# Looking for feedback on my website...



## dawssvt (Oct 27, 2009)

I'm trying to improve my overall wedding photography business, so I would like some inputs on my website. 

www.photographybydawson.com

1. What are the things you like about the website? 
2. What are the things you don't like?
3. How can I make the website better?
4. Is there anything you feel that is missing?

Thanks for your help!

*11/1/2009 Update: Thanks for the feedback everyone! I have made several changes to my website and published them. Check it out again and let me know what you think!*


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 27, 2009)

Hey, Dawson.

I think you have a fine website.  There will be some here that will tell you a flash site is a mistake...  that it too slow.   But it think it's a great choice for consumer photography.

Looks good.

-Pete


----------



## Rekd (Oct 27, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> Hey, Dawson.
> 
> I think you have a fine website.  There will be some here that will tell you a flash site is a mistake...  that it too slow.   But it think it's a great choice for consumer photography.
> 
> ...



I think it will be more than just "some" telling you it's a mistake. (Depending of if those that won't visit will bother to tell you about it, that is.)

I don't do flash only sites. Reasons being is that I have to enable java on sights I don't know/don't trust, and it's too damn slow.

My suggestion would be create an HTML only version of the gallery if you want to reach out to the other 30% of us that won't go to flash sites. 

No matter HOW big you make the notice telling us we need it to view your site simply won't matter... 



> *Welcome*
> 
> This site requires flash. Please download the latest version of the flash player for free so that you can see our latest work.
> 
> ...


We already know.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 27, 2009)

and, oh....  I should mention that some who believe flash sites are bad feel really strongly about it.

My customers love mine.  I'm sure glad I'm not selling to photo enthusiasts.

-Pete


----------



## Rekd (Oct 27, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> and, oh....  I should mention that some who believe flash sites are bad feel really strongly about it.
> 
> My customers love mine.  I'm sure glad I'm not selling to photo enthusiasts.
> 
> -Pete



I've hated flash since before I was a photo enthusiast. It's more about smart browsing. 

Flash is dangerous. It requires you to open your computer to things it really shouldn't be open to (Active X, Javascripts etc). When you spend as much time on the net as me, you learn to be careful what you allow to happen to your browser, especially considering I don't use a firewall and don't use Anti Virus software. I use No Script and Ad Block Plus to filter out crap that could allow my computer to be compromised and am careful where I browse to. I only enable it for sites I trust. 

Don't get me wrong, the resultant pages are often nicely done. (Often not). They're just too risky for some of us, that's all.


----------



## jubb (Oct 27, 2009)

I think it looks really good.  Not to jump on the exact same flash bandwagon, but flash hurts you in google searches.  It will be hard to make it high in the google list with a Flash site, so if you were counting on people googling you out you may need to find a balance of flash and HTML.  

Also I couldn't find your location on your site in my quick skim.  People may want to know what areas you cover.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 27, 2009)

Looks good, BUT loads very slowly.  Having both Flash and HTML 'sites is a must.


----------



## FrankLamont (Oct 28, 2009)

There are problems with flash, most notably

a) slow loading for some
b) lack of flash viewer (and/or thus making it only viewable through download)
c) poor SEO; text is flash, etc.

These can be 'fixed' but will not be so effective. Of course, flash also has benefits such as the look and smoothness of it all.

I'm more worried, though, about your album prices!


----------



## dawssvt (Oct 28, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> Hey, Dawson.
> 
> I think you have a fine website.  There will be some here that will tell you a flash site is a mistake...  that it too slow.   But it think it's a great choice for consumer photography.
> 
> ...



Thanks, man I appreciate it.



About ATVs said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, Dawson.
> ...



Thanks for your comment. I thought it over when first going with a flash site about the slowness factor as well as knowing that not all computers have flash. I probably didn't think about it as much as I should have - I was just hooked on how it looked! 

So, I think I have a solution for this problem... My dad and I shoot weddings together very often, so we have shared the Smugmug site for proofing since we started shooting weddings. This is the reason for the different look/feel/prices on the smugmug site that was linked to my website. I went ahead and started my own Smugmug site today (Captured Moments - Photography by Dawson - Las Cruces, NM- powered by SmugMug) and I will be using that for proofing. My goal is to have it look similar to my flash site. Also, for people without flash - the page that comes up saying you must have flash you view this site will have a link to the smugmug site with the same information as my flash site (pricing/galleries/bio/ect.). 

So, in reality, I would be running two websites. I think this would also help with the Google search problem. Hopefully I can get better search results with this new Smugmug site. I've only been doing this for about a year and a half, so I'm trying new things for advertising. I think getting higher on the Google results will drastically help.



About ATVs said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > and, oh....  I should mention that some who believe flash sites are bad feel really strongly about it.
> ...




What do you think of my idea of adding a Smugmug site with all the same information to my site? A link to this site will be on the flash warning page of my current site.



jubb said:


> I think it looks really good.  Not to jump on the exact same flash bandwagon, but flash hurts you in google searches.  It will be hard to make it high in the google list with a Flash site, so if you were counting on people googling you out you may need to find a balance of flash and HTML.
> 
> Also I couldn't find your location on your site in my quick skim.  People may want to know what areas you cover.



As I mentioned above, I think the new Smugmug site will help with the Google searches (this is definitely an area I need to improve on). I went ahead and updated my Bio page including my location and where I provide services. Thanks for your comment!



FriedChicken said:


> There are problems with flash, most notably
> 
> a) slow loading for some
> b) lack of flash viewer (and/or thus making it only viewable through download)
> ...




What about my album prices are you worried about? 

Wedding photography has really been a side job for the past year, but I am trying to pick things up to make it a full time job for me. I have been looking into new vendors for wedding albums. Currently I just use Blurb books, which are pretty simple to make and not very costly to get printed. Here is the last book I made...

Ray and Ashley June 20, 2009 | Book Preview

Are there any wedding album vendors you you would suggest?


----------



## Rekd (Oct 28, 2009)

Honestly, I think most people won't follow the link to the "other" site. My browser prevents re-directs to off-site locations, and forcing me to click over there prolly won't happen. 

I think your best bet is to create your "second" site as an HTML only version of your original site, on your original domain. You can automatically load the "second" site if flash and/or javascript is not detected. Also, you reap the bene's of SEO and searches. 

My opinion. HTH.


----------



## twozero (Oct 28, 2009)

About ATVs might be the safest, most secure internet user of all time.

That said, it did load very slowly for me and SEO is a factor with flash, but for most of the general public your site will be more than enough (especially with as cheap as nice computers/laptops are right now). The initial "ooh, that looks nice" is almost as important as anything else.

personally, i prefer non-flash sites. but you can't please everyone...


----------



## SpeedTrap (Oct 28, 2009)

I use Flash only for my site and I have never had a problem.
I have designed my site for the majority of internet users, I think saying  30% of people dont use flash is like saying 90% of all statistics are made up.
There may be some people that will not view it because of that but I am not going to spend more money designing for the few.  It is not worth it to me.

I have never had anyone complain.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 28, 2009)

SpeedTrap said:


> There may be some people that will not view it because of that but I am not going to spend more money designing for the few.  It is not worth it to me.



Yup.  The greatest good for the greatest number.  Very reasonable.



SpeedTrap said:


> I have never had anyone complain.



I get nothing but compliments.

-Pete


----------



## Rekd (Oct 28, 2009)

SpeedTrap said:


> I have never had anyone complain.



That's cuz they're not visiting your site. :lmao:


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 28, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> SpeedTrap said:
> 
> 
> > I have never had anyone complain.
> ...



As long as they continue to call, come in, and spend money...  I'm happy.

-Pete


----------



## BlackWolF (Oct 28, 2009)

Personally I think the site looks very nice. As far as saying a Flash site is a mistake, I do not want to go there because to me it is just what certain people expect from your site and what your site is intended for. If you sell products on your site then Flash is a big mistake to me but if it is just to show people your gallery or just some information and things like that then hey Flash is cool. Just my two cents


----------



## AyyyDubsss (Oct 29, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > and, oh....  I should mention that some who believe flash sites are bad feel really strongly about it.
> ...







why not just get a mac and not worry about any of this :er:


----------



## Rekd (Oct 29, 2009)

AyyyDubsss said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > Christie Photo said:
> ...



 Uhh, mostly because I don't want one, partly because the software I need to run won't run on a mac, and quite frankly, I already don't worry about any of that.   :twak: 

I ran (and crashed) macs for years. Besides, a mac is like the point and shoot of computers and to be honest, I'm a control freak. :meh:


----------



## loopy (Oct 29, 2009)

*1. What are the things you like about the website?* Very Nice looking photos. Nice colour scheme. 

*2. What are the things you don't like?* I don't like the fact it is a flash site, but besides that....
It loads too slow.
In Firefox, the gallery thumbnails are cut off on the bottom of my monitor. The logo at the top is also cut off.
When in the gallery, where does the navigation go? I had to refresh the site to go back to the main page. 

*3. How can I make the website better?*
Use a preloader between pages. Let the user know how much time is left until the next page loads. 
Optimize your site for different browsers/screen resolutions.




About ATVs said:


> Besides, a mac is like the point and shoot of computers and to be honest, I'm a control freak. :meh:



Haha I like that.


----------



## Rekd (Oct 29, 2009)

loopy said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, a mac is like the point and shoot of computers and to be honest, I'm a control freak. :meh:
> ...



I don't make myself laugh often, but this was one of those times. :lmao:


----------



## DScience (Oct 29, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > and, oh....  I should mention that some who believe flash sites are bad feel really strongly about it.
> ...




Flash is too risky??? LOL omg


----------



## Rekd (Oct 29, 2009)

DScience said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > Christie Photo said:
> ...



Use computers much??? Read English much??? LOL omg

Seriously, reading and comprehension are key. Perhaps a refresher course is in order for you... :lmao:


----------



## jubb (Oct 29, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> I ran (and crashed) macs for years. Besides, a mac is like the point and shoot of computers and to be honest, I'm a control freak. :meh:



My sentiments exactly!


----------



## dawssvt (Nov 2, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I have made several changes to my website and published them. Check it out again and let me know what you think!


----------



## Rekd (Nov 2, 2009)

I lost interest having to click other places to see the stuff. Too un-professional. Instead of clicking on your site, I decided to go somewhere else. No offense, that's just the way the innerwebz werkz. You've usually got one shot to grab people's attention, and having to clickity click click to get to something is usually a big turn-off. :meh:


----------



## Derrel (Nov 2, 2009)

After reading about the site, I decided to click on your link...it took one minute and four seconds to load the introductory page,and there under the headline "portraits" was a shot of a guy riding a blue motorcycle! OMG, that smacked of amateurism, but I clicked on the "Portraits" link anyway, and I was rewarded with incredibly slow-loading thumbnails. And poor samples. The engagement horizontal of the young man and his fiancee,taken while they were seated on a  bench and the photographer towered over them? Oh,so D-40-ish.

Your site? It's a cookie-cutter Flash site that looks almost exactly like 100,000 other bad photography web sites,and its incredibly, pathetically, agonizingly slow loading says, "Your time is not worth much. We have no regard for how our company looks, and no regard for the time of potential customers. Oh, and we built this site using templates,and just dumped photos into it."

Sorry, but that's how I feel. Poorly executed site, looks JUST like many sites I have seen,and pathetically slow even on a blazingly fast cable connection. I have no idea who designed the site's template, but that entire approach is a massive detriment.


----------



## Rekd (Nov 2, 2009)

Derrel said:


> After reading about the site, I decided to click on your link...it took one minute and four seconds to load the introductory page,and there under the headline "portraits" was a shot of a guy riding a blue motorcycle! OMG, that smacked of amateurism, but I clicked on the "Portraits" link anyway, and I was rewarded with incredibly slow-loading thumbnails. And poor samples. The engagement horizontal of the young man and his fiancee,taken while they were seated on a  bench and the photographer towered over them? Oh,so D-40-ish.
> 
> Your site? It's a cookie-cutter Flash site that looks almost exactly like 100,000 other bad photography web sites,and its incredibly, pathetically, agonizingly slow loading says, "Your time is not worth much. We have no regard for how our company looks, and no regard for the time of potential customers. Oh, and we built this site using templates,and just dumped photos into it."
> 
> Sorry, but that's how I feel. Poorly executed site, looks JUST like many sites I have seen,and pathetically slow even on a blazingly fast cable connection. I have no idea who designed the site's template, but that entire approach is a massive detriment.



My instincts have served me faithfully again, I see.  Thanks for taking one for the team. :thumbup:


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 3, 2009)

Derrel said:


> After reading about the site, I decided to click on your link...it took one minute and four seconds to load the introductory page,...



Huh...  it loaded for me in less than 10 seconds.




Derrel said:


> ...and there under the headline "portraits" was a shot of a guy riding a blue motorcycle! OMG, that smacked of amateurism, but I clicked on the "Portraits" link anyway, and I was rewarded with incredibly slow-loading thumbnails. And poor samples. The engagement horizontal of the young man and his fiancee,taken while they were seated on a  bench and the photographer towered over them? Oh,so D-40-ish.



Huh?  Why would you go from helping this guy with his site to taking shots at his work?  

"Amateurism?" Are you saying PBase is so much more professional looking?  

And, I'm sorry you can't make good photographs with a D40.




Derrel said:


> Sorry, but that's how I feel. Poorly executed site, looks JUST like many sites I have seen,and pathetically slow even on a blazingly fast cable connection. I have no idea who designed the site's template, but that entire approach is a massive detriment.



Sure.  Maybe a site "created and maintained by Slug and Emily" is the way to advance the profession.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 3, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> My instincts have served me faithfully again, I see.



Of that, I have no doubt.



About ATVs said:


> Thanks for taking one for the team. :thumbup:



What team is that?

-Pete


----------



## Rekd (Nov 3, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for taking one for the team. :thumbup:
> ...



That would be the "We don't need no stinkin' flash only sites" team and the "No, I _won't_ "*disable pop-ups*" in my browser in order to view your site" team.

Honestly, not sure why you feel the need to bash on people for giving their honest opinion, like they were asked. Oh, wait, I take that back... I'm pretty sure I know why.


----------



## Inst!nct (Nov 3, 2009)

I saw flash haters and just skipped till the end, what bugged me the most was when navigating through your site, the main box, when not in galleries, it changes by like 20 pixels every time, and its very frustrating IMO


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 3, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> Honestly, not sure why you feel the need to bash on people for giving their honest opinion, like they were asked. Oh, wait, I take that back... I'm pretty sure I know why.



Oh, common.  You know I'm not bashing.  I was compelled to respond to Derrel's attack, which (you must admit) you did encourage.

You've explained in detail why you deem flash an unsuitable choice...  very helpful.

Derrel, on the other hand, went for the jugular, scoffing at the OP's abilities.  When you gave him affirmation, I was compelled to speak up.  

So, I'm sure you know very little about me if you think I have a need to "bash on people."

-Pete


----------



## Rekd (Nov 3, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> I was compelled to speak up.



Uh huh... :lmao:


----------



## mindyf (Nov 3, 2009)

Whats so bad about flash anyway? I mean I would have used it to protect my photos on the site I plan to make for my business. I don't want people stealing my photos and if there is a better way I would like to hear one. I thought it was a nice site, it is simple enough to show his work without being too cluttered like some of the others I have seen. :thumbup:


----------



## Rekd (Nov 3, 2009)

mindyf said:


> Whats so bad about flash anyway?



I explained that on page 1...



About ATVs said:


> I don't do flash only sites. Reasons being is that *I have to enable java* on sights I don't know/don't trust, and *it's too damn slow.*



And for the site owner, it sux for SEO. Having a business web site without SEO is like having a hamburger stand without a stand. Not to mention those poor saps on less than 1mb/sec downloads, like me. (Which is a step up form the dialup I've been on for the last 5 years.)

I suggested they do an HTML site for the lowly dredges like me (of which there are a lot, BTW) to become potential clients. 



> My suggestion would be create an HTML only version of the gallery if you want to reach out to the other 30% of us that won't go to flash sites.


At least now they've got an off-site link to a gallery, but I don't see myself clicking on it. There are other sites out there that will make it easier for me to patronize, and they prolly know how to do a meta refresh so I don't have to. 

Oh, and I'm sure it's a positively lovely site. I just won't see it.


----------



## dawssvt (Nov 4, 2009)

I just added a non-flash version of my site available on the opening page. 

Captured Moments - Photography by Dawson - Las Cruces, NM


----------



## Rekd (Nov 4, 2009)

dawssvt said:


> I just added a non-flash version of my site available on the opening page.
> 
> Captured Moments - Photography by Dawson - Las Cruces, NM



YAYS! Good job! 

And I was right, the site IS a "positively lovely" site. Nice and clean. Not a bunch of stuff going on. Colors are easy on the eyes. Not sure about the navigation through the pictures because it loaded slow, but I'm at work with a really _really _crappy connection. I'll check it again when I get home. :thumbup:


----------



## dawssvt (Nov 4, 2009)

About ATVs said:


> dawssvt said:
> 
> 
> > I just added a non-flash version of my site available on the opening page.
> ...



Thanks :thumbup: The weird thing is that I have NEVER had a problem with the flash site loading. It never takes more than 3 seconds to load for me - it's always been that way and I've looked at my site from several different computers. Hmmm...


----------



## Rekd (Nov 4, 2009)

dawssvt said:


> About ATVs said:
> 
> 
> > dawssvt said:
> ...



Flash is always slow for me, even when I was on Cox hi speed (6mb/sec). Having choice is always the preferred method. 

Like I said, I'm at work on a really bad connection that seems to stop every few seconds so I'll try again at home.


----------



## mindyf (Nov 4, 2009)

Yea that is better. Who setup your site for you? Or did you do it? I am currently looking for someone to help me set one up. I don't even know where to start, but I know once it is set up and someone shows me how I am sure I can take it from there....


----------



## Rekd (Nov 4, 2009)

That's much better. I didn't check out the flash site, but the html site was killer. Which dunes were those? Were there any OHVs there? What a wedding that would be. Imagine an 80 thousand dollar sand-rail roosting a huge wheelie in the background, or a pair of quads jumping in sync.  :lmao: 

Lol, sorry, I have a real vivid imagination.

You did a great job, Dawson. I hope your extra time and trouble pays off for you.


----------



## bigtwinky (Nov 4, 2009)

I hope I'm not rehashing what others said, here are my 2 cents:

- if you are planning on running a business, I'd not reference facebook on your main page.  Facebook can be a great tool, but unless it is giving the user something more than what is on your site, don't add a link to it.

time is money.  When I develop an online application/page, the less clicks the better.  The less choices the better.  I want to see something easy, quick, and know where to go without thinking much.  Lead me to the treasure, dont make me hunt for it.

So right off the bat, getting to the main page, I have 3 choices.  I went for the non flash one.

- I was viewing the portraits and I didn't like the colour of the font up top.  Its a dark green on a dark background.  I liked the ease and quickness of the images loading, but at first glance, I didn't see any buttons or ways to get out of there...until I noticed the hard to see font colour of your links.

- If all you have for now are two galleries, center the icons more.  Having them left aligned like that makes me think that the site is unfinished and there is more to add.  If there is, and say you add 2 more, then reposition the icons to have the 4 centered

Bio page and Investment page, nice.

Contact page... a little small thing I noticed is that when I hover my mouse over your email address, I get the small info box that says: "contact image 1".  Might want to change that for something a little better sounding, or funny... just not so generic 

FAQs... While I don't mind the background image in Conact, I find the one in here is a bit busy, specially when this is a section that should be easy on the eyes for the user to read.  If the page is busy, people won't read.

I then checked out the Flash site.  It took under 10 secs to load (I'm at work, so we have a great connection).  I do like the somewhat jazzier feel, but I don't feel that the flash site offers THAT much more over the non flash, not to the point of having an intro page with the option.

Hope this helps!  

Sending you a PM with a bit more


----------



## ecnal (Nov 5, 2009)

Looking only at the HTML only site, I like it. What other's have said stands; simple, easy on the eyes, etc.

A couple things that stand out to me:

1. When clicking on 'Galleries', the teal box gets smaller width-wise by about 20-30 pixels. That's the only one.
2. In a gallery (either one, doesn't matter) the links and header image disappear! This is using Firefox v3.5.4, on Windows XP Pro on a 20/5 fiberoptic connection. Same thing happens in Chrome v3.0.195.27. I have to hit the 'back' button to get the links back.

Also, who designed the site? Yourself? Or is it a template?


----------

