BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


Photography QnA: Great Photo Presentation

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: All About Photography : Digital Photographic Discussions - Imaging Basics : Great Photo Presentation

Learn about great photo presentation here. Get ideas on how to present photos via email, digital slide shows or on web sites. Or get instruction by taking William Neill's Portfolio Development online photography course.

Page 1 : 1 -7 of 7 questions

   
     
 
Photography Question 
Timothy W. Morris
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/3/2008
  1 .  Mounting Photos w/Mats & Foamboard
Greetings!
I have a 6x9 photograph; a piece of 6x9 foamboard; an 8x10 custom cut mat w/a 6x9 (approx.) opening; and self-adhesive hinging tissue on the way. I plan on framing this photograph.
Instead of having the 6x9 foamboard, would I have been better off getting an 8x10 piece, and mounting the mat to that, with the photograph pancaked in between (also using the adhesive on the back of the photograph to attach to the foamboard)? Or is what I have suitable?
Thanks for any and all input! :)
-Tim

7/9/2008 1:23:10 PM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  Tim, don't use the 6x9 foamboard. The backer board must be the same size as the outer dimensions of the mat. I always mount the photo to the backer by carefully measuring the placement and using a T-hinge on the back of the photo to "hang" the photo on the backer. Then I use double sided tape to secure the mat to the backer. The photo should be hung and not firmly taped to the backer so that it can float with humidity changes. All my materials are archival, acid-free, but that may no be necessary - I just prefer it.
John

7/9/2008 2:13:10 PM

Loraine Ehresman
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 6/22/2006
  John, I have a 33"x11" panorama that I am framing. Should I have this securely mounted on foamboard or should this also float?

7/15/2008 8:01:32 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kevin Harley

member since: 4/1/2007
  2 .  Monitor Calibration: What to Buy?
I'm looking at buying a spyder program to calibrate the color on my monitor as I am having severe issues. Let's just say the photos I edit look 100-percent great in Photoshop, but then the color changes in windows and so forth. I'm looking to get something that will calibrate the monitor perfect. I have looked at a few spyder programs but want to know which will work best and most accurately while letting me do nice quality prints.

3/15/2008 4:10:59 PM

  Hi Kevin, I have Colorvision Spyder2, and it is easy to use. This will set up a profile that you will assign for your monitor and then you set your printer to the same profile (I name my profile Spyder2) and then what you see on your monitor will match what you print. Once you set your computer color to the Spyder2 profile, your colors are set to that profile. It doesn't matter if you are using Photoshop, Windows picture viewer, etc. ... because the monitor itself is calibrated to that profile.
Richard Lynch teaches a course that would help you with this called From Monitor to Print

3/15/2008 7:27:50 PM

  Carlton,
Thanks for mentioning the course! Anyone looking for an inexpensive option from ColorVision, the Express will calibrate your monitor and build an ICC profile to begin you on your way through color management. You can get an express for about $70 on Amazon. For color accuracy, it will be the best money you ever spent if you do not currently calibrate at all.

3/17/2008 1:20:10 PM

Jairo Betancourt Álvarez

member since: 11/19/2005
  Please. do visit www.luminoslandscape.com or www.josephholmes.com and there you will have color info to your hearts delight.
Friendly. The Gentleman is a Master when it comes to Color Managment. Friendly,
Jairo Betancourt Álvarez.

I am at Medellin, Colombia.
jairobetancourta@une.net.co

3/18/2008 7:13:33 AM

  What ColorMunki for color calibration?

8/21/2009 6:56:42 PM

  I've never used colormunki and can only vouch for colorvision products as I use them and know they work.

(click here for Spyder Express on Amazon)

Richard Lynch

8/21/2009 7:05:40 PM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member
wildlifetrailphotography.com

member since: 3/2/2006
  Kevin,

I have been using the Spyder 2 for a couple of years. I have been very pleased. What I see on the monitor is what I see on the print.

9/3/2009 6:00:54 PM

Jeffrey R. Whitmoyer

member since: 1/7/2009
  I also use the Spyder 2 and concur with both Carlton and Richard. What you see is what you get and if you combine that with downloading the profiles for printer/paper combinations you'll be consistent all the way through with your output. I bought Spyder 2 Suite on Ebay for about $80.00.

9/4/2009 6:11:01 AM

Tareq M. Alhamrani
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 6/26/2006
  I use Spyder3Studio which includes Spyder3Elite and Spyder3Print, I use only Spyder3Elite, couldn't be happier, none of photos I printed have a problem, all amazing great even better than what I see on display as I say always on the net.

9/4/2009 6:56:26 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
MATTHEW PARKER
BetterPhoto Member
mattparkerphotography.com

member since: 5/23/2006
  3 .  Monitor Calibration Software
Hello All,
I'm looking to buy a color management monitor calibration tool. There are so many out there but I have been looking at the Spyder2Pro software. Any comments or feedback on the Spyder2Pro or other color management software is greatly appreciated. I print using the Epson R2400. Thanks!

9/22/2007 1:00:40 PM

  Matt,
I've been using Spyder Pros for years. I've been very happy with it. Before that I used a device manufactured by Sequel Imaging, which I believe became the Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display LT. In the earlier version, it was an excellent device, so I imagine it would have only improved. I have not used but also heard of people having success with the Pantone Huey.
I can recommend the Spyder from first-hand use. Any calibration device (it is not just software, but hardware as well) will make a difference.
I often recommend not printing at home and using a service as well. I think printing is too much of a diversion, and you can use a service to print off machines you would never buy for your home (upward of $40,000). You also don't have to worry about calibration, supplies, maintenance. I don't have a printer even hooked up to my main work station.
I hope that helps!

9/22/2007 5:27:09 PM

Irene Troy
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/27/2004
  Hi Matt – Just to back up what Richard already said and to share my experiences: I also use the Spyder Pro and once gave the Huey a test as well. Personally, I greatly prefer the Spyder and find that it is much more accurate. I find it simple and uncomplicated to use - although, at first, the directions can seem a little daunting. Once you set it up and use it the first time it becomes very simple.
BTW: You have a terrific gallery! Many of your images are of places I greatly love or those that I yearn to visit.
Irene

9/24/2007 5:32:24 PM

Wayne Oliver

member since: 3/23/2004
  Hi Matt

I have Spyder2Pro color management system and it works the way it suppose to work, my prints that come out on my Epson R2400 is what I see on screen. Just remember with any color management system you calibrate your monitor with you screen will be more brighter than your print media, keep this in mind your monitor projects light and you print media reflex's light. I calibrate every Monday, I do a lot of printing.

10/2/2007 4:44:32 PM

Kathleen Paton

member since: 7/13/2002
  Richard,

Would you expand on your comment: "You also don't have to worry about calibration, . ." when using a printing service?

If my monitor is not calibrated, how do I know what the results will be from any printer?

Thanks,
Kathleen
(And thanks, also for the wealth of information you provide here.)

10/2/2007 9:04:39 PM

  Kathleen...
Out of context that statement is wrong. It should say: "You also don't have to worry about calibrating your printer" -- that is, if you don't have a printer, not much use in trying to calibrate it ;-). On the other hand, you ABSOLUTELY MUST calibrate your monitor to have any predictability at all!

As I suggested, the Spyder Pros are a good way to go, but generally some type of hardware calibration is better than none, and if you don't want to do that, software is better than nothing at all. Guessing...leads to unpredictable results.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify!

Richard

10/3/2007 4:32:30 AM

Donald R. Curry
BetterPhoto Member
wildlifetrailphotography.com

member since: 3/2/2006
  I use Spyder 2 and a R2400. My printed photos look like what I see on the monitor. I am very pleased.

10/3/2007 6:38:28 AM

Kathleen Paton

member since: 7/13/2002
  Thanks, Richard. Of course that's what you meant; I see that now. My brain was stuck on monitors.

Kathleen

10/3/2007 6:41:52 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Diane L. Thomas
BetterPhoto Member
dlthomasphotography.com

member since: 4/21/2004
  4 .  PowerPoint Photos
I am trying to save my PowerPoint presentation photos so I can give them to a couple. I need to do this in a way they can't print the photos and yet be good viewing. I'd appreciated any help you can provide.

6/23/2006 1:17:28 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  Resize your pictures to 72 ppi and a convenient size. Save in JPEG, although PowerPoint will accept TIF. Then, in PowerPoint, use the Rectangle Drawing Tool and cover the slide. Add a backgrouns color - black is always good. Then insert the resized JPEG and adjust the dimensions with the mouse - leaving a small border. Because of the low resolution, even if they tried to make a print, it'll be awful. Try it out, and you'll be convinced.

6/23/2006 1:57:37 PM

Diane L. Thomas
BetterPhoto Member
dlthomasphotography.com

member since: 4/21/2004
  Thanks John I'll try that. I am new at Power Point but want to give the options to my customers to view without them printing. So that is the only way, we can't stop them from printing at all Diane

6/23/2006 4:04:50 PM

Chris London

member since: 11/23/2002
  Diane:

Once you have done this, you can also save it as a Powerpoint show.

To do this, simply choose
"File -> Save As"

At the bottom, you will see a selector for "Save as type:"

Choose "PowerPoint Show *.pps"
Pick where you want to save the show, then you can email the show to them.

PowerPoint shows cannot be edited or printed (by most people who aren't trying to hack).

I have done this many times to share photo shows, although lately I have taken to burning DVDs with a slideshow and musical background.

Good luck!

Chris

6/27/2006 8:54:00 AM

Diane L. Thomas
BetterPhoto Member
dlthomasphotography.com

member since: 4/21/2004
  Thanks Chris, I knew there had to be a way to prevent them from being printed. Can they print from the DVD slideshow with the music. Or do you handle it in the same way you spoke of above. Diane Thomas

6/27/2006 9:10:30 AM

Luis A. Rodriguez
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/1/2006
  There's also the convert to web/screen quality option, that also make the pictures awful when printed, unless they print them real small.. LOL

Look for the icon to compress when you select a picture, it should pop up a picture toolbar.

8/14/2006 1:39:43 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Willie 

member since: 12/2/2004
  5 .  Good LCD Monitor for Photography
Can anyone recommend a good LCD monitor for photography? I currently have a CRT monitor and I am looking for a trustworthy LCD monitor for color correction of my photos. Thanks.

1/6/2006 10:52:28 AM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  There's been a lot of discussion about CRT vs. flat panel (LCD) monitors over the years. For a long while, and maybe even today, the recommendations I've seen favored CRTs for photo work.
Notwithstanding, when I bought my new computer, I bought a 19-inch LCD (a Nuevo and, right, I never heard of it either). I bought it based on price and the recommendation of the fellow who built my computer. It's fine.
When I bought my new 37-inch LCD television, I bought a Westinghouse primarily because the model I got has the largest pixel count. I'm extremely happy with this unit and would recommend that you buy your new monitor with pixel count as your top criterion.
Don't buy anything smaller than 19-inches.
There are lots of different monitors available. It's really hard to recommend any given manufacturer. Sony used to be the king of TV - but, no longer. So, are it's computer monitors best? Who knows?
You might check Consumers Reports. Frankly, I would think that anyone responding to your question can only say s/he likes or dislikes the monitor s/he owns. Most of us just don't have more than one monitor at our workstations and, therefore, side-by-side comparison is probably not possible.

1/6/2006 1:05:11 PM


BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  The Dell 24" LCDs are very nice. I love mine. And, Dell often puts them out on sale ... if you wait, you can get a great deal. But, remember, any monitor needs to be calibrated to match your lab.

1/6/2006 2:10:30 PM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  Willie, I had the same concerns. I recently bought a new computer system, an HP, but went with the Sony SDM-S204/B 20.1" LCD monitor. I had read reviews and concluded this was a good choice. It was a little pricy, $750, but had a $200 rebate at the time. I have been very happy with using the monitor for photo editing. The move from a 17" to a 20" was beneficial.

1/6/2006 4:28:43 PM

Todd Bennett
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/8/2004
  Willie,
ViewSonic makes one of the best monitors on the market. I just bought a 19" ViewSonic and it works well.

1/7/2006 3:30:46 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Fawn S.

member since: 4/28/2004
  6 .  Should I Use a Copyright Sign?
Does anyone think it is a good idea to put a copyright sign and then my name or my lines name on each of my photos?

7/1/2004 2:48:17 PM

Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/22/2002
  That's up to you, but if it isn't going to detract from the picture I don't think it would matter much. Keep in mind that you own the copyright once you push the shutter...

hth

7/1/2004 8:42:49 PM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  I always do! If someone does happen to lift one of your images with your copyright on it and uses that image for the purpose of profit, then they touch/alter it out or even crop out your copyright, that can show "intent" in a court room ... if it ever comes to that. Intent can be shown as "they knew exactly what they were doing!"

It never hurts!! Mike

7/1/2004 8:52:20 PM

Amy 

member since: 7/25/2002
  With all of the millions of places your pictures could be used, how could you catch them?

7/5/2004 8:19:49 AM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  Here is one solution that many use.
http://www.digimarc.com/solutions/default.asp

I do not use Digimarc at this time (cost), but will hopefully be adding this to the images on my site, which should be ready during the later part of this year.
I have tested this method before, and it works fairly well in tracking images that have been lifted off of your site and are being used elsewhere.

You can put a copyright on your images like I have, or put a larger but faint copyright symbol right in the middle of your image, which some might not prefer to lift off of your site.

I have had other photographers to tell me that my images were being used elsewhere on a site or in print. Some I have happened to run across myself. It's very hard to find them all, but it looks like the Digimarc solution is the best right now for tracking down anything that has been downloaded off of your site.

All of my images have also been registered with the US Copyright Office.

One good thing did come out of some of my images being lifted off of my old Web site 6 years ago by a company in Canada and being used to sell their products online. I had 4 years left to pay for my wife's car ... and well ... they paid for it instead!! Hehe!! Mike

7/5/2004 9:40:47 AM

Fawn S.

member since: 4/28/2004
  So this sounds pretty cool, but does this cost? And if I use my own copyright image, will it do the same thing?

7/5/2004 11:35:00 AM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  Some of the names have changed since I last took a look at what they had to offer.

MyPictureMarc ( from Digimarc ) seems to be the service now that you would want to take a look at.

http://www.digimarc.com/products/MYPICTUREMARC/default.asp

You have 4 different versions and prices, and the professional version is the one that will allow you to track your images all across the internet.

7/5/2004 12:08:44 PM

Amy 

member since: 7/25/2002
  How did you go about getting your pictures registered with the US Copyright Office.

Amy

7/5/2004 12:17:43 PM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  http://www.copyright.gov/

Simply follow the links to the forms. You can send them a CD containing all the images you want to register. Register your images on that CD as a body of work, and not each image by itself unless you have a bunch of money!

By law, you do own copyright as soon as you trip the shutter - a formal registration makes it easier for your case in a courtroom if it should ever come to that, and in many cases, allows for a greater sum to be awarded to you!

7/5/2004 12:34:48 PM

Amy 

member since: 7/25/2002
  Thanks a bunch Micheal, your the greatest!

Amy

7/5/2004 12:50:56 PM

Fawn S.

member since: 4/28/2004
  Does sending in a CD of your pictures to get registered cost? (Besides the stamps or whatever)

7/5/2004 1:27:52 PM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  Yep! Costs $30.00

Go here for costs and other good info.

http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

7/5/2004 1:50:20 PM

Lewis T. Beasimer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/30/2003
  If the photos are set up properly for a web site they should be low-res with a dpi of 72. From what I understand such images are too poor a quality for print.

No matter how much coding one does on a web page, the image can be lifted. If I were to place copyright symbol with my web site URL for example placed in a corner of the image I may be a bit more protected and can more easily prove "intent".

Besides being displayed on someone elses site though, what can really be done with this image?

7/7/2004 7:53:54 AM

Amy 

member since: 7/25/2002
  Someone could be profiting from YOUR work. I sure wouldn't want people profiting from an image that I created,
unless or untill I decide to sell it.

Amy

7/7/2004 12:53:45 PM

Lewis T. Beasimer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/30/2003
  Of course I wouldn't want someone profiting from an image lifted from my site, I'm just not aware of how they could possibly do so.

7/7/2004 2:52:29 PM

Amy 

member since: 7/25/2002
  Maybe the same way you would sell a photo of your own. Could they get hold of it and put it out there to sell in one of the many millions of places to sell images. Maybe thats the chance to take.

AMY

7/7/2004 3:16:10 PM

Lewis T. Beasimer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/30/2003
  If I were selling an image of my own, I would sell the high-res version that is printable. Most printers print at 300+ dpi. A 72 dpi image posted on the web will not print a sellable picture.

So again, I fail to see how someone may profit from my image.

7/7/2004 3:57:19 PM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  A image taken from your site can be used with ease on another site. They can easily use that image to help sell products, etc. This happened to me, and I made good on my promise to take it to court!

I can also take a 72 dpi image and make a painted version of that image as a 40mb file. Very easy to do, and even that is starting to get out of hand. You would never know that it was taken from a small jpg image!
There are so many paint programs out there that can resample a small painted image into a much larger file, and then they will sell it as their own.
If anyone would like to see one, I can easily do it for you probably in a matter of minutes with a small jpg image of yours.
I was thinking about writing a article on this also!

Mike

7/7/2004 4:17:29 PM

Lewis T. Beasimer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/30/2003
  Mike,

Thanks for the detailed answer. I would be interested in reading your article should you decide to write it.

I am creating my own personal website coded with right click blocks and all sorts of copy protections. I also have watermarks on the images.

As I do all this work on my site, it seems a little like it is in vain. Anyone with any web knowledge can grab a photo off any site. If they have photoshop knowledge, they can possibly remove the watermarks.

All this in mind, it really seems like the web is the last place to put an image that one would worry about someone stealing. How would anyone ever keep up with all the images?

7/7/2004 6:51:48 PM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  Lewis, it looks like the digital watermarking is about the best bet for keeping up with all of your images on the web.
I know what you are talking about with trying to add all sorts of blocks, etc. with your images in hopes of keeping someone from lifting them. Wow, what a pain that is! : )
But I do know some wildlife photographers who use the digital watermarking system, they are full time professionals, and they really keep tabs with their work on line.
It is something that I will give a try this fall on my site, although the price will "surely" make me cringe!

My wife told me about "innocent infringment", and that is where a individual would go into a courtroom and argue that they "honestly did not know any better", and would get out of there with a couple hundred dollars in fines.

But then she laughingly said, "if there are any who really wants to lift your images and use them for profit, then by all means, let them help us pay for this house!"
hehehe!!!

My bad wife!!!

Mike

7/7/2004 7:37:44 PM

Lewis T. Beasimer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/30/2003
  Mike,

Thanks for the laugh and all your input!

I'll probably end up springing for the digimarc product too. Looks like a good product from what I've seen.

7/7/2004 11:06:12 PM

Fawn S.

member since: 4/28/2004
  So, the answer is....? Do I or don't I put a copyright sign with my name on my photos?

7/8/2004 11:18:43 AM

Michael Brown

member since: 4/20/2004
  I would Fawn!

If you look at mine, you can see that I have the copyright that is fairly small, and I almost always will choose a color from the image itself and use that color for the text.
Choose a color that will make the copyright barely visible and almost blend in, not to bright, then it will not be much of a distraction within the image.

Some will not put their names on them and send them in to BP for the contest that way, because the images are to be anonymous when viewed by the judges. For me though, I can't bring myself to do that. I will not submit anything on the internet without some type of copyright imbedded within the image.

Hope this helps Fawn!

Mike

7/8/2004 12:14:49 PM

Fawn S.

member since: 4/28/2004
  Thank you so much. I will do so starting now! Thanks for all your input and help! God bless you. Fawn S.

7/8/2004 7:17:29 PM

Timothy S. Bell

member since: 7/3/2004
  yes!!!! I would and did.if you have adobe photoshop-6 or cs theres the digi mark in the program.some scanners such as canons cano scan5000f and there newer models have this program.all my photos on my web site(www.studio259.com) are all water marked and as far as people lifting them for there personal use they'll get a poor quality print even if they lift the water mark so protect your photos you never know who'll use them

7/9/2004 12:14:41 PM

Fawn S.

member since: 4/28/2004
  I don't have that program and my camara is not that great of a camara. But I did do something to them, and will post one of my photos today for you all to see and comment on if it is a good thing or a bad thing. Thanks again.

7/9/2004 2:41:29 PM

Lewis T. Beasimer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/30/2003
  You can get free watermark programs at tucows.com Just go the site and search on "watermark" You may want to look at http://www.tucows.com/preview/351608.html

7/9/2004 11:11:52 PM

Derek Holyhead

member since: 12/26/2003
  Hi Fawn,
There is a great, easy to use copyright program here: http://www.lunerouge.org/gnu/crl_e.htm
and it's FREE! Hope this helps.
Regards,
del

7/10/2004 7:10:15 PM

Fawn S.

member since: 4/28/2004
  Thanks.

7/11/2004 2:46:10 PM

  I wanted to ask everyone if a watermark would look okay on my website photos?Or if it would take away from the picture.You can check out my photos on my website I just think I need watermarks on them and it would look better then how I got them now.The link is www.lynnsdreamshop.com or it's in my gallery also.
If anyone knows how to add watermarks I could use the help thanks I'm still learning all this stuff.
As for Photoshops I use The Print Shop 11.0, Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0
(that I'm still having trouble understanding),Printshop Photo Pro,Microsoft Picture It! Express 7.0 and Paint Shop Pro 8 .If any of these will work let me know.
I'm trying to see what everyone thinks about watermarks so maybe know one steals my photos.
Any suggestions,will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Wanda-Lynn

1/1/2006 1:02:02 AM

Mark Feldstein
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/17/2005
  Mike is on the right track but to clarify what he's already mentioned: Innocent infringement occurs when an infringing party accidentally duplicates an image. It's a defense to an infringement action filed by the photographer and may be raised when the photographer, or subsequent publisher, fails to provide adequate notice of the copyright. For example, no CR notice anywhere on or around the image or the work was somewhere in the public domain without CR notice.

Registration with the copyright office is not only helpful but it's a prerequisite to commencing any action for infringement, which, btw, must be done in the United States District Court. State courts don't have what's called subject matter jurisdiction to review copyright claims.

Yes, if you can prove willful infringement, say someone pirated an image of yours that was marked, Title 17 U.S. Code, Section 501 and related sections provide up to $75,000 in compensatory damages for each instance. The damage remedy is elected by the plaintiff prior to the case going to trial.

There's a good book called The Legal Handbook for Photographers by Bert Krages, another lawyer and stock photographer. Published by AmherstMedia.com. I recommend it as required reading for all photographers.

Just thought I'd mention this stuff. Take it light.
Mark

1/1/2006 11:23:48 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
James C. Ritchie
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/17/2004
  7 .  Web Site Traffic and Sales
Please forgive the long preface to my question. I'm not a professional in that I have ever made a living with my photos. Friends and family finally convinced me that I have lots of work that is equal or superior to much of that we've seen in galleries and art fairs. About a year and a half ago, I decided to test the market on eBay and found that my photos do, in fact, sell. In addition to doing the 7-day auctions, I subscribed to an eBay store where listing fees are far cheaper ($0.03 per item) and can be listed perpetually. The moderate success I experienced prompted me to develop and establish a Web site, which I've had for more than a year.

My prints are packaged in a professional "art fair" manner with a backing board in a re-sealable crystal bag. With each print sold I also include three or four business cards with the purchased (and similar) images which I hope the buyer will give to their admiring and inquiring friends. (I lay out the cards 3-up on a 4x6 canvas in my graphics program and then get inexpensive prints made at the local lab.

Reading this, it might seem as if I'm well on my way to "financial freedom" ... but au contraire. A Web site doesn't do any good if it doesn't get traffic. I concluded that exposure is the key so I submitted my domain name to all the major search engines*, have some reciprocal and other direct links to the site, established a PayPal account and listed in PayPal Shops, listed as a "personal exhibit" at photolinks.com, and set up a gallery here at BP. But, sadly, I just can't seem to get much traffic.

(*Sidebar regarding search engines: Doing a Google search using my meta keywords, page titles, etc., I was getting some good page 1 & 2 positions, but suddenly my site doesn't show up at all there anymore ... despite resubmitting the URL a month ago. Other searches such as Yahoo, Altavista, etc., are fine, however. I've also tried several times to get my site listed with at dmoz.org, but have thus far been unsuccessful.)

The basic focus of my site is to provide quality art at affordable prices. When (if) I can get my traffic to a satisfactory level, I plan to get an Epson 2200 to make my own "giclee/piezo" prints. I will price these much higher than (while still continuing to offer) my "affordable" lab prints. What else I can do to drive more traffic to my site?

www.PhotoGraphics-Gallery.com

6/2/2004 4:51:47 PM

Damian P. Gadal
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/22/2002
  Interesting question. It seems you've done and thought about most of what you need to do - I'm not sure what else you could do.

6/2/2004 6:34:55 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Web presence over time ... don't expect instant results. I don't know exactly how the search engines work in terms of how it decides what order to list ... but I do know enough about it that a stable site that isn't rearranged over a number of years helps. Plus, it helps to have other sites having links to it.

Keep in mind that people must be looking for the works you would like to sell. Trying to do it by Web presence is a tough row to hoe. I've sold a few stock photos via Web presence, but it's only after the publishers exhausted other more traditional avenues for acquring specific stock photographs that they've launched a Web search to find what they're looking for. What I've sold was very specific by subject material and geographic locale. In other words, the editorial requirements for the imagery desired were fairly detailed and very specific.

Web sales are much more successful for those with some "brand equity" - the jargon in business for a well-known name that's identified with a quality product. Don't underestimate how much brand equity is required to have people beating a path to your door to buy your work. If you were Ansel Adams or someone of his stature, you would have more hits than you could stand and would have to pay for considerable bandwidth to keep the site. IOW, your success with large quantities of direct Web sales hinges more than you might think on having a nationally or globally recognized "name" for fine photography.

OTOH, that you're selling some works at all is a significant achievement in itself. After seeing dozens of competitive art and photography shows, superb photographers abound in good number. It may be small compared to the number of camera owners, but it's not a small population of artists compared to other media. There are many thousands of highly skilled, quite talented starving artists in the world.

6/2/2004 8:41:42 PM

Micah Unruh

member since: 10/13/2003
  It's now time to start "driving" traffic to your site. Web sites need to be advertised just like your business needs to be advertised. Don't do anything without listing your website. Advertise your site in trade show brochures, trade magazines, etc. Weigh EVERYTHING against your target market. If it doesn't hit your target, don't do it. From what I've read, I'd advertise in art magazines as well as home decor magazines. But always remember that advertising your website is just as important as advertising your business.

6/8/2004 6:33:22 AM

Angela Waite

member since: 4/13/2004
  Hi James, I have helped some clients with marketing their websites (I am a marketing communications person by trade, photography is my hobby though, and like you I would like it to become part of my profession). One way people have received more success from their website is using it locally and letting it grow up from there. Trying to drive traffic to your site with search engines and links is good but very slow in the beginning. Successful web marketers have built up their traffic the hard way - asking for their client's e-mails, creating opt-in e-mail newsletters, letting their customers know when they have new photos on the page, and bringing them interesting articles that complement the subjects they shoot. Another good method is through media exposure. Try to present what you are doing to the media (a local paper or magazine would probably be interested in the fact that your photos have been published for a book cover. Local success stories are newsworthy! They may want to do a story on the book or your photography - make sure you get a photo credit and they mention your website) Exposure like this really drives traffic to your website - it just takes writing a press release or pitching editors on the idea. (there is good websites/books on that or check on samples on my site www.enthuse.ca).

This will do more for promoting your website in the short term. good luck.

6/8/2004 8:43:19 AM

Zita A. Strother
BetterPhoto Member
imagesbyzita.com

member since: 6/5/2002
  Read the book "What Customers Really Love". I suggest that you keep your prices reasonable but not focous on it. It is the last consideration
of the buyer and when addressed early on makes your product look like it is cheap. Sell quailty and the orginality that comes with everyone unique eye.
I like to use to word "Image" instead of photo because it is only 1 mental step away from "imagination"!
Get Jim Zuckerman book "Shooting and Selling Your Photos" (he is Betterphoto insturtor, by the way).
And yes, build it and it will come!
Good luck!
Zita

6/17/2004 3:51:33 PM

Derek Holyhead

member since: 12/26/2003
  Hi All,
Pay Per Click is the answer. Look at www.overture.com they have a tool to search keywords to find out what the maximum per click bid is, currently "photograph" is at 27c per click. The tool is here: http://uv.bidtool.overture.com/d/search/tools/bidtool Hope this is helpful.
Regards,
Del

6/17/2004 9:17:05 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
   

Copyright © 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.