Posted by Sandi Winton on November 30, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Hi everyone!
I was hoping that I could get some of you seasoned photographers to take a look at my website and let me know which pictures you think I should keep on and which I should delete if any. I'm not afraid of critique and that is what I am looking for. I want to improve and cannot improve if I don't hear what you really think. So, be honest. Please feel free to comment on any of the pix too.
Thank you!
Sandi Winton
www.redbudphotography.com
Posted by Darren Huski on December 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Sandi-
I am not sure if I can provide valid advice but I'll give you a few impressions of your site. First kudos for getting out there. I know alot of folks here want to do that. Some on the NPN forum sites have set up their own and I think checking out sites of the folks who have done so is a good way to look to see what you like and dont like(then you can be inspired by what you like).
Having said that here are a few comments.
I am not a fan of the layout you have. The picture and "title" seem hidden on the upper left corner. I think a larger full across the top banner would work better. I'd probably move what you have on the upper righ to the side or below the title banner.
I don't like having to scroll down the left to see your subject categories either. I'd rather see them all at the same time.
I looked at a couple of your categories and was disappointed to find no horse images. Since Horse was your top category I might have presumed you only had a skelton site and not have gone further if I was a customer. I'd move it or take it out until you add horse images.
My suggestions on images would be to refine your picks and not have similar images. Ex two fall fog and two fog at mile creek that were too much the same image. You also have two very similar squirrel images. Pick the best and take out the worst. That will tighten up your presentation into fewer but better images.
Also make sure an image is really good. If not your best -then why add it? If you like some aspect of it but not the end result, then try to redo the image so it is worthy (I know I am very guilty of this alot). For example, I think your driftwood image could be done better. For me you are too far from the wood. So, I'd try to work that (on maybe a different background) and up close to really make the driftwood the image.
I'd also put my favorite and best images at the top. The winter bridge is a great image but it is your last one. I'd move that one up.
You have numbers in the image titles that I presume are file numbers. For me those distract. Id go with just names.
Last comment, I think your prices are low. $35 for a 16x20? That should be at least $100 and probably $150-200. At $35 what kind of profit would you have? Remember that a print is more than just ink and paper, it is also your creative work. Add the value of that to your prices.
I hope that helps. It is just one guys opinion, so take it with a grain of salt!
Sandi, I'm with Darren on wanting to see the horses. I like the images you have but did find it a little difficult to view. However you have a site and that is a start.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on December 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Sandi...Darren covered most bases of what I might have suggested. The only thing I might add is to suggest you try to place the main subject off-center, whether it be to the right or left side of the frame. For instance...if an animal is looking to the right...place it more towards the left side of the image, and vice versa. If it's full frame (flowers, especially), then it can be centered.
Posted by Sandi Winton on December 2, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Wow! Great comments! Thank you all!!! Please tell me Darren or any of you, if you were to delete some of the images, which ones would you delete? And, what do you mean a different background for the driftwood? What kind of background? That is actually where I found it, took the picture and walked on. And I totally agree with the horse comment. I actually contacted the guy who does the website and I asked him how to get the horse specializing words off until I got some good pix of some horsts. Darren, not sure if I totally understand about the top part of the website and the placement of the categories, so if you could explain more, I would really appreciate it. Any more comments are deeply appreciated. Oh, and thanks for the pricing comment. I just feel funny about charging more when I don't feel like a pro yet.
Posted by Sandi Winton on December 2, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Oh, one more question for Kendall. You said they were hard to view. What exactly did you mean and how can I made them easier to view? Thanks again everyone! I appreciate the help!
Posted by Darren Huski on December 2, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Sandi-
You have a green banner across the top and a small image with the words "Redbud Photography" in the upper left corner. I think that would be better bigger and centered. Take a look at this site by Jack Brauer who is active in the RMNP section of NPN. He has a great site (he designs them) but notice how is banner with his website name is centered.
http://www.widerange.org/index.php
Also notice that his gallery subjects are all listed at the bottom of the page, there is no scrolling to get to them. To see all yours you have to scroll. IMO I think your list should all fit on the screen without having to scroll.
Does that make more sense?
As far as images go, I'll concentrate on the landscpae subject.
My favorite image by far is 9998 the winter bridge. This is a great seasonal image and well done. 1102 the frozen lake is also quite nice. 200, 28 and 16a are decent.
Some images you might want to look at what works better than others. I like 28 of the wintrey stream. However 1113 and 869 also try winteryish water and I do not think they work as well. In 869 of the river at breakup that is a neat time but the day is wrong. You need soft evening light with a nice sunset to give some color to it. Or an afternoon with puffy white clouds on blue sky and then convert it to B+W. Or even a heavy overcast day where you also convert to b+w but in a way to be very moody. As is it is middle of the day and just a lifeless image. BTW- I like the composition on that river scene, it is the time of day and lack of any real color that detracts.
Same for 1113. Late winter is a tough time for photography so you cannot work so much in the middle of a clear day.
9040 and 9041 are basically the same image. Pick one and take out the other.
9015 has great potential. Fall harvest on the farm is a great time for photography. Get outthere and photograph it. Yours aint bad, but I'd work to do better.
Anyway, you should pic the images you like. You might also ask several people to pick their favorite three images and the worst three images. That can also help you understand what different people like. They might not all agree, but you should see a pattern.
For me in the landscape section I say the best three are: 9998 the bridge, 1102 to frozen lake and 200 the trees.
My least favorite would be 6937 the driftwood (too much of a snapshot), 1113 the thaw stream (wrong time of day or season for a good image), 6942 the tree limbs (go do that at sunset and it could be Wow).
Go spend some time in the Earth Sea and Sky or the Man and Nature Galleries. See what you like and what you do not like. Let that inspire your work and also help you critique your work. Maybe even post a few there for comment to see what others think about an image. That is a great way to get feedback.
Hope that helps!!
Posted by Sandi Winton on December 2, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Thank you Darren! I appreciate your help and the fact that you took the time to go back and forth between the websites to give me specifics. I will be doing some work on the website tomorrow. And I like the idea of asking for the best and worst 3. Great idea!
Sandi, I was just thinking that I was scrolling and clicking more than usual but I went back and went through again and it didn't seem so bad the second time. May just have been me at the time, first time was in AM and last time PM I was not pressed for time tonight. I also like the winter bridge. I confess that I went back tonight to look for the driftwood after Darren's comment I had missed it the first time through.
Hi Sandi. I didn't find the site difficult to navigate. There are countless ways to organize a Web site, so I think it's just a matter of finding one manner that works, logistically.
Re the landscape images, if I had to offer a critique (and file this deep in the "for what it's worth" folder), I'd suggest that on those scenes with some visual sweep to them, spend a bit more time searching for a complementary foreground before setting up and clicking the shutter. By no means does this suggestion apply to every shot, but there are a number of shots in your landscape gallery that I think would be particularly attractive if not for a rather empty FG expanse. Just my two cents.
Posted by Darren Huski on December 4, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Sandi-
Glad to help, although my own meager attempts at a web presence are pretty weak.
Get active with posting images here or on the gallery forums like Earth Sea and Sky. You will get some great feedback.
Good luck!
Posted by Sandi Winton on December 14, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Hi everyone! I'm back. Sorry, it's been a couple hectic weeks. Ok, Kerry, I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. Visual sweep??? Complimentary foreground? If you wouldn't mind, please look at the website and pick a particular image and tell me specifically what you mean. I'm grateful for the help and advice. I need to get into the website and make the changes that you all are helping me with.
Sandi, it's somewhat difficult to convey what I'm talking about without being able to show you what I mean directly, but I'll give it a shot. Briefly, one--by no means the only--way to convey a sense of depth in a two-dimensional image is by a creative use of foreground elements. Now, the landscape photographer is by no means always trying to convey depth, but frequently--particularly in comparatively "grand" or "sweeping" (as opposed to comparatively intimate) scenes--it's a good idea.
One example is your #16A - Wintery Golfcourse in Glenwood image. This certainly isn't an intimate landscape. In this case, conveying depth would help give the image a more dynamic feel. (There are other things that aren't helping here--the light, for instance, is pretty flat for this scene, but that's another matter.) You have an awful lot of fairly blank space here, particularly in the relatively featureless snowy foreground. To my eye, the image is screaming out for something to help lead the viewer into the scene.
Here's an imperfect example of what I'm talking about; I didn't spent a lot of time looking for examples, so this will have to do. This image utilizes the picnic table as a way of attempting to capture the viewer's attention lend some depth to the shot. I don't think there would be a shot here at all without that foreground (and the fog, but that's another matter :) ). Here's another example of using a fairly prosaic foreground element--the sun-kissed grass stalks--as a critical foreground element. I don't think shot really exists without them--or some alternate FG object to lend depth and interest--to this wide scene.
Discussion
12 repliesI was hoping that I could get some of you seasoned photographers to take a look at my website and let me know which pictures you think I should keep on and which I should delete if any. I'm not afraid of critique and that is what I am looking for. I want to improve and cannot improve if I don't hear what you really think. So, be honest. Please feel free to comment on any of the pix too.
Thank you!
Sandi Winton
www.redbudphotography.com
I am not sure if I can provide valid advice but I'll give you a few impressions of your site. First kudos for getting out there. I know alot of folks here want to do that. Some on the NPN forum sites have set up their own and I think checking out sites of the folks who have done so is a good way to look to see what you like and dont like(then you can be inspired by what you like).
Having said that here are a few comments.
I am not a fan of the layout you have. The picture and "title" seem hidden on the upper left corner. I think a larger full across the top banner would work better. I'd probably move what you have on the upper righ to the side or below the title banner.
I don't like having to scroll down the left to see your subject categories either. I'd rather see them all at the same time.
I looked at a couple of your categories and was disappointed to find no horse images. Since Horse was your top category I might have presumed you only had a skelton site and not have gone further if I was a customer. I'd move it or take it out until you add horse images.
My suggestions on images would be to refine your picks and not have similar images. Ex two fall fog and two fog at mile creek that were too much the same image. You also have two very similar squirrel images. Pick the best and take out the worst. That will tighten up your presentation into fewer but better images.
Also make sure an image is really good. If not your best -then why add it? If you like some aspect of it but not the end result, then try to redo the image so it is worthy (I know I am very guilty of this alot). For example, I think your driftwood image could be done better. For me you are too far from the wood. So, I'd try to work that (on maybe a different background) and up close to really make the driftwood the image.
I'd also put my favorite and best images at the top. The winter bridge is a great image but it is your last one. I'd move that one up.
You have numbers in the image titles that I presume are file numbers. For me those distract. Id go with just names.
Last comment, I think your prices are low. $35 for a 16x20? That should be at least $100 and probably $150-200. At $35 what kind of profit would you have? Remember that a print is more than just ink and paper, it is also your creative work. Add the value of that to your prices.
I hope that helps. It is just one guys opinion, so take it with a grain of salt!
Good luck!!
You have a green banner across the top and a small image with the words "Redbud Photography" in the upper left corner. I think that would be better bigger and centered. Take a look at this site by Jack Brauer who is active in the RMNP section of NPN. He has a great site (he designs them) but notice how is banner with his website name is centered.
http://www.widerange.org/index.php
Also notice that his gallery subjects are all listed at the bottom of the page, there is no scrolling to get to them. To see all yours you have to scroll. IMO I think your list should all fit on the screen without having to scroll.
Does that make more sense?
As far as images go, I'll concentrate on the landscpae subject.
My favorite image by far is 9998 the winter bridge. This is a great seasonal image and well done. 1102 the frozen lake is also quite nice. 200, 28 and 16a are decent.
Some images you might want to look at what works better than others. I like 28 of the wintrey stream. However 1113 and 869 also try winteryish water and I do not think they work as well. In 869 of the river at breakup that is a neat time but the day is wrong. You need soft evening light with a nice sunset to give some color to it. Or an afternoon with puffy white clouds on blue sky and then convert it to B+W. Or even a heavy overcast day where you also convert to b+w but in a way to be very moody. As is it is middle of the day and just a lifeless image. BTW- I like the composition on that river scene, it is the time of day and lack of any real color that detracts.
Same for 1113. Late winter is a tough time for photography so you cannot work so much in the middle of a clear day.
9040 and 9041 are basically the same image. Pick one and take out the other.
9015 has great potential. Fall harvest on the farm is a great time for photography. Get outthere and photograph it. Yours aint bad, but I'd work to do better.
Anyway, you should pic the images you like. You might also ask several people to pick their favorite three images and the worst three images. That can also help you understand what different people like. They might not all agree, but you should see a pattern.
For me in the landscape section I say the best three are: 9998 the bridge, 1102 to frozen lake and 200 the trees.
My least favorite would be 6937 the driftwood (too much of a snapshot), 1113 the thaw stream (wrong time of day or season for a good image), 6942 the tree limbs (go do that at sunset and it could be Wow).
Go spend some time in the Earth Sea and Sky or the Man and Nature Galleries. See what you like and what you do not like. Let that inspire your work and also help you critique your work. Maybe even post a few there for comment to see what others think about an image. That is a great way to get feedback.
Hope that helps!!
Re the landscape images, if I had to offer a critique (and file this deep in the "for what it's worth" folder), I'd suggest that on those scenes with some visual sweep to them, spend a bit more time searching for a complementary foreground before setting up and clicking the shutter. By no means does this suggestion apply to every shot, but there are a number of shots in your landscape gallery that I think would be particularly attractive if not for a rather empty FG expanse. Just my two cents.
Glad to help, although my own meager attempts at a web presence are pretty weak.
Get active with posting images here or on the gallery forums like Earth Sea and Sky. You will get some great feedback.
Good luck!
One example is your #16A - Wintery Golfcourse in Glenwood image. This certainly isn't an intimate landscape. In this case, conveying depth would help give the image a more dynamic feel. (There are other things that aren't helping here--the light, for instance, is pretty flat for this scene, but that's another matter.) You have an awful lot of fairly blank space here, particularly in the relatively featureless snowy foreground. To my eye, the image is screaming out for something to help lead the viewer into the scene.
Here's an imperfect example of what I'm talking about; I didn't spent a lot of time looking for examples, so this will have to do. This image utilizes the picnic table as a way of attempting to capture the viewer's attention lend some depth to the shot. I don't think there would be a shot here at all without that foreground (and the fog, but that's another matter :) ). Here's another example of using a fairly prosaic foreground element--the sun-kissed grass stalks--as a critical foreground element. I don't think shot really exists without them--or some alternate FG object to lend depth and interest--to this wide scene.
Hope this helps.