Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What's wrong with my website?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:37:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my website
layout? Please look at my website and let me know.

My website: www.philipcorcoran.com

More about : wrong website

Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:37:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my
website
> layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>
> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com

I'll be blunt and forthcoming, but don't take any of this as
mean-spiritted by any means!

The first thing that comes to mind is that the home page looks bland and
very amateur. That alone will turn away a LOT of people. Second, when
people are shopping for wedding photography, they may not be looking for a
"general purpose" photographer that shoots food, travel, etc. - but someone
who specializes in wedding photography only. Regardless of the validity of
the logic, some people will perceive someone who does ONLY wedding
photography as being more of an expert in the field. However, that's not to
say that a better-looking home page and some terrific samples couldn't bring
them around.

Moving on to the photographs themselves, there are various technical
shortcomings in them - from being less-than-sharp to poorly- or under-lit
scenes. However, the largest shortcoming is that the images don't really
convey emotion in them, they don't make the viewer *feel* anything. Women
want their wedding to be like something out of a fairy tale, and they want
their pictures to make the viewer feel like they're looking into a
fairy-tale.

I did a quick googling for some wedding photography, and here are some
comparisons:

http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/web/050208_...
http://www.iqphoto.com/newgal/images/sample199.jpg

Look at how the use of perspective, lighting, and depth-of-field give the
second photo more depth, draw your attention more to the cake, and creates
much more "mood".

http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/050208_021_...
http://www.brycevickmark.com/wedding/images/sc32.jpg

Whether you like that last pose or not aside, you can see how much more
emotion is conveyed in the image.

http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/050208_031_...
http://www.brycevickmark.com/wedding/images/01eastcarte...

Some of your photos are getting much closer - here's one that I liked:

http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/050208_042_...

That's a good use of persective, and the sky makes a good background.
However, the subject's expression almost makes her look like she had
something bad for lunch, and her shoulders look hunched forward. The
subject also looks a bit "flat", and some directional lighting would help
out with that. With a little better expression, pose, and lighting, that
good photo would be turned into a great photo.

Steve
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:37:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"WeddingPhotographer" <pcmail@hotmail.com> writes:

> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my

I have friends in sales, and they assure me it takes months to get results,
that the key is repetition, repetition, repetition. One guy who sells on
the phone says it takes about 20 calls to a buyer to make the sale.

Read up on marketing. You need a plan, and you need to stick with it.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Related resources
March 17, 2005 5:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WeddingPhotographer wrote:
> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my website
> layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>
> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com
>

I like it. I think the business model is sound. It might be good to
explain that part of the reason traditional wedding photographers shoot
the wedding inexpensively is that they subsidize the shoot with
overpriced prints.

If it was me (being the photographer), I would supply the bride and
groom with a CD or DVD (so they don't *have* to download). I would also
offer (perhaps at a nominal fee) to hand them a stack of 4x6 prints
(from Wal-mart, CVS, or wherever). When my wife and I got married,
looking over the proofs was fun, and we had a lot going on. I wouldn't
have wanted to be *required* to download all the photos myself.

You might also want to mention that *real photo prints* can be made
inexpensively from the files (at the type of location mentioned above).
I was talking to a number of people at Christmas, and none of them
realized that -- they thought the only way to get prints from digital
cameras was to own an inkjet printer.

Bob
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 7:48:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob <not@not.not> writes:

> WeddingPhotographer wrote:
> > I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> > newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> > work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my
> > website layout? Please look at my website and let me know. My website:
> > www.philipcorcoran.com
> >
>
> I like it. I think the business model is sound. It might be good to explain
> that part of the reason traditional wedding photographers shoot the wedding
> inexpensively is that they subsidize the shoot with overpriced prints.
>
> If it was me (being the photographer), I would supply the bride and groom
> with a CD or DVD (so they don't *have* to download). I would also offer
> (perhaps at a nominal fee) to hand them a stack of 4x6 prints (from Wal-mart,
> CVS, or wherever). When my wife and I got married, looking over the proofs
> was fun, and we had a lot going on. I wouldn't have wanted to be *required*
> to download all the photos myself.
>
> You might also want to mention that *real photo prints* can be made
> inexpensively from the files (at the type of location mentioned above). I was
> talking to a number of people at Christmas, and none of them realized that --
> they thought the only way to get prints from digital cameras was to own an
> inkjet printer.

Just a thought -- bear in mind it often isn't the bride who selects the wedding
photographer, but the bride's mother, who may not be as computer literate as
the current generation. If the bride's mother doesn't have a computer, you've
just lost the sale. I would include a couple of real prints in the basic
pricing model, and print them at a place like mpix.com, ezprints.com,
shutterfly.com, and not at Walmart (unless you can convince Walmart not to
print the store name on the back of the print). People want something they can
hold.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:46:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I see nothing wrong with it. The layout of your website is clean, simple and
to the point.

The photography is good as well.


"WeddingPhotographer" <pcmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E5ydnXO_Ydc_QaTfRVn-tw@ez2.net...
> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my
> website layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>
> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com
>
>
>
March 17, 2005 10:48:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I agree.
Although it's hard to get into the mind of a woman, my first impression
is, that she is not looking to share her dream wedding pictures with
photos of Food and Glamor. The site should be wedding dedicated, to
show you mean to give her full and exclusive attention.
Also I agree it's a bit clinical. This is the event of a lifetime, and
she needs to feel it's going to be "special." I don't see that here.
The originator says he wanted a 'modern' feeling, but to be frank, and
no point in being anything else, the wedding photos I see are
pedestrian/everyday, not traditional, quirky even, or modern. This is a
very special day!
DonB

Steve Wolfe wrote:
> > I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> > newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I
think my
> > work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with
my
> website
> > layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
> >
> > My website: www.philipcorcoran.com
>
> I'll be blunt and forthcoming, but don't take any of this as
> mean-spiritted by any means!
>
> The first thing that comes to mind is that the home page looks
bland and
> very amateur. That alone will turn away a LOT of people. Second,
when
> people are shopping for wedding photography, they may not be looking
for a
> "general purpose" photographer that shoots food, travel, etc. - but
someone
> who specializes in wedding photography only. Regardless of the
validity of
> the logic, some people will perceive someone who does ONLY wedding
> photography as being more of an expert in the field. However, that's
not to
> say that a better-looking home page and some terrific samples
couldn't bring
> them around.
>
> Moving on to the photographs themselves, there are various
technical
> shortcomings in them - from being less-than-sharp to poorly- or
under-lit
> scenes. However, the largest shortcoming is that the images don't
really
> convey emotion in them, they don't make the viewer *feel* anything.
Women
> want their wedding to be like something out of a fairy tale, and they
want
> their pictures to make the viewer feel like they're looking into a
> fairy-tale.
>
> I did a quick googling for some wedding photography, and here are
some
> comparisons:
>
> http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/web/050208_...
> http://www.iqphoto.com/newgal/images/sample199.jpg
>
> Look at how the use of perspective, lighting, and depth-of-field
give the
> second photo more depth, draw your attention more to the cake, and
creates
> much more "mood".
>
> http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/050208_021_...
> http://www.brycevickmark.com/wedding/images/sc32.jpg
>
> Whether you like that last pose or not aside, you can see how much
more
> emotion is conveyed in the image.
>
> http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/050208_031_...
> http://www.brycevickmark.com/wedding/images/01eastcarte...
>
> Some of your photos are getting much closer - here's one that I
liked:
>
> http://www.philipcorcoran.com/weddings/html/050208_042_...
>
> That's a good use of persective, and the sky makes a good
background.
> However, the subject's expression almost makes her look like she had
> something bad for lunch, and her shoulders look hunched forward. The
> subject also looks a bit "flat", and some directional lighting would
help
> out with that. With a little better expression, pose, and lighting,
that
> good photo would be turned into a great photo.
>
> Steve
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:23:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So were you in the business before? Are you expecting to simply get
business because you are on the web? When I worked in this field
(admittedly, and immodestly, at the high end!) almost all of our work
was from word of mouth, selective advertising in magazines, contra
deals with other organisations like florists, caterers, reception
houses, gown manufacturers, etc, or from the highly naughty method of
using the papers and a phone directory to send out a package showing
what we could do to people who had just become engaged... (O;

This was before the days of the web, but the same principles still
apply - think about *all* the places where you will be noticed, and
target them. In the case of the web- you need to get *many* links to
your site using similar principles as above. A quick check indicates
no-one is linking to you, so you might nearly as well be invisible...
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:30:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"WeddingPhotographer" <pcmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E5ydnXO_Ydc_QaTfRVn-tw@ez2.net...
> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my
> website layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>
> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com
>
>
Thats one way of promoting your website anyway....
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 12:24:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
>> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I
>> think my work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something
>> wrong with my website layout? Please look at my website and let me
>> know.
>>
>> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com
>
> I'll be blunt and forthcoming, but don't take any of this as
> mean-spiritted by any means!
>
> The first thing that comes to mind is that the home page looks bland
> and very amateur. That alone will turn away a LOT of people.
> Second, when people are shopping for wedding photography, they may
> not be looking for a "general purpose" photographer that shoots food,
> travel, etc. - but someone who specializes in wedding photography
> only. Regardless of the validity of the logic, some people will
> perceive someone who does ONLY wedding photography as being more of
> an expert in the field. However, that's not to say that a
> better-looking home page and some terrific samples couldn't bring
> them around.
>

I try to avoid "me-toos", but Sr Wolfe makes good points there, and if
he hadn't, I'd have tried. Another way to think of it is: You may seem
_too_ good for someone whose only interest is in hiring and forgetting a
photographer until it's time to choose images. They don't want to know
about your other skills, just that you can be depended on to deliver on
the big day. Make two sites, one with wedding-only, maybe not even a
link to other services, another to offer the rest to another breed of
shoppers. If I'm looking for a wedding photographer, I'm not sure I want
some glamour stuff planted in my subconscious (seductive and bride don't
juxtapose well, maybe).

I think a change from text-on-white could make a world of difference. I
realize white is a wedding color, but unless there is some kind of
character in the background, what I see on your page is pretty stark,
and not very enticing. I made a 1600x20 pixel jpeg image with Photo
Shop's gradient tool that fades from very light yellow to almost white,
left to right, and use it for background on many pages. Less than 1K,
kind of subtle but influential, doesn't take much to implement, and in
my view saved me hiring a professional to tweak my sites (*very*
expensive). I use other color variants on different sections or themes,
which helps visitors stay oriented as they wander the site.

Small stuff, but effective in implying competence. Or so they tell me.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 4:01:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Mar 2005 in rec.photo.digital, WeddingPhotographer wrote:

> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I
> think my work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something
> wrong with my website layout? Please look at my website and let me
> know.
>
> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com

The photography is good, but you need to sell sizzle, not steak.
Strictly from a website point of view: I visited your site in Lynx, a
text mode browser. Search engines (SEs) are essentially text mode
browsers. Here's what your site looks like:

[logo.gif]

Rates ⢠Online Proofs ⢠Contact
_________________________________________________________________
Weddings Food Travel
Weddings
Food Travel
Music Theater Glamour
Music
Theater Glamour
_________________________________________________________________

There's not much there for a SE to latch onto. I ran a wisenut
(http://wisenut.com/) search on 'photography boston'; you didn't show
up on the first three pages.

- Get your keywords into the body text on your page. If people don't
find it (and if it ain't in the search engines, they won't) they won't
visit. And SEs look for words on the page.
- Secondary to that, keywords in the keyword meta tag aren't worth the
paper they're printed on. They got abused in the early days of SEs,
and current thinking is that most SEs ignore them.
- Get incoming links. Do you have a professional association? Other
(non-competing) wedding professionals you do business with? Suppliers?
A shop that does your printing? Chamber of Commerce? If any of them
have websites, get links to your site.
- Consider Google Adwords or a similar program from other SEs (Yahoo?
MSN? AOL Search?)

Non-web items:
- Do you do bridal shows?
- Yellow pages advertising?
- Church bulletins?
....

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email: http://makowiec.net/email.php
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:47:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And by the way, it is regarded as bad form to post something like this
and run away.. You might get tagged as a spammer.........
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 6:50:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:46:05 GMT, "RHinNC" <rhinnc@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I see nothing wrong with it. The layout of your website is clean, simple and
>to the point.
>
>The photography is good as well.

Agreed.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 6:55:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:58:06 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com>
wrote:

> The first thing that comes to mind is that the home page looks bland and
>very amateur. That alone will turn away a LOT of people. Second, when
>people are shopping for wedding photography, they may not be looking for a
>"general purpose" photographer that shoots food, travel, etc. - but someone
>who specializes in wedding photography only. Regardless of the validity of
>the logic, some people will perceive someone who does ONLY wedding
>photography as being more of an expert in the field. However, that's not to
>say that a better-looking home page and some terrific samples couldn't bring
>them around.
>
> Moving on to the photographs themselves, there are various technical
>shortcomings in them - from being less-than-sharp to poorly- or under-lit
>scenes. However, the largest shortcoming is that the images don't really
>convey emotion in them, they don't make the viewer *feel* anything. Women
>want their wedding to be like something out of a fairy tale, and they want
>their pictures to make the viewer feel like they're looking into a
>fairy-tale.

Hooey! His site is refreshingly clean and to the point. His
photography is great.
March 18, 2005 9:22:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The most successful wedding Photographer I do prints for doesn't charge a
cent to photograph a wedding! She imposes a minimium purchase requirement of
an album and a parent's album or a wall mountable canvas portrait but no
money changes hands for the photography.

Last month I made six canvas portraits and 280 prints for her. Above average
month I admit but you get the picture, I'm sure. Don't rely on advertising
alone for your clients. Get some litrature together and introduce yourself
to everyone associated with wedding planning and flowers.

Offer them a commission for every wedding you do which originates from them.
Don't rely too much on a web site either. The real deal is done face to
face. Incidently your photography is quite good and the site acceptable.
That's not the problem if you are not getting work.

Far too many talented Photographers go belly up in the business because they
haven't a clue how to market themselves. If this sounds familiar, get a
marketing manager or a wedding planner on the job. Just tack their cost on
your price. Price alone is not what you need to be concerned with.

Work like yours shouldn't come cheap and any self respecting father expect
his daughter's wedding to cost a heap. What's it matter if the pictures cost
$1500 or $2000 when you can see your little girl in life size on canvas
hanging on your lounge room wall whenever you feel like it?

"WeddingPhotographer" <pcmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E5ydnXO_Ydc_QaTfRVn-tw@ez2.net...
> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my
> website layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>
> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:11:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you all for viewing my website and contributing your suggestions. I
will consider all your opinions whenever I do a redesign of my site.
However I am pleased to find that nobody complained of difficulty in
navigating my website or found my services hard to understand, so I am happy
that I achieved my design goals.

I am surprised though how many of you commented about search engine tags and
SEMs. I advertise my services in ways that are targeted towards brides in
my service area, and that includes paid ads on magnet wedding sites. To
attempt a worthwhile search engine presence on my own in this highly
competitive, "big boy" field would be hugely expensive. Hiring ad space on
magnet wedding sites costs me only a fraction of what I'd have to pay to
push my way in front of them.

Some of you complained that my website is slow to load. I tested my website
repeatedly using an old computer with a Juno dial-up connection, carefully
cleaning my browser's cache each time, and in my tests none of my pages took
longer than 18 seconds to load. None-the-less I do include a low-resolution
version of my wedding album on my website.

Again, thank you all for your suggestions.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 12:11:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WeddingPhotographer <pcmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my website
> layout? Please look at my website and let me know.

I don't wish to cause unnecessary offence here but... the brides (and
weddings) all look a bit *too* "ordinary". You're supposed to be selling
a dream, what you've got is some average looking women at average
looking weddings. Where's the magic?

pete
--
pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 12:22:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"WeddingPhotographer" <pcmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E5ydnXO_Ydc_QaTfRVn-tw@ez2.net...
> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my
> website layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>

Too slow by far. I gave up after 30 seconds of not seeing anything to grab
my attention and make me want to hold on a bit longer. Spice up the home
page, get a faster host. People will NOT hang about unless they see
something appear SOON.

But having said all that, I actually think your post was spam. You're not
interested in our views at all.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 1:31:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <E5ydnXO_Ydc_QaTfRVn-tw@ez2.net>, WeddingPhotographer
<pcmail@hotmail.com> writes
>I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
>newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
>work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my website
>layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>
>My website: www.philipcorcoran.com

- Page(s) too slow to load

- Get a wedding-only site

- Photos are too dark

- The blue text gives a cheap feel - I'd try grey

- Add a sample of the ordering page(s)

- Switch to a sans-serif typeface

- Is full payment in advance normal in your market?


--
Alan ............
March 18, 2005 2:30:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"WeddingPhotographer" <pcmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E5ydnXO_Ydc_QaTfRVn-tw@ez2.net...
> I've been advertising my new wedding photography business in Boston
> newspapers for several months but I've received few inquiries. I think my
> work is good for the prices I ask. Is there something wrong with my
website
> layout? Please look at my website and let me know.
>
> My website: www.philipcorcoran.com

Joe mentioned some of the technical aspects (the HTML) of the site. I agree
with Joe. The site is poorly designed. Whoever did this site does not
understand website design.

For example:
1. The "heading" Philip H. Corcoran - Photography is a graphic, not text.
There is no way a search engine can find this. So Google cannot index your
site.

2. What Google uses to index sites are headings. ie <h1>...</h1> etc. Your
site does not have any of these.

On the aesthetics side, other people responded with words like "clean,
simple and to the point". They did not respond with words like "WOW
magnificent etc". ie the site is a bit bland.

Fix up the site, then submit it to search engines like Google. If you don't
submit it, there is no way for Google to know about the existence of your
site.

Malcolm
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:38:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 18 Mar 2005 in rec.photo.digital, WeddingPhotographer wrote:

> Thank you all for viewing my website and contributing your
> suggestions. I will consider all your opinions whenever I do a
> redesign of my site. However I am pleased to find that nobody
> complained of difficulty in navigating my website or found my
> services hard to understand, so I am happy that I achieved my design
> goals.
>
> I am surprised though how many of you commented about search engine
> tags and SEMs. I advertise my services in ways that are targeted
> towards brides in my service area, and that includes paid ads on
> magnet wedding sites. To attempt a worthwhile search engine
> presence on my own in this highly competitive, "big boy" field would
> be hugely expensive. Hiring ad space on magnet wedding sites costs
> me only a fraction of what I'd have to pay to push my way in front
> of them.
>
> Some of you complained that my website is slow to load. I tested my
> website repeatedly using an old computer with a Juno dial-up
> connection, carefully cleaning my browser's cache each time, and in
> my tests none of my pages took longer than 18 seconds to load.
> None-the-less I do include a low-resolution version of my wedding
> album on my website.

Suit yourself. By your own admission, you're not getting response from
the website.

- SE positioning is important; the more eyeballs you get, the more
orders you (may) get. And it's not necessarily expensive, it means
doing proper site design and some legwork to get incoming links.
- 18 seconds is too long; people get itchy mouse fingers after about 10
seconds. For them to stay longer than that, you have to give them
compelling content.
- You have /way/ too many pictures. Go for quality, not quantity.
Pick a few of your best pictures and post them.
- Just because your site is easy to navigate doesn't mean that people
are navigating it. Ask your host whether they have a logfile analyzer,
and where you can get your raw logs to see what people are actually
doing. I suspect you'll get some surprises.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
March 18, 2005 3:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns961D4DCD18B3EmakowiecatnycapdotrE@24.24.2.167>,
makowiec@invalid.invalid says...
> Suit yourself. By your own admission, you're not getting response from
> the website.
>
> - SE positioning is important; the more eyeballs you get, the more
> orders you (may) get. And it's not necessarily expensive, it means
> doing proper site design and some legwork to get incoming links.
> - 18 seconds is too long; people get itchy mouse fingers after about 10
> seconds. For them to stay longer than that, you have to give them
> compelling content.
> - You have /way/ too many pictures. Go for quality, not quantity.
> Pick a few of your best pictures and post them.
> - Just because your site is easy to navigate doesn't mean that people
> are navigating it. Ask your host whether they have a logfile analyzer,
> and where you can get your raw logs to see what people are actually
> doing. I suspect you'll get some surprises.
>
> --
> Joe Makowiec
> http://makowiec.org/
> Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
>
>

I dont want to hurt anybodys' feelings here, but if a customer gets "antsy"
with a ten second wait, Im not sure I would want their custom to begin with.

A lot of people I deal with are not "tech-savy" and they actually expect the
picture to slide out of the camera, all cropped and ready to go. (similar to
a Polaroid.

I've had customers that whined about the wait while I was doing an "on Site"
print job that took all of 10 minutes to deliver the print (120 seconds of
that was printing the shot @ 8x10 on a dye-sub printer.. People without
patience are a PITA of the first water.

His site loaded faster than most commercial sites do, and its probably
because he doesn't have a lot of extraneous bulshit slowing down the load.

He should, however have a little more "keyword text" to make it show up on
the popular search engines.

I also agree that separating the "Wedding Photo" section to a stand alone
site is a MUCH better idea.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:50:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WeddingPhotographer wrote:
> Thank you all for viewing my website and contributing your
suggestions. I
> will consider all your opinions whenever I do a redesign of my site.
> However I am pleased to find that nobody complained of difficulty in
> navigating my website or found my services hard to understand, so I
am happy
> that I achieved my design goals.
>
> I am surprised though how many of you commented about search engine
tags and
> SEMs. I advertise my services in ways that are targeted towards
brides in
> my service area, and that includes paid ads on magnet wedding sites.
To
> attempt a worthwhile search engine presence on my own in this highly
> competitive, "big boy" field would be hugely expensive. Hiring ad
space on
> magnet wedding sites costs me only a fraction of what I'd have to pay
to
> push my way in front of them.
>
> Some of you complained that my website is slow to load. I tested my
website
> repeatedly using an old computer with a Juno dial-up connection,
carefully
> cleaning my browser's cache each time, and in my tests none of my
pages took
> longer than 18 seconds to load. None-the-less I do include a
low-resolution
> version of my wedding album on my website.

Phillip,
Boston is a very tough market, lots of folks trying to make a buck with
a camera. You have to be great or find a nich to make it.
Your prices seem low for the market, most are charging $2K and up. Heck
an established firm I know in town gets $7K+. Low prices are a turn
off. Also 1/3 upfront not all the fee.
You need to hire some models (can be friends) and do some terrific
photography, also the wedding only web site makes sense. Your site is a
tad slow, cut the scrolling and design for the monitor.

Tom
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:00:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You really need to learn about the Three C's of photography.
What's up with bride wearing a CAP?
You also need to use a VARIETY of models for "Glamour" - not just one with
bloodshot eyes.
Sorry-
But I can't be patronizing....

On 3/17/05 2:58 PM, in article 39u9beF64o9j0U1@individual.net, "Steve Wolfe"
<unt@codon.com> wrote:

> www.philipcorcoran.com


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:53:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 19 Mar 2005 01:00:30 GMT, George Kerby wrote:

> You really need to learn about the Three C's of photography.

And they are?
April 13, 2005 3:01:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:53:15 +0100, Sam Lowry <No.Spam@Thank.You>
wrote:

>On 19 Mar 2005 01:00:30 GMT, George Kerby wrote:
>
>> You really need to learn about the Three C's of photography.
>
>And they are?

Carrots

Coffee

Cucumbers
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:01:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:53:15 +0100, Sam Lowry <No.Spam@Thank.You>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19 Mar 2005 01:00:30 GMT, George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>> You really need to learn about the Three C's of photography.
>>
>> And they are?
>
> Carrots
>
> Coffee
>
> Cucumbers

Location

Location

Location
!