Opinions on new gallery please

SandyMcClure

SandyMcClure

Messages
232
Name
Sandy
Edit My Images
No
I'm in the process of updating my site for next year (I'm increasing my prices so figured I should update the site) and have put together a new gallery. I've changed the format to a slideshow rather than a blog style like it was before. It's quite long something like 60 odd images and I've tried to pick ones that will appeal to brides. I still have a shorter slider on my home page which I've tried to put the best images on.

This is the link, it isn't linked from the main site yet.
http://love-in-focus.co.uk/portfolio/

And for comparison this is the old gallery which is still live
http://love-in-focus.co.uk/gallery-2/


What do you think of the selection? Would it appeal to brides? Do you think the format of slide show rather than blog style is better?

Mods - sorry if this should really be in the general photo feedback section, as it was wedding related and there are so many images I thought here was more appropriate. Please feel free to move it if you deem necessary
 
Some really nice work there Sandy :)

The only point I would make really is that you describe yourself as a "documentary wedding photographer" yet most of those images are not shot in documentary style (or at least they don't look as if they are). If brides find your site by searching for a documentary wedding photographer they may be put off by not finding the style they were expecting. In fact in my opinion the shots that look set-up are mostly better than the documentary style ones, so you may have more success pitching yourself as "fine art wedding photographer" or "contemporary wedding photographer" maybe.
 
My immediate reaction is that it's a dog's breakfast. You have some really excellent shots in there and you also have a lot of pointless fillers which seriously dilute the impact. And the show starts with the wrong picture.

Is there any way we can identify the individual pictures by file number or whatever? If so, I can illustrate exactly what I'm getting at, but I'm buggered if I'm going to try that if I have to describe each particular shot so we know which one we're talking about ...
 
andyturner said:
Some really nice work there Sandy :)

The only point I would make really is that you describe yourself as a "documentary wedding photographer" yet most of those images are not shot in documentary style (or at least they don't look as if they are). If brides find your site by searching for a documentary wedding photographer they may be put off by not finding the style they were expecting. In fact in my opinion the shots that look set-up are mostly better than the documentary style ones, so you may have more success pitching yourself as "fine art wedding photographer" or "contemporary wedding photographer" maybe.
Click to expand...

Thanks :) That is something I should maybe think about then. I actually spend most of the wedding shooting documentary style but lots of the best shots I get during the bridal shoot when I am directing them. Most people I meet say they liked the relaxed style of my work so I think I should try to stick to that. I'll have a think about some other work to show as well.

Serendipitous Sid said:
My immediate reaction is that it's a dog's breakfast. You have some really excellent shots in there and you also have a lot of pointless fillers which seriously dilute the impact. And the show starts with the wrong picture.

Is there any way we can identify the individual pictures by file number or whatever? If so, I can illustrate exactly what I'm getting at, but I'm buggered if I'm going to try that if I have to describe each particular shot so we know which one we're talking about ...
Click to expand...

So the order was affected by the slide show on the home page, there are repeats in here that are also on the home page but I wanted to make them different so people wouldn't think it was all going to be the same.

I'm all about the 'all killer no filler' idea though so I have updated the page so that all the images are displayed on page with a number above them so you can easily reference individual images :)
 
Looking at that set of 65 snaps, your main problems are that there's too many from the same weddings, and engagement pictures mixed in with weddings.

If it was me, I'd do separate slideshows of no more than 20 each for weddings and engagements. When you don't have enough weddings to make up a killer portfolio, the worst thing you can do is try to pad them out with fillers.

Your killer wedding pictures are 10,25,34,35,36,42,45 and 59 for sure. I don't understand the relevance of 9,15,17,20 and 31 to anybody who wasn't at those weddings. And I'd bin 38 (he looks gormless, she just looks weird), 39 (so contrived that it jars with your other stuff) 43 (too much arm and miserable bugger), 47 (they're wrong way round), 49 (dodgy expression and looks like a fluke shot anyhow), 50 (just doesn't work), 51 (never use a "does my bum look big in this?"shot), 57 (his expression's wrong and it's weak anyhow), 62 (nothing happening, the hand and her top right) and 65 (no impact and emphasis not on couple).

You've got some bloody good snaps in that 65, mister, but they're drowning ...
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
You've got some bloody good snaps in that 65, mister, but they're drowning ...
Click to expand...
Thanks Dan :)

Serendipitous Sid said:
Looking at that set of 65 snaps, your main problems are that there's too many from the same weddings, and engagement pictures mixed in with weddings.

If it was me, I'd do separate slideshows of no more than 20 each for weddings and engagements. When you don't have enough weddings to make up a killer portfolio, the worst thing you can do is try to pad them out with fillers.
Click to expand...

There is 14 weddings and 6 engagement shoots in there, not everything I have done but my favourites. I mean I guess if I went down to 20 shots I'd only have really great shots but doesn't that feel a little low? The home page slider has about a dozen on it!

Serendipitous Sid said:
39 (so contrived that it jars with your other stuff)
Click to expand...

Ha, I agree, this was actually a shot they specifically asked for (there was a similar one on the cover of the venue brochure and this was the second wedding I ever booked so I was agreeing to anything at the time!), I'm not a huge fan of this shot but I thought it might appeal to a certain audience.

Any thoughts on slideshow over featured on page?
 
Last edited:
Serendipitous Sid said:
Fair enough - if you're trying to be all things to all people.
Click to expand...

Not so much all things to all people, more appeal to a wider market for enquiries then be able to choose the jobs I want more. You're right though, it's out, well will be when I have updated the page, it's staying as is for a bit while I gather feedback from a couple of places.

Serendipitous Sid said:
Might be there on over but not mean what you quite sure ...
Click to expand...

Sorry this doesn't make any sense to me, what are you trying to say? If you are asking for clarification on what I mean (oh the irony) I'm asking which you think is better, the slideshow or the pictures static on page like I had before here

Serendipitous Sid said:
WTA - I just realised that you're in Bristol :)
Click to expand...

Well Bristol is the best city to live in y'know ;)
 
SandyMcClure said:
I'm asking which you think is better, the slideshow or the pictures static on page like I had before here
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Personally I'd do a loop of no more than 5 on the home page plus a very clear strapline directing punters straight to that gallery page.

Whatever, that gallery is bloody good even as it stands, and you've certainly led with the right picture (if you're not quite sure why it's the right one, ask a bride). Haven't time to check it out thoroughly, but I did note a few obvious "it's the same gig!" shots and the unfortunate bit on the bloke's nose in that heavily vignetted confetti shot. Personally I'd bin the guest headshots, which are dead boring and irrelevant to anybody who wasn't at that particular wedding.

I used to do those too, until it was pointed out to me that nobody apart from the subject or their other half wants to see them. They want pictures of happy smiling guests in context.

You can certainly take a decent snap when you want to, so good luck with the marketing :)
 
No comment on the gallery side but I think you need to expand on the services you offer on the price tab. "Full service for as long as you need" is open to interpretation and a lot of togs tailor their packages by defined events on the day so say what you cover. Also "albums avail for £450" are these £10.99 max spielman albums with 36 photos in or some hand crafted, exotic papered, amazingingly covered albums? Doesn't seem like you're selling this value added item very well.
 
SandyMcClure said:
Thanks :) That is something I should maybe think about then. I actually spend most of the wedding shooting documentary style but lots of the best shots I get during the bridal shoot when I am directing them. Most people I meet say they liked the relaxed style of my work so I think I should try to stick to that. I'll have a think about some other work to show as well.
Click to expand...

Hey Sandy, great set of images on the whole and, as Sid said, cut them down to get a killer set. One thing, though, doesn't everyone spend most of their time shooting documentary? Not trying to stir anything up, but the term is certainly thrown around pretty willy nilly these days, especially when you're getting some great contemporary shots that a lot of 'documentary' photographers probably wouldn't be able to get. Even though some may think that is on trend to use the word 'documentary', you should also consider what you're good at (as you said) and target that crowd.

love in focus, great name by the way!
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Hmmm. Personally I'd do a loop of no more than 5 on the home page plus a very clear strapline directing punters straight to that gallery page.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea.

Serendipitous Sid said:
I did note a few obvious "it's the same gig!" shots and the unfortunate bit on the bloke's nose in that heavily vignetted confetti shot.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason I wanted to update, I haven't touched that gallery in months.

Serendipitous Sid said:
Personally I'd bin the guest headshots, which are dead boring and irrelevant to anybody who wasn't at that particular wedding.
Click to expand...
I spoke to some friends who got married and they said they automatically discounted any togs who's sites only featured pics of the B+G, I think people want to see they will also get nice shots of their guests. Sure they aren't the wow shots but they serve a purpose.

WelshNoob said:
No comment on the gallery side but I think you need to expand on the services you offer on the price tab. "Full service for as long as you need" is open to interpretation and a lot of togs tailor their packages by defined events on the day so say what you cover. Also "albums avail for £450" are these £10.99 max spielman albums with 36 photos in or some hand crafted, exotic papered, amazingingly covered albums? Doesn't seem like you're selling this value added item very well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder, I have been meaning to create a page just for the albums for a while. Obviously they aren't just cheapy shop bought albums!

scottinfocus said:
Hey Sandy, great set of images on the whole and, as Sid said, cut them down to get a killer set. One thing, though, doesn't everyone spend most of their time shooting documentary? Not trying to stir anything up, but the term is certainly thrown around pretty willy nilly these days, especially when you're getting some great contemporary shots that a lot of 'documentary' photographers probably wouldn't be able to get. Even though some may think that is on trend to use the word 'documentary', you should also consider what you're good at (as you said) and target that crowd.
Click to expand...
I think people do look for documentary style a lot so I would want to mention that but maybe shifting the emphasis to include documentary rather than focus on it would be a good idea.


scottinfocus said:
love in focus, great name by the way!
Click to expand...
Thanks, great minds eh? ;)
 
SandyMcClure said:
I spoke to some friends who got married and they said they automatically discounted any togs who's sites only featured pics of the B+G, I think people want to see they will also get nice shots of their guests.
Click to expand...

Sure they want nice shots of their guests, but my point is that they want nice shots of their guests in context. Headshots have no context. They are essentially portraits.

PM sent :)
 
SandyMcClure said:
Thanks for the reminder, I have been meaning to create a page just for the albums for a while. Obviously they aren't just cheapy shop bought albums!
Click to expand...


No problem. You'd hope they weren't cheap shop bought ones but there was no indication otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top