File :-(, x, )
thatdudewithacamera.com that dude with a camera
www.thatdudewithacamera.com

ok, so i made a website for my photogrtaphy and i wondered what you guys though about it. the website more than the photography though.

although say what you will, it's all cool.

P
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
Horrible watermarking. Get rid of it. Ruins most of the photos.

Get a better gear, or learn to use your current camera. Espesially all the potrait photos look like they've been taken by someone who doesn't know a thing about photography.

But nevertheless, I found couple good looking gig photos.
>> LOLOL HURRICANES
wow, horrible fucking watermarking. and AL the portrait pictures suck.
>> Anonymous
Have anymore of the first model in your fashion section?
>> Anonymous
You need much better equipment for fashion photography. Also what everyone else said: The watermark needs to go or be changed significantly. It ruins every single picture you put it on. Not to be too cruel but those pictures aren't worth putting that kinda of protection on. If you insist: You can put a script in your website that makes it so you cannot right click/save as the photos (even in expanded view). Look it up
>> Anonymous
Putting huge opaque watermarks in the middle of the photos is retarded. Srsly. It's like those teenage coders who put so much protection on their shareware programs that it renders them unusable.

Also the script>>63820mentioned does little to protect your photos; there is simply no way to protect them from a determined person without ruining them. And you don't need to.
>> Anonymous
>>63811
>>63820

The equipment is fine, you tools. Actually I really like some of the portraits in the Manchester section.
>> Anonymous
What the hell happened here?

Some of the portraits suck, sure. He needs to learn to edit his portfolio better- 99% of photographers, even "made" fine art photographers, do.

Some of them are really good. Not every portrait is- or should be- done with really shallow DoF and lighted in an intricate, Yousuf Karsh-esque style. Have you see Cartier-Bresson's portraits? David Alan Harvey's, especially?

And yeah, the watermark is stupid. I've a feeling the OP put it on there because he's trying to sell his music photography. OP, drop it, still. If you insist, look at the watermarking style Magnum Photos uses in their gallery. Simple and absolutely unintrusive in almost every photograph it's done over.

And all of you don't know what gear the OP uses. I checked a few photographs- no EXIF data. Because he has a TLR in the corner, and a lot of the photographs (all, maybe) are square, I suspect he's shooting with a 6x6 TLR. Which is fine for fashion, if of course a bit imprecise in framing. His style is wrong for fashion, though: too simple. It works other places, though.

The site's design, other than the watermarks, is fine OP. As far as your photographs, like I said, your style doesn't "fit" fashion, but otherwise you show talent. Consider cropping the photograph in your OP post. Square format isn't right for it. Learn to edit better. If you're a photography student, it shouldn't be hard to get someone knowledgeable to do a portfolio review for you.