# My new website - your critical review, thoughts, input, suggestions, ideas... Please!



## tirediron

I've just "gone live" with a totally revamped version of my website and I would really appreciate ANY thoughts, input, suggestions, or general critique on *ANY* aspect at all.

Thanks!


----------



## snowbear

I think it has a nice, clean design and the navigation is very straight forward.  I did see one image that I thought had soft focus (the military medals).  It took a few seconds more than "normal" to load most of the images, but that may be something on my end - I've noticed this off and on with a couple of other sites.


----------



## tirediron

Awesome, thank-you!  You're right, that image is soft (motion-blur actually I think when I look at the hi-res version) so I will bin it.  Not sure why the images are taking so long to load, but I will investigate that as well.


----------



## snowbear

It seems to be buffering them, but not all.  the first one or two just popped up, but the others seemed to be buffering; not sure if it's because your end is not sending fast enough or mine isn't receiving fast enough.  I'll look at them again, later, with other browsers to see what happens.


----------



## Mully

I like the site .... clean layout but ran into a problem ..... when I clicked on the large bar of images on the home page it goes to another page with the same bar at the top but there is no way out to go anywhere. You might want to look into this.


----------



## MLeeK

John, your prices... WOW. 
The focus of the whole website seems to be words, not images. The images are small, hard to scroll through and hard to load. It's not smooth, fluid or really very flattering. Lots of big white space and words with itty bitty images.
 The images you are showing are not designed to land you a portrait or wedding job. If I am looking for a portrait or wedding photographer I want to see images that reflect portrait and wedding photography. Not birding, airplanes, ships... 
I'm going to say this and you'll know what I mean. You have images on there that  you're way to emotionally attached to. 


It takes me a *long* time to load a lot of those.


----------



## Demers18

I had the chance to look at your website and I found a couple things I would improve on.

1) your logo, when I view on my iPad it pixelizes on the curved portions, is it a vector done in .ai or is it a photoshop logo? If its a PS logo I would recommend to get it done in .ai, I could help you with that if you like, pm me if you want.

2) there are a couple places where I found some spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes. Yes they were part of your "feedback" from clients however I think it would be better to fix those mistakes as it makes you look bad.


----------



## SCraig

Your web site is an international portal for your work, however your prices don't say anything about travel limits.  What if someone in the middle of nowhere wants your lowest price package?  Might want to state a limit on mileage or a cost per mile over some limit.


----------



## KmH

MLeek said pretty much what I was thinking. 

I was looking for family and wedding photos and wasn't seeing very many.


----------



## tirediron

Thank-you very much everyone; much appreciated.

First off, let me address the gallery issue.  The short answer is:  I don't know WTF is going on!  When I first installed the software, it worked fine, but now it's slowed right down and I don't know why.



MLeeK said:


> John, your prices... WOW.


Wow as in?  Those numbers work for me.



MLeeK said:


> The focus of the whole website seems to be words, not images. The images are small, hard to scroll through and hard to load. It's not smooth, fluid or really very flattering. Lots of big white space and words with itty bitty images.


Putting aside the issue of the gallery page which is something I'm working on, do you feel the whole 'site is too wordy and not picturey enough?

My "design theory" was simple, smooth and uncluttered.  I dislike pages which have too mcuh of anything whether words or text.  Any suggestions would be much appreciated.



MLeeK said:


> The images you are showing are not designed to land you a portrait or wedding job. If I am looking for a portrait or wedding photographer I want to see images that reflect portrait and wedding... I'm going to say this and you'll know what I mean. You have images on there that you're way to emotionally attached to.


 Mea culpa!  I know  I need to sort that out, but damnit... I like 'em! 



Mully said:


> I like the site .... clean layout but ran into a problem ..... when I clicked on the large bar of images on the home page it goes to another page with the same bar at the top but there is no way out to go anywhere. You might want to look into this.


Will do, thanks!



Demers18 said:


> I had the chance to look at your website and I found a couple things I would improve on.
> 
> 1) your logo, when I view on my iPad it pixelizes on the curved portions, is it a vector done in .ai or is it a photoshop logo? If its a PS logo I would recommend to get it done in .ai, I could help you with that if you like, pm me if you want.


 I will take you up on that!



Demers18 said:


> 2) there are a couple places where I found some spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes. Yes they were part of your "feedback" from clients however I think it would be better to fix those mistakes as it makes you look bad.


Hmmmm... thought I'd run those through spell-check, but I will again.



SCraig said:


> Your web site is an international portal for your work, however your prices don't say anything about travel limits. What if someone in the middle of nowhere wants your lowest price package? Might want to state a limit on mileage or a cost per mile over some limit.


I thought the "serving southern Vancouver Island sort of covered that, but I did totally forget to include travel charges, thanks!



KmH said:


> MLeek said pretty much what I was thinking.
> I was looking for family and wedding photos and wasn't seeing very many.


Yeah!  I knew the pictures weren't the best choice, but...  emotions over-rode common sense.


----------



## Demers18

tirediron said:
			
		

> Thank-you very much everyone; much appreciated.
> 
> First off, let me address the gallery issue.  The short answer is:  I don't know WTF is going on!  When I first installed the software, it worked fine, but now it's slowed right down and I don't know why.
> 
> Wow as in?  Those numbers work for me.
> 
> Putting aside the issue of the gallery page which is something I'm working on, do you feel the whole 'site is too wordy and not picturey enough?
> 
> My "design theory" was simple, smooth and uncluttered.  I dislike pages which have too mcuh of anything whether words or text.  Any suggestions would be much appreciated.
> 
> Mea culpa!  I know  I need to sort that out, but damnit... I like 'em!
> 
> Will do, thanks!
> 
> I will take you up on that!
> 
> Hmmmm... thought I'd run those through spell-check, but I will again.
> 
> I thought the "serving southern Vancouver Island sort of covered that, but I did totally forget to include travel charges, thanks!
> 
> Yeah!  I knew the pictures weren't the best choice, but...  emotions over-rode common sense.



It's not just the spell check, I will point them out to you this evening. 
As for the logo can you send me your ps file?


----------



## Ilovemycam

It is OK. Your pix loaded for me and I got an old computer. 

Good luck!


----------



## runnah

You need some optimization here. Your image file sizes are huge for the physical size displayed. For example "Krupke.jpg" is 145kb for a 272 x 432 image which is way to be. Ideally it should be around the 50k mark. This seems to be the case for all the photos.

Also don't use code to shrink the images to fit because that keeps them at a larger file size.

I also agree with the comments above about highlighting the photo more than the text. Using a different gallery player might help.


----------



## tirediron

runnah said:


> You need some optimization here. Your image file sizes are huge for the physical size displayed. For example "Krupke.jpg" is 145kb for a 272 x 432 image which is way to be. Ideally it should be around the 50k mark. This seems to be the case for all the photos.
> 
> Also *don't use code to shrink the images to fit because that keeps them at a larger file size*.
> 
> I also agree with the comments above about highlighting the photo more than the text. Using a different gallery player might help.


D'ohhhhhhhhhhhh....   You know what?  I think you may have just solved part of my problem.  I thought the gallery software was actually resizing the images, I never even looked at the file-sizes.  It is just doing a software constrain!  

Thanks!


----------



## runnah

tirediron said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some optimization here. Your image file sizes are huge for the physical size displayed. For example "Krupke.jpg" is 145kb for a 272 x 432 image which is way to be. Ideally it should be around the 50k mark. This seems to be the case for all the photos.
> 
> Also *don't use code to shrink the images to fit because that keeps them at a larger file size*.
> 
> I also agree with the comments above about highlighting the photo more than the text. Using a different gallery player might help.
> 
> 
> 
> D'ohhhhhhhhhhhh....   You know what?  I think you may have just solved part of my problem.  I thought the gallery software was actually resizing the images, I never even looked at the file-sizes.  It is just doing a software constrain!
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...


Anytime. Let me know if you ever want some help. I run my own website design company and always looking for portfolio pieces and can give you a "at cost" deal.


----------



## nmoody

Looks great! I think is a big improvement over your old one which was a bit dated. I like your clean layout, about section and layout of your Packages and Prices.

I found the following thoughts:
1. Was not expecting the bar of pictures on the front page to act that way. I was expecting the single picture I clicked on to enlarge, not the whole bar to load a new page.
2. On the bar of photo's again on the front page, I think it need to have more diverse photo's showing more of your abilities. I see one potential wedding. Maybe some reception hall wedding photo's or something with more than one person.
3. When flipping through the Gallery I have to keep moving my mouse due to all the different width pictures. I honestly don't have a good recommendation for this as I like how clean the gallery is and adding a buffer boarder would ruin it.


----------



## MLeeK

not really as in 'its too wordy.' That number of words is fine, but the images are small in comparison to the OTHER stuff going on. They need to be the focus. Yes, you need words, but photography isn't about words-your website needs to be about the pictures. Larger.


----------



## tirediron

nmoody said:


> Looks great! I think is a big improvement over your old one which was a bit dated. I like your clean layout, about section and layout of your Packages and Prices.
> 
> I found the following thoughts:
> 1. Was not expecting the bar of pictures on the front page to act that way. I was expecting the single picture I clicked on to enlarge, not the whole bar to load a new page.
> 2. On the bar of photo's again on the front page, I think it need to have more diverse photo's showing more of your abilities. I see one potential wedding. Maybe some reception hall wedding photo's or something with more than one person.
> 3. When flipping through the Gallery I have to keep moving my mouse due to all the different width pictures. I honestly don't have a good recommendation for this as I like how clean the gallery is and adding a buffer boarder would ruin it.


Thanks!  That home page image behaviour is annoying and I'll change that, either as a link to the image gallery, or just (more likely) make it a static image.

The whole gallery is under review; I'll be doing something with that in the next day or two; I'm njust not sure what at this point.


----------



## tirediron

MLeeK said:


> not really as in 'its too wordy.' That number of words is fine, but the images are small in comparison to the OTHER stuff going on. They need to be the focus. Yes, you need words, but photography isn't about words-your website needs to be about the pictures. Larger.


Not saying that you're not right, because gawd knows, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who knows LESS about graphic design than I do, BUT...  I like a clean, simple look, which is what I think I've acheived here.  That said, I'm *always* willing to look at other ideas.


----------



## MLeeK

tirediron said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> not really as in 'its too wordy.' That number of words is fine, but the images are small in comparison to the OTHER stuff going on. They need to be the focus. Yes, you need words, but photography isn't about words-your website needs to be about the pictures. Larger.
> 
> 
> 
> Not saying that you're not right, because gawd knows, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who knows LESS about graphic design than I do, BUT...  I like a clean, simple look, which is what I think I've acheived here.  That said, I'm *always* willing to look at other ideas.
Click to expand...

Clean and simple is GOOD!!! But your home page isn't so clean and simple with the wording and the images. Plus your twitter and facebook icons are underneath the image. 
If you were going for minimal, clean and simple the wording on the bottom of your first page is part of your about. 
OK, here's your page as is






Look at the difference-these are the elements you have, just the images become more the focus





And without the wording with everything in the same place you have it


----------



## runnah




----------



## tirediron

MLeeK said:


> But your home page isn't so clean and simple with the wording and the images. Plus your twitter and facebook icons are underneath the image.


What browser and version are you running?  The FB and LI icons show correctly on IE 7, 9, Safari (Mobile) and whatever version of Firefox I have on my Unix box.  I know there are some issues with IE 6 and 8.



MLeeK said:


> If you were going for minimal, clean and simple the wording on the bottom of your first page is part of your about...


Most of the social-media marketing education that I have (which admitedly isn't a lot) says that you need a 'hook' on your page; something to tell people what, where and who.  Do you think that page is strong enough on it's own?  Honestly, I have my doubts...


----------



## MLeeK

tirediron said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> But your home page isn't so clean and simple with the wording and the images. Plus your twitter and facebook icons are underneath the image.
> 
> 
> 
> What browser and version are you running?  The FB and LI icons show correctly on IE 7, 9, Safari (Mobile) and whatever version of Firefox I have on my Unix box.  I know there are some issues with IE 6 and 8.
> 
> 
> 
> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were going for minimal, clean and simple the wording on the bottom of your first page is part of your about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the social-media marketing education that I have (which admitedly isn't a lot) says that you need a 'hook' on your page; something to tell people what, where and who.  Do you think that page is strong enough on it's own?  Honestly, I have my doubts...
Click to expand...


Firefox


----------



## tirediron

runnah said:


> View attachment 25650


I really like the look of that, BUT, the reason I went away from white text on a dark background (as my old 'site was) is because everything seemed to say that it was harder to read and less likely to hold people's attention and also because my logo and all my other "Branding" is a dark-blue which isn't going to contrast well with that colour, and another one of my goals with the new 'site was to bring all that in line, that is my business cards look like my 'site, etc.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Sorry man.. it looks like a website I created on Geocities back in college.  And your pricing, it makes no sense at all.


----------



## MLeeK

tirediron said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 25650
> 
> 
> 
> I really like the look of that, BUT, the reason I went away from white text on a dark background (as my old 'site was) is because everything seemed to say that it was harder to read and less likely to hold people's attention and also because my logo and all my other "Branding" is a dark-blue which isn't going to contrast well with that colour, and another one of my goals with the new 'site was to bring all that in line, that is my business cards look like my 'site, etc.
Click to expand...

So change the background to white and logo back to blue. Good to go!


----------



## tirediron

Robin_Usagani said:


> Sorry man.. it looks like a website I created on Geocities back in college. And your pricing, it makes no sense at all.


Okay... asplain to me why you say the pricing makes no sense?


----------



## Robin_Usagani

*$1200

*
An eight-hour session with unlimited locations, up to forty enhanced digital images on CD-ROM and a $250 print-credit
​


----------



## tirediron

MLeeK said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 25650
> 
> 
> 
> I really like the look of that, BUT, the reason I went away from white text on a dark background (as my old 'site was) is because everything seemed to say that it was harder to read and less likely to hold people's attention and also because my logo and all my other "Branding" is a dark-blue which isn't going to contrast well with that colour, and another one of my goals with the new 'site was to bring all that in line, that is my business cards look like my 'site, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So change the background to white and logo back to blue. Good to go!
Click to expand...

Oh, well then, if you're going to go and get logical about it...


----------



## mjhoward

I would skip the ADWords... if someone is actually looking through your site, the last thing you want to do is direct them somewhere else.


----------



## tirediron

Robin_Usagani said:


> *$1200
> 
> *
> An eight-hour session with unlimited locations, up to forty enhanced digital images on CD-ROM and a $250 print-credit
> ​


That's the "Not in a million years package".  I'm not aware of ANYONE in this are ever paying $1200 for a family portrait session, but it still works out to my ~$90/hour goal...


----------



## tirediron

mjhoward said:


> I would skip the ADWords... if someone is actually looking through your site, the last thing you want to do is direct them somewhere else.


Whatchew talkin' 'bout Willis?  Adwords?


----------



## MLeeK

tirediron said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really like the look of that, BUT, the reason I went away from white text on a dark background (as my old 'site was) is because everything seemed to say that it was harder to read and less likely to hold people's attention and also because my logo and all my other "Branding" is a dark-blue which isn't going to contrast well with that colour, and another one of my goals with the new 'site was to bring all that in line, that is my business cards look like my 'site, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> So change the background to white and logo back to blue. Good to go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, well then, if you're going to go and get logical about it...
Click to expand...

<sorry, John>:sad anim:


----------



## runnah

tirediron said:


> I really like the look of that, BUT, the reason I went away from white text on a dark background (as my old 'site was) is because everything seemed to say that it was harder to read and less likely to hold people's attention and also because my logo and all my other "Branding" is a dark-blue which isn't going to contrast well with that colour, and another one of my goals with the new 'site was to bring all that in line, that is my business cards look like my 'site, etc.


----------



## mjhoward

maybe my browser is infected... crap.


----------



## tirediron

Actually, I really do like the look of that home page, and if I can sort out the gallery software and get it working the way it should, I may go with something like that.


----------



## runnah

tirediron said:


> Actually, I really do like the look of that home page, and if I can sort out the gallery software and get it working the way it should, I may go with something like that.



I get 10%...


----------



## tirediron

runnah said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I really do like the look of that home page, and if I can sort out the gallery software and get it working the way it should, I may go with something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get 10%...
Click to expand...

Done!  You owe me $2500!


----------



## Demers18

Here you go. Let me know if this works for you and I can send you the .ai file.




Now you owe me $2500


----------



## kundalini

Ooohhhh, I get to be the first one to bash your bio pic. 

Seriously though, it may be you are in your comfort zone, but put on a pair of trousers in lieu of the jeans. And you know better than to strut football shoulders.


----------



## tirediron

kundalini said:


> Ooohhhh, I get to be the first one to bash your bio pic.
> 
> Seriously though, it may be you are in your comfort zone, but put on a pair of trousers in lieu of the jeans. And you know better than to strut football shoulders.


You couldn't have just kept your yap shut, could you???? I was getting away with that....  even Keith and MLeek hadn't said anything.  Thanks!!!!


----------



## Judobreaker

Ok, I'm gonna be a good boy now and post in the correct topic. ^^

Like I said before: Your pricing pages seem to be empty.
I just figured out that there are some prices when I click on Packages & Prices however the menu items are empty.
This is a bit weird, people aren't going to click on the Packages & Prices usually, they'll go for the actual menu items. 

Loading speeds seems better now, could have been my connection at the time.
There's only so much you can do when it comes to loading speed anyway, crappy connections will always be crappy connections. 

And the thing about it being a tad boring... Nope, I did not see any naked dancing girls. I bet that would make it more interesting though. xD
The design is a bit plain though. I get what you're aiming for, you don't want too much distraction for the actual content. However, the website just isn't really appealing to me.
A nice professional looking design will appeal to potential customers a lot more, which is what you want of course.


----------



## MLeeK

tirediron said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooohhhh, I get to be the first one to bash your bio pic.
> 
> Seriously though, it may be you are in your comfort zone, but put on a pair of trousers in lieu of the jeans. And you know better than to strut football shoulders.
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't have just kept your yap shut, could you???? I was getting away with that....  even Keith and MLeek hadn't said anything.  Thanks!!!!
Click to expand...


It's so microscopic that us OLD people couldn't see it enough to bash it. 

Really, John, do you wear glasses? Because you do have every image on there very small


----------



## HughGuessWho

Sorry, I don't much care for the design. Looks to armature to me. The thumb nails are far too small, IMHO.
I would recommend taking a look at the photography based themes at Elegant Themes like These .
Just my .02


----------



## tirediron

Judobreaker said:


> Ok, I'm gonna be a good boy now and post in the correct topic. ^^
> 
> Like I said before: Your pricing pages seem to be empty.


LOL - fair enough.  Yes, the pricing pages are empty right now; I'll have that fixed today.  I need to take a couple of hours and re-do some math, so I took the easy way out and just "turned off" the pricing until I can get the right numbers in place.  As for the design not being appealing - what sort(s) of things would make it more so to you?


----------



## tirediron

HughGuessWho said:


> Sorry, I don't much care for the design. Looks to armature to me. The thumb nails are far too small, IMHO.
> I would recommend taking a look at the photography based themes at Elegant Themes like These .
> Just my .02


Cool - thanks for the input and the theme ideas, I will look at those this evening.  BTW - what browser and what version are you running?


----------



## tirediron

MLeeK said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooohhhh, I get to be the first one to bash your bio pic.
> 
> Seriously though, it may be you are in your comfort zone, but put on a pair of trousers in lieu of the jeans. And you know better than to strut football shoulders.
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't have just kept your yap shut, could you???? I was getting away with that.... even Keith and MLeek hadn't said anything. Thanks!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's so microscopic that us OLD people couldn't see it enough to bash it.
> 
> Really, John, do you wear glasses? Because you do have every image on there very small
Click to expand...

No, I don't.  Could you e-mail me a screen capture of the whole page when you have a moment?  That image is 320x320, which, unless you have your screen resolution set to about 9x7 billion, should be reasonably clear...


----------



## MLeeK




----------



## tirediron

"This image or video is no longer available"


----------



## Judobreaker

tirediron said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm gonna be a good boy now and post in the correct topic. ^^
> 
> Like I said before: Your pricing pages seem to be empty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL - fair enough.  Yes, the pricing pages are empty right now; I'll have that fixed today.  I need to take a couple of hours and re-do some math, so I took the easy way out and just "turned off" the pricing until I can get the right numbers in place.  As for the design not being appealing - what sort(s) of things would make it more so to you?
Click to expand...


Ah that explains. 

As for the design:
Right now it kind of looks like a few floating elements in white space. Sure they're arranged properly but it's still all floating a bit.
That's mainly because you've got a plain white background and nothing more.
You'll have to remember that people like slick and flashy even though you might not always like that.
People also like fast loading websites. If a page takes longer than 10 seconds to load you've lost half of the visitors.
The best websites have got a nice slick design with fast loading times.

What you could try to do is use different shades of gray to separate content from background.
A good slick design doesn't need drop shadows, full gradients, loads of images and/or moving flash (probably the worst)... Sometimes it is just as simple as choosing a few well matched colors and creating boxes in those colors.
The colors can be done with simple background colors in html/css which won't really affect loading time at all.

In my website for example I've used 6 images for the layout. One loading icon which I use for the gallery when loading a new image, 2 ball images for the slideshow on the front page (just below the photos, one selected and one unselected version) and 3 buttons for the gallery (back, forward and menu).
All of them put together that's 90kb of disk space.
Yet I've had quite a few people tell me they really like the design... While I just kept it as simple as possible.
It just took me some time to choose the correct colors and match it all together.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the way you've arranged the website isn't necessarily bad, but it just needs a little extra graphical work.


----------



## tirediron

Judobreaker said:


> ...Basically what I'm trying to say is that the way you've arranged the website isn't necessarily bad, but it just needs a little extra graphical work.


Input very much appreciated, and I see your points.  (BTW, you have some stellar images, esp. some of the macro work!)  HOWEVER, having sought input and reviews from a number of NON-photographers (No, not family and friends!) they all seemed to appreciate the simplicity of the 'site.  As well, with my previous 'site, (white on black) I had a number of people comment that while it was visually appealing, they found it hard to read.  I'm by no means finished, but I do intend to try this basic layout for the next little while and see what the general public has to say.


----------



## Judobreaker

Thanks. ^^

It's probably possible people will like it, it's just my gut saying it could be better.
It might work though and if it does, who am I to complain. 
As long as you get your customers, right?


----------



## tirediron

That's what it's all about!


----------



## Robin_Usagani

Seriously man.. just join Zenfolio or Smugmug.  That's what I did.  If you do custom website, either pay someone who really know what they are doing, or just use services like Zenfolio or Smugmug (many other).  While I do plan to do "custom" website one day and hire a website wiz, zenfolio is perfect for me right now.  Eventually the zenfolio will just be a client proofing page.  What you did on your website is just not up to par to today's website.  Look very outdated.  Maybe it was done 10 years ago.


----------



## tirediron

Appreciate the comments Robin; yes, at some point I will hire someone to actually build a custom 'site from the ground up, however, at this point, I have better uses for the money that would take.  I realize that this 'site doesn't have a lot of flash or glitz and that's intentional.  In that aspect, it's a reflection of who I am and I feel that is important.  

Interestingly (as alluded to earlier), almost all of the "not positive" (I don't want to use the word 'negative') feedback I have had has been from photographers.  On the other hand almost all of the non-photographers I have asked have reviewed it favourably.  That said, there are still some things to be done to it.  We'll see how it goes I guess.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

yes, hiring someone is expensive.  How about the services I mentioned?  I pay $120/year for zenfolio + maybe $8 for domain name/year.  I use google apps to host my emails.  So that is less than $130 a year for website hosting, website that can sell prints with profit, online back up!


----------



## tirediron

Nothing against them, but right now, this seems like it will meet my needs, at least for the immediate future.


----------



## Judobreaker

Robin_Usagani said:


> Seriously man.. just join Zenfolio or Smugmug.  That's what I did.  If you do custom website, either pay someone who really know what they are doing, or just use services like Zenfolio or Smugmug (many other).  While I do plan to do "custom" website one day and hire a website wiz, zenfolio is perfect for me right now.  Eventually the zenfolio will just be a client proofing page.  What you did on your website is just not up to par to today's website.  Look very outdated.  Maybe it was done 10 years ago.




Nothing wrong with doing it yourself if you know what you're doing. ^^


----------



## MLeeK

Robin_Usagani said:


> Seriously man.. just join Zenfolio or Smugmug.  That's what I did.  If you do custom website, either pay someone who really know what they are doing, or just use services like Zenfolio or Smugmug (many other).  While I do plan to do "custom" website one day and hire a website wiz, zenfolio is perfect for me right now.  Eventually the zenfolio will just be a client proofing page.  What you did on your website is just not up to par to today's website.  Look very outdated.  Maybe it was done 10 years ago.



I pay a whopping $5 a month thru Portfoliositez. I don't do any proofing on line, so I don't need anything more than their absolute basic service!


----------



## tirediron

MLeeK said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously man.. just join Zenfolio or Smugmug.  That's what I did.  If you do custom website, either pay someone who really know what they are doing, or just use services like Zenfolio or Smugmug (many other).  While I do plan to do "custom" website one day and hire a website wiz, zenfolio is perfect for me right now.  Eventually the zenfolio will just be a client proofing page.  What you did on your website is just not up to par to today's website.  Look very outdated.  Maybe it was done 10 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a whopping $5 a month thru Portfoliositez. I don't do any proofing on line, so I don't need anything more than their absolute basic service!
Click to expand...

The last of the big spenders!


----------



## MLeeK

tirediron said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously man.. just join Zenfolio or Smugmug.  That's what I did.  If you do custom website, either pay someone who really know what they are doing, or just use services like Zenfolio or Smugmug (many other).  While I do plan to do "custom" website one day and hire a website wiz, zenfolio is perfect for me right now.  Eventually the zenfolio will just be a client proofing page.  What you did on your website is just not up to par to today's website.  Look very outdated.  Maybe it was done 10 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pay a whopping $5 a month thru Portfoliositez. I don't do any proofing on line, so I don't need anything more than their absolute basic service!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last of the big spenders!
Click to expand...

Well, that $1.99 ap that Ron and Overread are designing for me might allow for me to spend the big bucks and go to $10 soon!


----------

