They are the same basic design, just changed the words a bit for each type of service/style I offer. Feedback would be greatly appreciated:

For my weddings (I'm going higher-end, more artistic and more expensive)



For my photographic artwork, something I have been meaning to focus on and am now determined to pursue even harder by pursuing gallery exhibits (if I can get in), fine art books and portfolio collections:


Thanks for looking!

Love the keyline and typography. Not crazy about the wedding image. Doesn't say "fine art" to me.

I like it, looks classy and nice to me!

Thanks Jules!

And I kind of agree about the image.
I whipped this together late last night in order to get my idea out of my head.

I have been tweaking it a bit more today and I really like this image with this design:

I think the wedding image is dreamy. I love the concept, text, etc. I'm all for choosing images that speak about you and what you want to convey. There's a bit of mystery there that I think people will be drawn to. The only thing is, I'd like to see a groom too, but you've got to go with your gut on what images speak what you want to portray.

EDIT: The first wedding image. The second is definitely fine art, but on that I'd want to see more of the flowers and less of the arm. Am I picky? Just read last line of previous paragraph.

Good Points.

I was actually thinking of having a mix of cards produced with different images on each one.
That way when handing them out, I can get a sense of what the person receiving them likes or doesn't like.

I'll post more up when I find images that I prefer.

is it possible for you to have separate websites for these two endeavors?

I like the cards, very clean and simple

Laura,

I've been going back and forth about that.
On one hand, I would like 1 URL and multiple portals, on the other, I want to look like I specialize... I have been playing with various URLs and none are really doing it for me.

I was thinking: magnoskiarts, magnoski-arts/-art... I'm just not crazy about them.

_____________________________________________________________________

Here are some more cards with various images - again, let me know what you think:






*artwork




The only thing I've noticed about this type of design... I am terribly limited by having to use vertical images! DUH! The majority of what I capture is horizontal.

I guess I could always double up and have a horizontal image on the back.

It might be cool to have a horizontal image, but keep the text where it is. Kind of like those upside down ads in magazines... everyone turns them over to look!

I love the image with the couple in the field out of focus.

TANGENT ALERT! I'll give you a dollar via PayPal if you change your avatar by 5:00 PM ET.

Good idea Matt, I'll give it a try

And NO, I will not take down my avatar until the week is over.
Look at Dan Watkins! I've started a trend y'know.

Beautiful. Especially the color image

Here ya go Matt - a couple of Horizontals on the Vertical design.
(BTW - a lot of these images are from my 'Foliage & Water' series)

Thanks Lauren.

By the way, is that you standing on the back of a Mazda RX-8!?!
It hurts just looking at it!

Well it doesn't quite work with the foliage stuff. I was thinking more about the bridal work, because with faces you immediately know which way they're "supposed" to be. Leaves can go either way.

I could be WAY off here, so don't spend too much time on my idea.

+ one million! love both of these.

and i also love that second leaf image in the BW, crazy!

Hey dude! I'm loving the "clean" look to your design & I think it does give the impression of high end photography when you have the right shot on it.

I'm gonna tackle the fine art one first coz it was easy peasy ... if I were you, I'd use the landscape/sky shot - most definitely 100%, no doubt in my mind! It says WOW! The others are good but they're not as eye-catching. I think it's an amazing shot & will make people look twice. I'd suggest you play with it a little to give it more of a dramatic effect - I hope you don't mind but I duped the layer twice & changed one of the layers to overlay 50% & one to multiply 50% & masked off the land & it really makes the sky pop (you might not want that effect but I saw that amazing sky & couldn't help myself!).

Click to view attachment

As for the weddings... you had another shot that I love with a bride holding flowers which was slightly textured. Have you tried that one? I love the color image you posted here - if you're going for arty that would be my pick of the bunch you've posted. It has a fresh look to it which I love. Second choice would be the one next to it because the bride & groom are connecting beautifully & it would appeal to clients "in lurrrrrrrve"! Why are you mainly going for monochrome images?

I love the card design. I think it's clean, elegant and professional. I wouldn't change anything about it. The logo is great too!

personally I love the warm black and white images. I love the color image as well, but I'd stick with the monchrome. It just looks so slick. You've got some great options here! My personal favorites are... oh man now I can't decide! ok ok ok... um, I like the b&w horizontal leaves shot (which I think everyone will just assume is a verticle, but that's ok, cause it looks great) and the either the hand with the rings or the first b&g shot of the second bunch. ok, that's all I got... these look great!

I think you should print different images, people will love them. I made 2 different cards for my studio. one black, one white, and actually stack them that way, alternating. Everyone who picks one up is surprised that the next one is different. It's great.

Thanks Dudette! I like what you've done.
And I agree, the sky image does say 'wow' when you first see it, and I do plan to use it for sure. The other one's are for testing purposes. I plan to come up with at least 3 different images for the art cards (at the most 10... LOL).


Regarding the wedding image, I know which one you are talking about.
I avoided using it since I am using it now on the back of my current card.

But here it is, just for you :


As far as the monochrome... it has universal appeal, it's warm, and mainly because I am in that mode right now.

I'm gonna keep my eye out to see what images you use, but I really like the direction you're going with these. I personally really like the bride in the water (first photo) because it's very unique as compared to what would be on most cards. It's tough, though, because there are a lot of good ones. The red leaves with drops on them is absolutely beautiful.
-E

Tangent: I don't know when the avatar talk happened, but I love the Matt Foley one!

Thanks Kenny!

And Welcome to OSP!
Looked at your site, you've got some solid work my friend!



Awesome - Thank you for your wonderful (energetic) compliment.Yeah, I am a fan of warm toned B&W images. Especially when people are the subject. And I am definately going to go with varied images for my cards. I like the thought of people seeing a different card than what they've got... and then hopefully taking more than one.



Thanks Eddie.I put up the new avatar on Monday simply because I was feeling a bit like Matt Foley. Matt (and others) don't really like it though. I plan to have my 'wonky' one back up next week.

My free dollar offer expired 19 minutes ago!

Tell ya what - I'll get rid of Matt Foley if you get rid of Elmo... deal?

NFW!

Oh well, you'll just have to endure Matt Foley for another day or two.

I wish monochrome-mode Johnny would stop running & making his beer belly bounce around in his avatar!! It's making me dizzy!

As ever, your design skills rock Thanks for posting the other pic I mentioned!

You know that the avi ISN'T me... right?

Thank you.

*eta*
Remember the movie Johnny Mnemonic?
How 'bout - Johnny Monochrome?

And here I was thinking you'd piled on the pounds!

Johnny, I think your cards look great. Easy to update and keep fresh, and very high-end looking.

I don't want to step on any toes, it your comment about separating your art and wedding websites struck a cord with me. I'm also making a big push to get in galleries and set up a single URL that is dual portal-one side portraits and weddings the other side personal images. (It's still active. If you click on my web link you'll see it)

Anyway, my point is I've recently approached several galleries in different parts of the country and each one had varying degrees of interest in my work, but they all said, "Get the portraits and weddings away from you art if you are serious about working with galleries." they recommended a totally different URL for the two sides.

So I'm in the process of creating a new site for my art. Others may have different opinions. Just thought I'd pass along my recent experiences. Hope it helps.

As always your work looks great. Can't wait to see more of your art.

I like this one for weddings... but I think having several different cards would be cool too! That's what i'm thinking of doing

THIS IS MY NEW FAVE! Do that with the black and white of the couple and you've got a rocking set of cards! Then again, it goes back to my first post, but you've got some great images so it is really hard, just speaking out about what catches my eye first.

Not wanting to hijack the thread but I really wanted to say thank you for posting this info. My husband shoots fine art landscape photography that he eventually wants to sell & I keep telling him he needs to sort out a separate site but doesn't appreciate the need for it so I shall show him this comment!

Will!

I was actually going to PM you later tonight to ask your opinion - knowing that you also do fine art. That's good info and pretty much nails it for me... I need another site/url.

I really appreciate your input on this.


Ashley, Krystal, Sofie (and everyone else) - Thank you so much for your input, opinions and help.

Love ya!

Johnny,

Touch base with me anytime. I'd love to trade info with you about this. I've learned quite a bit in the last year and I'd be happy to pass things on.

The biggest thing, I guess, is to decide if you want to have your work "decorate" or "be collected". Doesn't seem like there should be a difference, but apparently there is. I was told (sometimes very snootily, somtimes nicely) that collectors know we all do portraits and weddings but would rather not be reminded of it.

Go figure.

+1 on these. they all look really classy to me. nice work johnny

That would be great - Thanks!

Y'know, I just finished a book called "Letting go of the Camera" - and Brooks Jensen talks about the 'decorate' vs. 'collected' issue. It's a great book. If you didn't know, Brooks is the cheif editor of LensWork. If you don't get that magazine, you should. Your work is perfect for it.

Thank you Johnny. I'm not familiar with Lenswork, but I will certainly go check that out. Living in a small town, sometimes it's a little difficult to stay up on any magazines other than "Us Weekly", "People", or "Star". I'll check LensWork out and see if i can't give the brain candy mags a rest.

As for the book, your was like the 4th or 5th mention today from different forums about it, so I definitely will be placing an order for it soon. Sounds like it is an excellent read.

I look forward to speaking more about this and wish you all the best.

wj

Pictures on a photographer's business card? What's the world coming to?


Yes - everyone knows that "true artists" don't actually have to make a living - and never create something to order.

Will,

You not only should purchase a subscription, but you should also submit your Delta images for the mag. From what I can tell, LensWork loves portfolio collections. Oh, and I find that reading it is also brain candy, just of a different level. And you will enjoy the book too - it has helped me with an 'issue' I've been wrestling.


John,

You crack me up. I know most people take what you say the wrong way, but I find a lot of your posts humerous, even it they weren't meant to be, and also very thought provoking.
Your simple statment has caused me to think, deeply, and I would like to share with you some of those thoughts.

Yes - this card design is NOTHING new, nor is my approach. In fact, if we look around we will see that it is true that there is nothing new underneath the sun. Things tend to move organically in one direction or another. There are trends that are either followed or ignored.
There will always be the modern approach, the classic approach or a blend of the two.
For me, I am more drawn to a blend, but one that weighs more in the classic and hopefully timeless. Even though that's almost impossible in wedding photography - the couple's own sense of style will date the images.

What I find interesting about photography in general is that you can compare the practice and execution of it to modern sports and those that play. There are those who watch the game from the sidelines, those who play well but do not get noticed, and then there are the 'stars'. But it is the stars that everyone talks about, idolizes and desires to copy - all the while the best players (imo) are usually the ones devoted to the game, to their technique and mastery of it and could care less about stardom - they love the game and feel a deep connection to it. Again, the stars are the ones that entice the crowds, and also they bring in the copycats - those who wanna be like Mike...

I cannot say whether I am any one of those at this point in my career, but I prefer those in the middle, the ones who are focused on mastering technique and execution over the bright and fleeting lights of stardom. Even though they may have come into the came to 'be like Mike' - they realized that they cannot, and that they have to be true to themselves and their calling. Oddly enough, this usually leads to stardom at some point in their career whether they seek it out or not.

Another comparison that I find even more interesting is how the game (whatever game you want to think of) really never changes, it's just the players that change and how they practice and execute their expertise (or lack thereof) of the game. Some are trick ponies, and some are true masters.

Not that I need to ramble on about this but for me, it has come down to deciding between being a trick pony - (a photographer who goes out to capture the 'next greatest hit' without the body of work to support it) - or - be a master of my craft, which takes years of discipline and focus.

I am not interested in buzz, or edgy & modern imagery - it becomes outdated too quickly in my mind and it also quickly becomes cliche because everyone wants to follow that path, or create images 'like Mike'. I'm guilty of doing it too btw - and knowing my guilt is what has caused me a lot of personal soul searching and wrestling with the question "who am I and what am I inspired to create/capture?"

So, even though there is nothing unique about my design, I know that I am going in a different direction than the majority, for now, even though the majority are putting images on their cards. Most are, it seems, trying to follow/copy the stars - I am trying not to. I am trying to show work that I like to create.

But again, there is nothing new underneath the sun.




Sad isn't it. It's like collectors or those who 'appreciate' art enjoy the thought of this 'struggling' artist, needing to sell their work in order to eat. I think it is prideful on the collectors part if this is their mentality.

But this is why artists like Thomas Kinkade are scolded in the art community - labeled as 'sell outs'. The idea that one has to 'suffer' for his or her art is silly to me.

So true.

A friend of mine is a top concert pianist in NYC. He has played Carnegie Hall many times, played at the White House, performed with Ethan Hawke on a performance piece, won the State of MS's Governor Award for Artistic Excellence and achievement--he's done very well.

He has many ties into the art community in NYC, so I've asked him for help. He has been very positive about my images, but stated that he couldn't help me until I got the art away from the other stuff. No one wants to see that you do anything besides art, and I can't put my rep out there to help until you separate the two. He said it all very nicely, and I'm paraphrasing him obviously, but I understand what he is saying. He often gets excited about the idea of this "self-taught, small-town, country-fied, MS Delta-land of-blues-and-heartache photographer" storming the NYC art world. Hell, it gets me excited to think about, too. I live in such a different world than NYC, and often that's what draws us to particular art--a curiosity about it's origin. The "story" is true, but it's just a boiled down truth. Yes, I'm self-taught, yes I live in the Delta, yes there are some interesting stories here--but that is true of just about any area of the country. And there is much more to me than that.

It is just dissappointing to me that part of being accepted as an artist is not necessarily your talent, but the "story" you create behind it.

To me, this is often why it is harder to become accepted as a "fine artist" in your immediate community than it is to become accepted by those outside your area. The people in you community usually know your entire story--who your grandparents are, where you went to school, who you dated in high school, etc--you are a "real" person to them. Those outside your circle only know the "story of the artist" and thus often have a very different perception of you, your abilities, and your statements as an artist.

OK, rant over--but enjoying te conversation.

I didn't see your post as a rant at all.
Very informative and helpful.

I was just reading in both my latest copy of Lenswork and the book I recommended, and he pretty much points that an image can stand on its own, but sometimes having a story to go along with it helps people 'get it'.

You're experience has totally convinced me to separate the two.
Which is kind of sad in a way - but business is business.

Now, do you have any information about what kinds of sites (style, layout, wording etc.) galleries, buyers and collectors like? I am tempted to get another flash site with a shopping cart attached to it, but want to avoid limiting my audience.

A few suggestions were made to me.

1. (And this was made VERY strongly)--no music. Am I showcasing my art or that of the musicians? Makes sense to me.

2. While flash sites can be very pretty, many in the art world are not the most technically savvy. They like to see the work, feel it even. So, while you do need a website, it needs to be as simple as possible. (perhaps similar to the cards you've designed?--clean, elegant, classic) Flash sites can sometimes load slowly, but more importantly, if someone is on an older system it may not load at all. No one cares that, "All you have to do is go to the flash site and download the latest version and install it." They don't want to hear that their CPU is too old and slow. All they know, or care about, is that they can't see your images. So bye-bye.

Use HTML. It's the safest. Old comptuers can see it New computers can see it. 'Nuff said.

3. Don't sell your work directly online. If you want to work with galleries, work with galleries. Don't compete with them. At least not as an online store. Have individuals contact you directly for purchases. They may live near a gallery that carries your work and you can direct them there if needed. Plus, to collectors, online stores just seem a little too. . . .too. . .Amozon.com-ish--if you know what I mean. Nothing against shopping online for products, I do it all the time. But art collectotrs don't.

There were other comments made here and there, but those are the three biggies that pretty much everyone seemed to agree on.

Very interesting information, Will. Thank you.

You've given me a lot to think on...
We should chat by phone sometime.

Anytime. I'd love to.

Off to a rehearsal dinner to pay the rent--but don't tell any galleries.

wj

Your secret is safe with me.