read
what you have posted. It is how you approach landscape photography and
how you work. That is as important as the individual pictures.
>How to best display my photos is something I've put a lot of thought
>and work into and have no intention of changing,
Then you are doomed to fail judging by the comments of your public.
>it's also something that's almost entirely subjective. You may prefer a
>white background or white borders, I do not. That's my artistic choice,
>and not something that I was asking for feedback on.
You should be asking for comments on it. No one cares what YOU like.
It is what your *paying customers* like... the public. If you want to
die penniless then do your "art" if you want to build a business and
make money at it you have to do what sells.
>I will admit that borders will make some images stand out from the
>background better, but my website is a huge database of images (over
>3000), and I don't intend to have some with borders and some without -
>I could enable borders across the entire collection, but I don't
>believe that they are needed in the majority of cases. I'm apologise if
>that appears arrogant to you, but I just see it as confidence in my own
>style decisions.
Then, sadly, you are doomed to fail
Charles E Hardwidge
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:D2Mmb+Ft...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
Word.
An old friend of mine was trained at the London College of Printing and I
picked a lot up off him. Since then I got more into it and get the
impression most web designers lack that foundation. I'm not a webmonkey but
I can still rant about grids, typography, and colour because I took the time
to learn about it.
HTML and CSS were originally designed by academics and programmers and are
flawed on a fundamental level. They're only *just* beginning to fix problems
or catch up in key areas. Web servers, design, and content management tools
are almost all complete piles of shit because of this shaky foundation.
--
Charles E Hardwidge