[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Any constructive criticism for my website?...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography

Thread replies: 67
Thread images: 13
Any constructive criticism for my website? Just fully reconfigured it to be a little less template-y

inb4 'snapshits'
>>
Link?
>>
>>2745342

change "people" for "humans". be cheeky.
>>
>>2745347

or huMANSCAPE
>>
>>2745342

Forgot the link

http://jonathannotleyphotography.com/
>>
>>2745351
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f1de20e4b052f336afc14b/55f1e682e4b06d7d2a8c1248/5698b1051c121004ba211c6d/1452847558764/JNP_5176.jpg?format=1500w

You gotta fix that one, OP. There's a big fat dust speck on the sensor/lens which you can see in this very picture.

Other than that - very nice.
>>
>>2745351

checked it. content is poor, photos dont deserve to be in any portfolio. not even one of them.

if youre using it to attract clients or prints, you wont get any of those. landscapes are ass, people are uninteresting literal whos.

if you want to use it to show "hey i like to do photo pls subscribe", as in, a personal hobby page, then do it, but dont confuse matters. photos are still shit and you cant even into proper focal lenght, let alone composition.

id say stick to instagram.
>>
>>2745360
>into proper focal lenght
I'm using incorrect focal lengths?
>>
>>2745360

Are you more into this kind of thing?
>>
>>2745357
Thanks anon

fixed it
>>
>>2745342
I love the website aesthetics and layout.

however, your landscape photos are pretty basic and half-hearted. They aren't interesting whatsoever and some aren't even landscapes. So improve on taking photos.

Also, stop using VSCO for every photo. For some, it works, for others, it makes you look a but try-hard.
>>
>>2745367
>but
bit*
>>
>>2745367
I know some aren't that landscape-y, I tried 'Places' as a seperate genre but it seemed a bit feeble.
>>
>>2745361
>>2745364

its not a matter of being "into" or "not into". its not a subjective issue. your landscapes are sucking bad. they are flat and empty, atrociously composed. uninteresting. bad colors. no amount of long exposure can fool the trained eye when the photo is full pleb.

you want to be a landscape photog? study people that did it good. same for the "portraits".
>>
>>2745373
tried making one more genre?

also, upload the best you have, not all you take.
Gonna be honest man, I liked two photos in your landscapes. The main one and the purple ish silhouette one.

I do however like the People section. Better. Try stick to 2 types of aspect ratios, it helps look and stack photos better.
>>
>>2745377
Just made a travel section but it's only got 6 images, culled a load from landscape and analog and moved them to have 3 on each line

Worried that this image (>>2745364 )
of the Malecón in Cuba is the best I've taken, but displaying it screws things up since it's got the panoramic ratio
>>
>>2745377
Took down the shop too because it's embarrassing to have insta followers see it and know I can't sell anything
>>
Pay more attention to your mobile layout. If you do get traffic, a huge chunk is likely to be through mobile devices.

Pic related is your current mobile layout when first loaded on any page. See the probrem?
>>
>>2745383
Oh I'd also drop analogue as a category.
Its...not really. If you're going to categorize, try to do so through subject matter and intent, not process.*

*exception to that would be separating b&w and color work, which is often beneficial to both sides of the divorce
>>
>>2745380
>>2745382
certainly more refined, gj.
Now I guess just take more photos, little tip; dont take photos of the sun in explicitly in the frame. Take the land instead using the light, any time of the day is great for landscapes.

The Shop wasn't too bad as an option though, put it back once you've taken more photos. And don't show the stats of sales lol.

I really really like the layout of the site, good job on that.

also >>2745383 (this very much, if you're doing the HTML yourself, look into HTML5 and the smoothness of the Apple website on mobiles) and >>2745384
>>
File: CNV00066.jpg (710 KB, 1840x1232) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
CNV00066.jpg
710 KB, 1840x1232
>>2745383
>>2745387

I'm trying to make a mobile specific title with a significantly smaller font size for one line, Might just upload it as a picture with a transparent back ground and see if that keeps it smaller.

thanks for your help guys it's helping me move on from >>2745360 aha

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP-2000
Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-6.6-0E-818
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:01:14 13:28:07
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1840
Image Height1232
>>
One of the worst photography websites I've ever visited. Everything from the confusing, ugly layout to the cringe worthy text sections need redoing. The primary message I get from using this website is that you want to channel people back to your instagram account, and when you get there you have very little reaction to the majority of your images. Whilst I like some of your b/w work it just seems like you think you need a website because you have a couple of instagram followers.
>>
Okay. You've categorized your photos, but these categories are too broad. In your landscapes section you have a cliche foggy meditative dock photo, a beach sunset, a city scape, some guy about to be eaten by a wave, a cool architecture shot... all quite different in style. There's no consistency and no clear style. If I were looking to hire somebody and I saw your website, I wouldn't know quite what I was in for.

Although your people more section seems much more consistent, it does have its inconsistencies (and I'm sure you know what I mean).

I think, in order to separate a website into the categories which you have here, you need a very consistent style and manner in taking pictures, which you do not have. You might be better off categorizing your pictures by a specific project. If you've never embarked on a project, you should. There's a lot to be learned.

Consistency is key. If your photos are consistent, it better communicates your approach to the subject matter you choose, and it shows your focus and dedication.
>>
>>2745407
You're giving him a guide to profiting from capitalism not artistic advice.
There are many renowned photographers who have styles all across the board.

Instead of expecting all your work to be obviously related by process choose what's strongest for an individual image or set.
Sets aren't always a good idea. Sets are just paragraphs, some people want to write haiku.
>>
>>2745412
>Sets are just paragraphs, some people want to write haiku.
i like this
>>
So my aspect ratios are uniform depending on the page, they stack up nicely now but a few on certain pages have to be lightboxed to get out of 1:1 etc

Is that retarded or do people intuitively click the photos they like and get the full effect?

Mobile site should be fixed
>>
>>2745417
center the header!!

great stuff on the resizing, I like it a lot more now.

> Is that retarded or do people intuitively click the photos they like and get the full effect?
you're fine there, people will know.

put more variety in the shop later on, such as framed photos and all.

The mobile format is quite fucked atm, wrong order of titels and photos lmao, quick fix though so no worries, use a table

when you have time, feel free to put a bit more animations for intro and outro to/fro pages.

a lot of improvement done and a bit more needed. Mostly, take more and higher quality photos
>>
>>2745342
that landscape photo is generic AF
>>
>>2745360
This guy is a fucking asshole. Don't let him rip into you and then merely allude to sections of photography without mentioning any specifics or constructive criticism.

Even if he is a photographer, he obviously has failed his dream. Thinking that just because he is unable to achieve his goals, that no aspiring person can. And using that as fuel to verbally assault others to make him feel better about being a failure

>>2745342
Your photos are nice, most capture a really good representation of change. Keep the creativity juices flowing and don't let pricks become obstacles.
>>
>>2745412
>You're giving him a guide to profiting from capitalism not artistic advice.

If you look at his "about" page, he seems to have an intent to market himself, and so I presume that he's not simply looking for artistic advice.

Making sets is also a very good artistic exercise. As I said:

>If your photos are consistent, it better communicates your approach to the subject matter you choose, and it shows your focus and dedication.
>Approach
>Focus
>Dedication

These are things which, to me, help define an artist. Making sets develops these things. If OP has multiple styles, he's not doing a good job at showing it: his website does not tell me that he knows how to switch between styles in a coherent or predictable manner. As far as I know, renowned artists with multiple styles aren't so unpredictable and all over the place.

Basically: If OP wants to organize his website, then he could do it much better and with great advantage, whether or not he's marketing.

>Paragraphs, haikus...

Yeah, but OP seems like he doesn't know if he's writing haikus or paragraphs.
>>
>>2745423
>Your photos are nice, most capture a really good representation of change
thats more dangerous for him than anything i said. you pulled that out of your insincere ass, since the photos dont convey anything beyond "i love my new camera".

but i was unclear. my suggestion is for OP to drop the website altogether until he has stuff worth uploading to a site. for sloppy uncurated content, theres flickr, 500px, whatever. for a site with your full name, with professional intentions, maybe you have to think twice before upload content that will make people associate your name with newbie uninteresting stuff FOR YEARS until you become decent. hence stick to insta (for a long while until git gud).
>>
>>2745433
Stop pretending to have experience.
>>
>>2745438
>s-shut u-up!

address the points made or kindly leave the discussion. i wont get mad.
>>
>>2745438
Waa waa
>>
Logo/name should be like 1/10th the size. too big.
>>
>>2745529
Done, i agree it looks better

cheers
>>
>>2745433
You have nothing positive to say for any image on that site?
>>
>>2745593
>You have nothing positive to say for any image on that site?

i leave that hard task to you guys, try to not sound like youre faking it though. btw the guy posted a site, ill refer to the site, not single images.

id say some are decentish, but none are portfolio tier. still generic as fuck, as expected from a kid who hasnt experienced shit. and the bunch of it just cant sustain itself.
>>
File: Clipboard01.png (1 MB, 1120x816) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Clipboard01.png
1 MB, 1120x816
>>
as for the people category: stop overusing vsco on everything, stop photographing people's backs (skater pic is the only where it is justifiable) and watch that people don't grow extra appendages from their heads or faces
>>
>>2745719
No like 'This isn't a landscape take it to people' or 'no' as in this not good so don't have it online
>>
I see what you mean about the horizon leaning down towards the right, going to go try and fix that in photoshop.

Not sure I agree with 'generic panorama' but I guess you'd have to know the scene
>>
>>2745719
>uncorrected verticals
There's nothing wrong with that.
>>
>>2745745
yeah there is, the verticals aren't corrected

:P
>>
>>2745745
>>2745749

I took that picture where I was because of the brutalist looming perspective which I think a PC-E lens would lessen, it's quite a well known building on the south bank of the thames so I guess Londoners might have a different reaction to the photo.

Getting a lot of 'Don't use VSCO' though, in portraits as well as landscapes. I actually manually take the blacks/shadows up slightly via the tone curve in photoshop before exporting. I know it's a bit cliche.

There's a bit of a split in critique of web design, website content and I feel like I've worked out general styles /p/ finds either overplayed or cheap:

>Long exposures
>Vanishing points
>Convergent verticals
>Light trails
>Sunsets
>VSCO
>Raised blacks

(The 'don't take pictures of people's backs' is one of those rules I felt the specific pictures were alright in breaking, but I agree that a lot of shit-tier street photography also breaks this rule. )


I'm worried that there might be a choice between popular photography and successful photography. The site is obviously a new project and I'm grateful for all your advice on that. I guess I just need to re-examine the photographic avenue I decide to follow in 2016.

Does anyone else give up on digital for a couple of weeks at a time and shoot film? Any book recommendations?
>>
>>2745360
>>2745433
>>2745642

Also I don't want to sound like I'm lashing out at criticism, and I understand that bubbles have to be burst.... But feel like this guy would tear down Cartier-Bresson's photo collection if he'd never seen them before and they were uploaded to a younger no-name photographer's site.

NOT comparing myself to HCB, just don't feel anything is good enough for this anon.

Maybe he was right and I'm just weak willed, and prioritising the nicer comments.
>>
>analog genre
dont

just no
>>
File: CNV00040.jpg (64 KB, 597x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
CNV00040.jpg
64 KB, 597x400
Seeing other people refuse to take criticism annoys me, as it might annoy you. So sorry

[/blog]

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP-2000
Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-6.6-0E-818
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:01:14 13:27:07
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width597
Image Height400
>>
>>2745781
As in, just put them in with the digitals or don't have them at all?
>>
>>2745351
Take more photos don't build this website yet. Once you have to pick between 20 of your best in each categories, I can see it being fine. You just haven't shot enough. Work on that first.
>>
>>2745775
>Does anyone else give up digital for a few weeks...

Ya.

>Any book recommendations

Yes:

>>2739716

>>2745783
Is analog bad or something? No. But having Landscape, People, and then Analog doesn't make sense. Is analog photography the subject of your analog photos?
>>
>>2745342
Hey OP, I think on your about page you shouldn't highlight that your camera is full frame. I think it makes you look sorta pompous... I would be inclined to not even mention gear at all in the about page.
>>
>>2746171
I don't want people to think I'm some 14 year old with a 650d + 18-55 aha, might just change it to 'high-end gear'
>>
>>2746197
Let your photography speak for itself, it's good :) I get the impression that you have insecurities towards the quality of your work when you have to tell people that you have expensive gear.

Yeah, if you're going to do it, say "high-end gear". I don't think I client would be bothered to read or watch anything on why full-frame is better than crop.
>>
>>2746204
Cheers, given it a bit of a touch up.
>>
>>2746205
Jonathan Notley

Welcome to my site, that's me holding the camera. All the pictures on this site were taken by me, I'm rarely seen without a camera in hand. A lot of photographers tend to tie themselves to one element of camera-work but I've wound up shooting everything from the streets of Havana to studio portraiture and still don't feel quite like settling into a niche yet.

Although I enjoy the film process, and appreciate the results that can be achieved with it I understand most people are looking for high resolution digital files suited to printing and online sharing. With that in mind I'm currently using a high-end Nikon DSLR along with an comprehensive lens collection.

Need something photographed? Yourself, your friends, your company's product? Maybe you'd like to buy the rights to a photo you've seen on this site. Whatever it might be please don't hesitate to get in touch. I'm sure we can sort something out.


This really needs rewording. Why are you focusing 90% on gear still? Also don't put down film because you don't know if somebody will turn up wanting that specific element of your photography, also you can scan even 35mm to above dslr quality if you have the right equipment. Tbh though you need to work on your work before you even think about having a website and I think you're lacking a lot of content and quality across the board
>>
>>2746197
>I don't want people to think I'm some 14 year old with a 650d + 18-55
They won't assume that if your work is good.
Really wish I could find it again, but I came across a website for a wedding photographer that was so proud of using "high quality medium format film equipment" and their photos were absolute garbage. It looked like they had shot a total of two weddings and most of the images were tacky photoshops of some guy's fugly italian wife.

Bragging about your equipment on your site isn't going to impress anyone. they're there to look at your photos.
>>
>>2746197
>I don't want people to think I'm some 14 year old with a 650d + 18-55 aha
>35 "fool frame"
>'high-end gear'
>>
>>2746197
do you sometimes find yourself in a museum, reading the descriptions on the side, reading MADE WITH HIGH END DAVINCI tm BRUSHES AND ARTISANAL ACRYLIC PAINT

Have you ever seen a construction company say on their website that they use HIGH END PORR AND CAT CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES

no because people pay you for your services not what tools you use
>>
>>2746171
>>2746197

LEL

IS THIS REAL??

HAHAHAHAHA
>>
File: ayy_l'meme.jpg (253 KB, 1080x1283) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ayy_l'meme.jpg
253 KB, 1080x1283
Lookin' good, OP!
>>
>>2747283
>>2747619
>>2747622
Is this some epic 9gag raid?
>>
>>2747622
btfo xd
>>
>>2747619

whats with blacks and these "100"s?
>>
>>2745778

Main cristism (As asked for OP) I would make is, The people bit is for me (personal pref) The most interesting bit, But I definately feel like every photo is staged. None of the body positions/faces seem genuine, I can feel you standing behind the lens in everyone going 'ok relax, ok look left a bit, up a bit more..' etc etc

Maybe not the case but thats what i saw. Also wat you doing in my town, I never checked your visa for south london.
>>
>>2748059
OP here, only one that was staged was the one against the yellow shutters, but I guess the criticism still stands.

Sorry for the gear comment I've removed that now... you guys can stop with the memes aha
>>2747619
>>2747622
>>2747283
>>2747001
>>2746998
>>2746996
>>
>>2745400
just use an @media max-width to change the h1 fontsize on smaller screens
Thread replies: 67
Thread images: 13
Thread DB ID: 459030



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.