I'm writing this in conjunction with a very similar post on pdn in hopes of drawing attentiont to both PPF and my new images site....hope you all enjoy, and be brutally honest... I've just launched a site of my images in hopes of drawing attention to my work. I'd like whoever is interested to critique what I have done so far.

I went for 'very simple', hoping to draw as much attention to the images as possible. Of course, such an approach only guarantees that even the slightest flaws in the photographs will be noticed immediately. But I guess there's no bluffing if you're trying to be serious.

As some of you may know, my main interest is in trying to hone my skills as a fashion photographer, and as a 'fashionable' portraitist, in order to do it professionally; and as such I would truly appreciate any input as to how I might further focus my efforts.

I have a million thanks to give to all of you here, at photo.net and the other forums, especially PoP and Black and White Film and Processing, and Printing, since most of what I've learned has come from these locations over the last year and a bit. So thank you thank you thank you.

...I've run out of scans, so the thin areas will hopefully soon be filled...as soon as I buy a scanner for myself, since I had someone else do it this time...shawn

-- shawn gibson (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), February 20, 2000

Answers

I guess that's what I asked for.

I only got two responses other than yours, on pdn, and I've basically been told the site andthe images blow. It's so hard for me to see why no one had anything good to say about the images ("your images are good, your site blows" would have made it seem worthwhile to me), but I've done all this on a 15 year old really tiny monitor. The scans were very flat, so on every image, I used "Auto Levels" to punch things up; and almost every scan isfrom an 8x10" print which was originally on 11x14" paper and accordingly cropped, so maybe the tightness is due to the loss of original composition? Maybe on other screens there's no detail, I don't know (I'll check on a computer at work today...). Or maybe the image scans blow for some other reason. Or maybe the images just plain blow, in which case I wish I hadn't quit university. But it's too late now I guess. Maybe I should just delete the whole thing before too many people see it, and start over (or not)...I feel like shit

-- shawn gibson (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

Wow was I neurotic this morning or what! This was the first time ever, through poetry, music, painting, and photography, that I put myself on the line. I was devestated by the first few responses because they weren't clear enough, at the time, for me to discern whether the site was the problem, the scans, or the images themselves. Of course, I assumed it was the images...and thought about jumping off a bridge...But now I'm back to Earth (got there by walking, too...).

The information I have been getting has been extremely helpful. I think what I'm going to do is start a new site from scratch, listening to everything which has been said. I do have a few questions:

1) If anyone goes to the People Photography Introduction/Welcome page, you'll notice it doesn't have all the advertising crap from my server supplier. I think I can clean a new site up a lot if I import all my pages which have been previously created through Composer, PS5, and, if I can find a download of it, Claris Homepage. One of the reasons the site was so bare, was because I was using the supplier's software for everything, and trying to do this with little experience on bare-minimal software, not to mention all the uploading time and crashes I was going through, left me saying absolutely "no" to anything spectacular. I'm going to create the pages and import them like I did with the Forum Welcome, which will give me all the time I need, and all the resources, to do it right. I have plenty of experience with PS5, so I know I can get something 'graphically' pleasing if I work hard...

2) what should a page size be, W and H? I use an 800x600 monitor, but most people use something larger I think, and I'd rather have the pages fit well on the majority of screens...

3) how should I create my images? They are scann very large at 150dpi as jpegs on cd; should I reduce to 72dpi Jpegs, and with what compression (I was using 10-maximum quality, and 3 progressive scans...).

4) should I offer thumbnails and 'larger' images which fit onto the screen, or that plus a third, quite large image if one clicks on the 'larger' image?

5) how do I present the professional/business aspect? a dedicated "contact" page with a link to it on every page?

I don't know what else to ask, I don't even know the grammar yet, let alone the syntax of all this...

I know some of this is a personal decision, so I guess I'm asking from a business/managerial PoV...i.e., you're the boss since you're the potential client...

Thanks everyone

sincerely again, shawn

-- shawn gibson (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

ps the URL to (1) is here. It solves the freesite problem if I can create complex/image-intense pages in the same manner, doesn't it? Big "if", I guess..s

-- shawn gibson (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

I give up, it used my old address. I think I should go to bed. ma ma mia...

-- shawn gibson (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

I think you need a toy camera. and a better scanner (operator). Your many post concerning technical issues is a clue that you need to have less control. (Give it a try, spend twenty bucks on a holga, make some damn blurry pictures that have graphic impact. Subjective information, pleasingly arranged), and think of the page (photograph) as a two dimensional world... how will your image look inside that rectangle.

As for the website, it's pretty austere for a fashion photographer. I detect a lack of attention to graphic design in the website and the images. Get a toy camera, pay attention to the arrangement of the light and dark areas of both (web and pics) rather than the details (throw away the tech pan, or use its low speed to make blurry pictures in bright sun), and observe how your eye feels looking at them (both web and pics) and what that does to your mental state during the experience... t (is this what you asked for?)

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 21, 2000.

In response to Tom's response: I understand what he's talking about. It's VERY easy to get locked in on the tech-ended rut and periodically what's needed is to pick up a disposable camera or such and play. Another forum I belong to just had an assignment to create an image with a flashless disposable. After seeing the results I was ready to toss the 'blad, tech pan, etc. etc. and let CVS develop all my stuff in an hour.

I think much of your work is well done. You and I are kindred spirits in that we're at the same space. I'm trying not to define myself though. I think that just to go with the personal evolutionary learning curve will find me at a place in which I belong....be it portraiture, fashion, landscape, ob/gyn, blah, blah. Once I "arrive", THEN I can tack on the adjective. Let the innate talent define where you're going and just go along for the ride. You'll end up in a good place fer sure! Looks like you'll be a fashion shooter but I think what Tom's saying is "don't paint your skill into a solitary corner."

Re: the site. Austere yes. That, too, will evolve naturally. You've made the big step of just GETTING IT UP! (Hmmmm). I might suggest you spot your images meticulously prior to publishing though. Quite a few dust/hairs evident throughout.

A friend says: "The journey is the destination". Enjoy the ride.

Bill

-- Bill Stengel (Canis61@AOL.com), February 21, 2000.

Hi Shawn,

As I have seen your work in actual print before, I know that they are indeed much better than the scans. I just had an opportunity to show one of my illustration friends your site. She's seen my photos of Kathryn. So, she made a comparison between our shots. She liked your shots very much for your ability to bring out pleasant emotions from Kathryn. In my work, I tend to be a bit more distant from her. I guess that is also the difference in our personalities. And, I heard once that if your pictures can show your personality that is a good thing. So, I think you are doing just fine. Like the comments above, keep working on it. Let it evolve and let yourself evolve. Good luck.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

hey shawn, i'm not going o be able to give you a valuable feedback, but i'll give you my feelings. i'm like you, still learning and desiring to get better, but unfortunately, since we try hard, we think we are doing pretty good...it hurts huh, when, when we ask to be judged, a lot more experienced people turn us down...but you know what, at least we grabbed their attention, they saw what we are capable of doing, and they will give their honest and precious advice... listen to what tom has said...it might seem ridiculous and contrary to what would be logical, but do it,,,it will help you in a way you have never imagined...i've tried it, and now, i'm desperatly trying to caatch the same feeling only vision and a photograph can have, not just a picture...

-- julien chavardes (mightyjujub@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

Response

I'm having to limp along with two half-working computers, and the sodding thing just lost my very detailed post. Try again...

Don't be discouraged, Shawn. I like your photos, some of them very much. But (there's always a but) the page design does them no favours. For example, the Barbara series. The individual images are strong, with feeling, very descriptive. Not conventional fashion, which I think you know. But together, the thumbs are crowded together top-left of my screen, each one bursting to expand into the acres of empty screen space. They are also slightly different colours, and have little commonality.

In 'barbrest' I like the shirt disapearing into the white backgound. That trick doesn't always work, but I like it here. I was disturbed by the knee being cropped off, but that it just a thumbnail problem.

You might consider reorganising the thumbnail pages. Instead of grouping by model, try some other stronger visual characteristic: pose, attitude, head vs half-length vs full-length, whatever. Probably larger thumbs, with more room to breath, perhaps max three per page.

Similarly, the larger versions of the images, which I really like, could use a better (or at least consistent) page layout. If the image is pushed to one side of the screen, there should be a good reason, rather than just a a blue half-screen, or even worse, a black one.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan@snibgo.com), February 21, 2000.

Geesh. I just tried to edit my post full of questions to reflect my new email, which I'm using for everything now cuz playing email chase is starting to drive me nuts, and I mistakenly deleted my own post!!!

Seems a wierd day for computer going...

Anyways, you have all been very helpful. I was quite neurotic this morning, and I apologise.

The benefit of being the mantainer here, is that I can go to my email and cut and paste my original post, I hope...Let's see:

OK I deleted that too, earlier (but at least on purpose...). o boy.

If someone who has asked to recieve all posts from here, would you mind reposting my response? I'll check back in a while, and if nothing comes up I'll just ask/write again...

What a wierd day today has been, more highs and lows than I can remember...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

o im an idiot they're all at the top!!! gnight all...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

This may sound a bit harsh...

Your web site is in serious need of help. You have skipped all of the essential steps in web design. Here is what you need to do:

1) Write down your objective for your web site. Write down your top three goals for the web site. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of stuff on the web, which is what you have.

2) Determine what you need to do in the design of your web site to meet your objective and goals.

3) Storyboard the flow of your web site. Look at some others for some good ideas.

4) Storyboard the design of your web site for the home page and for any unique class of pages.

5) Build the site.

From the looks of it, you skipped 1-4. This is fairly common, and it's why there are a lot of ineffective web sites out there. Web sites require as much design as magazine pages

You didn't really succeed at "very simple," and if you go through the above, you will probably see why. It takes too long to get to the images and the organization is, as someone points out above, wrong. (As a side note, whenever I see a site organized by model names, I assume it's something other than a photography site.)

Other than that, try listening to what Tom Meyer says. I do.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), February 21, 2000.

You're exactly right, Jeff. I was so excited to have my photos scanned on cd I really jumped the gun. I asked a lot of questions and commented a lot at the beginning of this post after people had responded, but since I used my administrative email address, they all ended up at the beginning of the post...

I started mapping a new site from scratch last night, using software on my computer so I can stylize, unify, focus, hone, etc., before actually uploading to a site. The free-server problem has been solved: only the first page, which simply says "Enter" has the server junk at the bottom. The rest is loaded in from Explorer editing software and as such has not crap at the bottom...first problem already solved.

The hardest part is going to be how I group my images. I really can't think of any feasible way except through the models' names. Any suggestions based on the images you've seen so far?

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

Shawn... do not get freaked out. You will make it work. You have an intensity and desire that exceeds anyone I have ever encountered except maybe Chris Verene and all he had that you haven't picked up yet (and you're very close) is a tight focus on a specific goal... not style, not genre, but goal. But neither have I. The biggest reason I don't have a website yet is the range of material will be very diverse and I'm mystified. I'm going with the flow chart method, circles with titles connecting the disparate bodies of work and the images in each and then the people I want to see each and what's appropriate text and yeeeeaaaahhh...... I have a hard time just filing the film, forget organizing a website or a portfolio.

You have one genre of work you're handling and maybe two markets. Your task is simple, spread the prints out and organize them like an exhibit, see Alan's advice "You might consider reorganising the thumbnail pages. Instead of grouping by model, try some other stronger visual characteristic: pose, attitude, head vs half-length vs full-length, whatever" It will make the website more about you instead of about the model, which is what you've got now. People looking for a photographer don't care what the models' capabilities are (different "looks") or even what his/her name is, they're there to see your work and what your capabilities are. Keep banging at it, and don't worry, you'll get a shot at mine one day (hoo boy, that'll be fun)... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 22, 2000.

I just have one question: Do you tone these photos for a reason? In most cases I don't see it enhancing them in any way (though it may just be the scans - and I do like "kevdel" under miscellaneous). You really need to have these scanned from the negs.

As for the pics themselves, I don't see any consistency of style or "vision" (a word I hate, but there is definitely something missing here). It looks like you have just taken your _favorite_ pictures and lumped them together - as opposed to taking your _best_ pictures and juxtaposing them in interesting ways.

My rule of thumb on portfolios: a viewer will only remember two pics - your best and your worst - so make sure that the worst picture on your site is one you want to be remembered by.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 22, 2000.

Thanks guys. I'm starting to see how organization is going to be the crux of this. The design part of the new site is really not too difficult; there are many good sites to view for inspiration, and I have many ideas and personal quirks of my own. How to arrange the images, that's another story...?

John--how much, what type, etc, of scanner is suitable for scanning negs, colour and black and white, and for online and good quality 11x14" Iris prints--good quality, not great? I'd love to dump darkroom time as much as possible...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

I get 2400-2700 ppi scans done locally (on a Nikon Super Coolscan) for US$.50 a frame. That's good enough resolution for high-quality 8x10s @ 300 dpi) and good quality 11x14s (@ about 200 dpi). And at that price it's not worth buying your own scanner. But if you can't find a good price locally and have to buy one, even an HP PhotoSmart would be better than any flatbed. (US$489 at www.scanneroutlet.com. The Nikon Coolscan III is only $739.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 24, 2000.

Thanks John.

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.