This was a first for me.I don't know what to say really. But an Indian client saw my work and thought the website wasn't flashy enough. So they're judging my work based on my website. Not the photos. Very odd. Is it a bad thing to be simple? Here's the Indian wedding site www.dcindianweddingphotography.com
man. you really are going for a specific market. if you planned on expanding... you're shooting
yourself in the foot with a name like that. just sayin.
and now I'm hijacking your thread. on your main site, clicking on the right side of the images scrolls right, but clicking on the left side does nothing. fix that.
that is all. now back to our scheduled programming.
jprezant wrote:
and now I'm hijacking your thread. on your main site, clicking on the right side of the images scrolls right, but clicking on the left side does nothing. fix that.
that is all. now back to our scheduled programming.
**i wrote this before the pm**
Actually, mokaziphotography.com website is going through a lot of renovation right now. It'll all be more flash like features through javascript so clients won't have to click much. Should be up by end of Feb. So I hear
My guess would be that he didn't like low saturated images not the site itself. As for the sets of indian weddings I've seen here on fm, these is a very "colourfull" community, their weddings are all about shouting colours. Aiming in that market- I would ask what they are looking for.
But that's just my point of wiew, and maybe I misunderstood term "flashy"
Thank you, I've always thought simple was better than flashy. It does take away from the value of the photographs for a photographer. Maybe they wanted a little more interactive site? Didn't ask, but they're supposed to call me. Let's see.
