The New Photography Boards Deal...

What do ye guys make of it?


I do (somewhat) similar stuff, so I'm just curious, did anyone here go through the gallery/ies on the RM Photography website? I'd love to hear what people here think of the photos... (make sure you don't miss the wedding gallery!).


The Deal;

https://www.boardsdeals.ie/deal/65-instead-of-150-for-1-hour-At-Home-Photoshoot-and-three-8x10-inch-prints-with-RM-Photography-Nationwide/843/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=deal_843&block_popup=on



The Site (Gallery page);

http://www.rmphotography.ie/gallery/index.php



(Just to point out, I'm not associated with RM Photography in any way, shape or form. But I have looked through the galleries on the page, as the deal seemed extremely good to me, and I'm just very curious to see what other people think).

As I say, I do some similar stuff (at the same price actually - €150, that is, not €65!) so I'm curious.

magicbastarder

the main photo on the link to the deal above looks like the sort of stock image which comes in your standard 6x4 frame.

magicbastarder

i've just been to the gallery page listed there. holy s***, that's piss poor.
there's not a chance that the image on the boards deals page was taken by that crowd; that's false advertising.

smash

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've just been to the gallery page listed there. holy s***, that's piss poor.
there's not a chance that the image on the boards deals page was taken by that crowd; that's false advertising.

A lot of that going around. I started a thread about another crowd too http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056578011

But this new one... Half of the wedding photos aren't even in focus.

Yeah, this is kinda why I posted the thread.. the photos on the gallery pages are not at all impressive, and I'm very, very doubtful that the image used to promote this was taken by RM photography (very underhanded, in my opinion).

Every second image seems out of focus. I didn't want to say it in the opening post, incase I just came across like a prick, but I'm very surprised at the poor, poor quality on show (and these are the ones on her website, which is usually what the photographer considers the best of the best).

There's not even a backdrop or props or such. Just seems like €150 €65 snapshots.

magicbastarder

what's scary is the photographer claims to have a diploma in photographic media.
if that's the sort of quality griffith college is turning out, it says nothing for them.

magicbastarder

i've posted a question in the thread related to the deal:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78065336#post78065336

DBIreland

magicbastarder wrote: »

the main photo on the link to the deal above looks like the sort of stock image which comes in your standard 6x4 frame.

Looks like it might be a stock image alright...
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14074287-family-portrait.php

mehfesto

I'll just leave this here

EDIT: beaten to it.
That said, it's e65 regardless of where you are in the country. How would she make money from this if she had a job in Donegal, for example? This is madness. Do boardsdeals check those involved in stuff like this?

11811

http://www.directpest.co.uk/service_agreements.php

this made me chuckle. But yeah, as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be much of a quality check on these boards deals. And its just blatant underhandedness using a stock photo to sell the deal. Be interesting to find out wether that was down to the photographer or boards deals.

Also, even at €65 i would be somewhat disappointed if given something of the quality seen on the site.

pete4130

That sort of work appeals to a certain type of client and photographer.

EyeBlinks

pete4130 wrote: »

That sort of work appeals to a certain type of client and photographer.

I doubt that would appeal to any client. But it's exactly why people with a point and shoot think they can do better than a professional photographer. They can (at least in this case)

PopeBuckfastXVI

Not casting judgement in any direction, but it seems the photographer in question is 'one of our own' and I wouldn't be at all surprised if she ends up reading this thread.

I would suggest keeping any and all criticism constructive.

magicbastarder

i don't think the fact that the photographer in question is a boardsie should change how we critique; if they are offering a professional service, that is the context in which they should be judged.

pete4130

Any link to your work KKV, for comparison?

PopeBuckfastXVI

pete4130 wrote: »

Any link to your work KKV, for comparison?

In his signature - http://shanemaguire.ie/

tororosso

Had a look at the site earlier on and noticed that several of the wedding photos seemed to be out of focus. Thought it might have been due to lower res pictures being posted up but appears to be a focus issue. It's really up to a potential buyer to discern whether they think a product is worth buying though. I do think the level of confidence in the language used on the site is a good example of how to market oneself irrespective of the quality of the product.

Some people might happily buy this deal and be satisfied with the product.

rameire

Thank you all for the comments... Popebuckfast is right, I am a boardsie, but I dont believe that should change what your saying at all. I understand that the quality of the images on the website are not up to par, but they are not my current work by a long shot and the deal went live earlier than planned so I was unable to update the images show the quality of what I can do now, everyone improves over time, no?

In regards to the promotion, I cover my cost by journey planning and organising work, but if I dont make too much money, I dont mind as I am doing it for the love of interacting with the clients and the passion of taking photos.

Weddings are not my area and yes they will be better photographers out there by far.

As far as I'm aware, the 200+ clients I have worked with over the last 2 years, have been happy with my product.

I welcome all cristisms & feedback and I'll look towards it to continuing to improving

PopeBuckfastXVI

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Not casting judgement in any direction, but it seems the photographer in question is 'one of our own' and I wouldn't be at all surprised if she ends up reading this thread.

I would suggest keeping any and all criticism constructive.

Whenever I see a photography related offer on boardsdeals (or any offer that could be from a small company or single self employed person) I usually assume it's a boardsie that's doing it.

I would indeed imagine that RM is a boards member. However, and I am really not trying to be a smart ass here (and I'm the first to put my hands up and say I'm not the most amazing photographer in the world), but I've never really seen photos as bad as the ones on the RM website posted in this forum (out of focus is a rare thing to see on here).



I would assume that 'RM' has a few friends scattered across the country who are going to take the photographs on her behalf. If boards take 50% of the deal price (not sure if that's what they take, but I'm lead to believe these things are usually 50/50?), that means RM is getting about €32.50.

I'd barely cross the door for €32.50 - I don't think anyone would be traveling across the country (and then factor in the cost of not only printing, but also posting the prints back out to people).

She definitely has to have people helping her out (fellow students perhaps?).


It also brilliantly highlights how useful a photography degree is.


EDIT: RM, seen as you're posting here, now, I really think you should update the site and put up your newer work if at all possible. I'm assuming you've had some notice of when the deal would go live (you'd have to have spent time organising it with them, surely). There'll be a lot of people looking at your site today and during the course of the deal. It makes sense to want to have the newer/better photos up, surely!?

Also, if you're doing it for the passion of photography, I assume you're still self employed or declaring this income, yes?

EyeBlinks

rameire wrote: »

Thank you all for the comments... Popebuckfast is right, I am a boardsie, but I dont believe that should change what your saying at all. I understand that the quality of the images on the website are not up to par, but they are not my current work by a long shot and the deal went live earlier than planned so I was unable to update the images show the quality of what I can do now, everyone improves over time, no?

In regards to the promotion, I cover my cost by journey planning and organising work, but if I dont make too much money, I dont mind as I am doing it for the love of interacting with the clients and the passion of taking photos.

Weddings are not my area and yes they will be better photographers out there by far.

As far as I'm aware, the 200+ clients I have worked with over the last 2 years, have been happy with my product.

I welcome all cristisms & feedback and I'll look towards it to continuing to improving

Well said.

I think though to promote it better, you should get the better images up as soon as you can. It's your salespitch after all.

Best of luck with the promotion and for grasping the opportunity too.

T.

magicbastarder

rameire wrote: »

I understand that the quality of the images on the website are not up to par, but they are not my current work by a long shot and the deal went live earlier than planned so I was unable to update the images show the quality of what I can do now, everyone improves over time, no?

you desperately need to work on the website so; it should be a showcase for your best, but the quality exhibited there is offputting.
one of the biggest factors in judging someone's work, when it comes to wedding photography, is how many weddings are visible in the portfolio; only having one or two weddings would imply to a casual browser that you have not done many.

tororosso

rameire wrote: »

Thank you all for the comments... Popebuckfast is right, I am a boardsie, but I dont believe that should change what your saying at all. I understand that the quality of the images on the website are not up to par, but they are not my current work by a long shot and the deal went live earlier than planned so I was unable to update the images show the quality of what I can do now, everyone improves over time, no?

In regards to the promotion, I cover my cost by journey planning and organising work, but if I dont make too much money, I dont mind as I am doing it for the love of interacting with the clients and the passion of taking photos.

Weddings are not my area and yes they will be better photographers out there by far.

As far as I'm aware, the 200+ clients I have worked with over the last 2 years, have been happy with my product.

I welcome all cristisms & feedback and I'll look towards it to continuing to improving

Fair play for giving an open and frank response Rameire. I think with everything but especially with photography it takes time when starting out a website like that. I am sure that it will grow and improve over the next year especially if you get more clients through that deal.

I wouldn't see anything wrong with travelling anywhere to provide a competitive edge. I am sure some potential clients would love that. Yeah it might be a loss to do initially but good word of mouth is invaluable for a developing business.

One thing I noted when glancing at the site: If you have a page of say 20 thumbnails in the wedding section it looks better if each thumbnail is from a different wedding. This obviously necessitates having done 20 weddings first though :eek:

KarmaGarda

rameire wrote: »

Thank you all for the comments... Popebuckfast is right, I am a boardsie, but I dont believe that should change what your saying at all. I understand that the quality of the images on the website are not up to par, but they are not my current work by a long shot and the deal went live earlier than planned so I was unable to update the images show the quality of what I can do now, everyone improves over time, no?

In regards to the promotion, I cover my cost by journey planning and organising work, but if I dont make too much money, I dont mind as I am doing it for the love of interacting with the clients and the passion of taking photos.

Weddings are not my area and yes they will be better photographers out there by far.

As far as I'm aware, the 200+ clients I have worked with over the last 2 years, have been happy with my product.

I welcome all cristisms & feedback and I'll look towards it to continuing to improving

My honest advice is take down every single wedding photo from the site. Then work on getting much better portraits up. And for goodness sake make sure one of your own shots is used on the website, not a stock photo!

rameire

Deleted User wrote: »

Whenever I see a photography related offer on boardsdeals (or any offer that could be from a small company or single self employed person) I usually assume it's a boardsie that's doing it.

I would indeed imagine that RM is a boards member. However, and I am really not trying to be a smart ass here (and I'm the first to put my hands up and say I'm not the most amazing photographer in the world), but I've never seen photos as bad as the ones on the RM website posted in this forum.

Never for C+C, nor in the random photo thread.


I showed the gallery to another photographer and until I actually showed him the boards deal and that it was genuine, he thought the site was a joke site that someone put up having a laugh.


I would assume that 'RM' has a few friends scattered across the country who are going to take the photographs on her behalf. If boards take 50% of the deal price (not sure if that's what they take, but I'm lead to believe these things are usually 50/50?), that means RM is getting about €32.50.

I'd barely cross the door for €32.50 - I don't think anyone would be traveling across the country (and then factor in the cost of not only printing, but also posting the prints back out to people).

She definitely has to have people helping her out (fellow students perhaps?).


It also brilliantly highlights how useful a photography degree is.


EDIT: RM, seen as you're posting here, now, I really think you should update the site and put up your newer work if at all possible. I'm assuming you've had some notice of when the deal would go live (you'd have to have spent time organising it with them, surely). There'll be a lot of people looking at your site today and during the course of the deal. It makes sense to want to have the newer/better photos up, surely!?

Also, if you're doing it for the passion of photography, I assume you're still self employed or declaring this income, yes?

Its isnt a 50/50 split and I do all the work myself.

Yes I completely agree the website needs updating and that what I am working on that today before I even saw this thread. And no the date was not confirmed with me until very late so I believed I had time to update my website before the deal went live.

Yes I am self-employed and declare all incomes.

pete4130

pete4130 wrote: »

Any link to your work KKV, for comparison?

Most of my stuff involves a backdrop or two, Pete. I don't use just the person's house as it is (the average person's home is a little too cluttered in my opinion).


Here are some quick samples from me (that have yet to appear on my site or such). Resized down by imageshack, so quality may not be great;


http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9517/img8646123cr.jpg

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg716/scaled.php?server=716&filename=img851612.jpg&res=landing

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg41/scaled.php?server=41&filename=img8410123.jpg&res=landing

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5906/img821412.jpg
(skin smoothing is a bit aggressive in this one)


I use a fairly simple set up (as you can see, it doesn't vary much, though those are obviously family-group shots with 3-4 people in each, so i try to keep things simple and easy). I'm not claiming to be the best in world at it, but I try as best I can and I always try to ensure the people I'm taking photos of are pleased (and so far, so good). I've taken my share of bad photographs (everyone does) but I never took on a paid job that I felt I couldn't deliver on.


RM, Fair play to you for coming on here and whilst I do wish you well with your venture (I'm not sour enough that I wouldn't wish you all the best with it, especially seen as it is a loss leader) I do think you should've been much better prepared for this.

As it is, you're doing yourself more harm than good with the photos you currently have up. If I were in your shoes now, I'd pick the best 10 portrait photos you have to put on the site and I'd put them up before 6pm (i'd imagine a lot of people will take a look at boardsdeals in the evening time if they're gonna look at it).


I'm very curious to see the newer photos as well, I must admit. Sorry if I was a bit hard on you (though I stand by saying the photos on your website are not something I'd pay for, to put it nicely).

rameire

Again I thank you all for the advice. I have taken them all down now and will get new ones up this evening...web designer will be sick of me lol!:D

Kenny Logins

Sorry, but I wouldn't even look past the generic stock photo. I find it a bit misleading, but maybe some punters won't realise that's what it is... either way, it was a bad choice for the main image on the deal.

Good luck with the shoots.

Kenny Logins

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Sorry, but I wouldn't even look past the generic stock photo. I find it a bit misleading, but maybe some punters won't realise that's what it is... either way, it was a bad choice for the main image on the deal.

Good luck with the shoots.

I think Boards have taken responsibility of the stock image, to be fair (they said it was down to time constraints, on the deal thread in bargain alerts).

pete4130

Ok, so I'm in the opposite time zone over here so just getting back to this thread now and reading through it.

After looking at KKV's weblink to his work, I don't think I'd be prepared to to spend money on photography if the website was to go by. This is all constructive criticism so bear with me:

The Landscape section is bursting with overdone HDR's, crushed silhouettes, generic photowalk night time street architecture, one selective colour and a far too cluttered photowalk/light trail style photo with ugly street furniture protuding as the main focal points.

The Events section looks like there are lots of heavy crops with pixelation/noise in a lot of them where a decent fast tele wasn't available (the solo guy on stage is a great shot though). The DJ/stretched hands seems like a gimmick/wide angle shot and the arms/hands are really distracting. I can't stop looking at them and have no idea what its really about (the lens, his arms, he's a DJ?). There is some really poor colour balancing and digital banding going in too.

The Social events section looks like a friends party/drinking section and the last photo with the guy that looks off his face is not very flattering and not very attractive to entice potential clients. They look like generic flashgun pointed at the ceiling shots.

The portraiture section is a mixed bag. I don't know what to make of it. It's a bit of everything and nothing. It's overly made up models, low wide angle glamour shots that look out of proportion. Nothing looks like it had a definite idea of look behind it. More of a "lets see how this goes" type feel.

The photojournalism looks more like a camera phone thread with the bad colour balances noise and lack of focus or excitement in them.

I also find it confusing to read you say your not the best photographer in the world but in your sig it says your a pro photographer and you still charge for photos? It just seems contradictory. To say your pro, then claim not to be the best photographer in the world and then charge people for your images. I'm not really sure where you are coming from. Are you worth paying money because your a pro or not because you admit to not being the best photographer in the world?

The family portrait shots you posted look really uncomfortable and really blown for the most part. The knees tucked in sitting on the ground with a wider angle lens doesn't look like its an enjoyable pose and there seems little interaction between camera and subjects other than "cheese" for them to smile.

I don't believe that because you have a backdrop, a few flashguns, some cheap amazon.com brollies and a remote trigger it can justify you calling yourself pro. They look like €150 snaps that someone else is charging €65 for.

Sorry if I seem a bit militant on your site, although I do stand by the fact that the photos on your website are not something I'd pay for, to put it nicely.

If you have new, more creative individual work that you think you could put up on your site, I think that would attract a lot more clients maybe.

I think it is like I already said. This sort of photography demands a certain type of client and a certain type of photographer. This is shown in the cost/quality ratio.

humberklog

Deleted User wrote: »

Most of my stuff involves a backdrop or two, Pete. I don't use just the person's house as it is (the average person's home is a little too cluttered in my opinion).

Even chairs? What's with everyone sitting on the floor?

Do clients ask to pose for the pics on the floor? If I were you I'd advise them next time that it is a deeply unflattering pose and it is frankly- very weird (although I wouldn't say that to them:D).

So, Pete, do you feel that there should only be one professional photographer in the world, then, yes? And s/he should be officially declared the best in the world.

I claim I'm not the best in the world because I'm not. I don't have an ego that big that I'd ever think I was the best in the world. It's a silly argument.

If you don't like my photos that's fine. I don't mind at all. None of the images on my site are heavily cropped as far as I'm aware (I usually frame with enough space left for slight cropping where necessary, but never anything major). The photojournalism folder is a small amount of images that have been printed in newspapers (most of my photojournalism stuff I don't own copyright of, and hence isn't on the site).

I've no idea why you're reviewing me/my site though.



Humber; I tried the on-the-floor pose a handful of times (I'm not mad about it as it can make people's feet look a bit out of proportion) but they get lots of compliments and people saying they really like it so... I do it. I've used posing stools but these days generally go for generic 'ottoman' type stools really for seating people. Most people seem to like the on-the-floor stuff though, so.. who am I to argue.

humberklog

Deleted User wrote: »

Humber; I tried the on-the-floor pose a handful of times (I'm not mad about it as it can make people's feet look a bit out of proportion) but they get lots of compliments and people saying they really like it so... I do it. I've used posing stools but these days generally go for generic 'ottoman' type stools really for seating people. Most people seem to like the on-the-floor stuff though, so.. who am I to argue.

Ha!:pac: Yeah...the big feet!. I knew there was something particularly odd but couldn't put my finger on it:pac:.

humberklog

humberklog wrote: »

Ha!:pac: Yeah...the big feet!. I knew there was something particularly odd but couldn't put my finger on it:pac:.

I copped it straight away when I first did it, to be honest, but as I say, people seem to like it in general, so who am I to dictate what they should or shouldn't like? (I try to get people to bend their legs behind them these days, but its not always possible).

I generally try to get them standing/sitting/on the ground in the same session so they can pick and choose themselves which they prefer.

humberklog

And tellses this: would most people like the pure white backdrop?

They just seam like two really unflattering options that people go for.

I wonder do they pick those two options because they don't know anything else. Such peculiar choices by people that might not know much about what they think they like on other people and what might suit them.

Beaming white background suits Kate Moss with a team of pros behind her but holy moly it isn't good on the average joes.

humberklog

humberklog wrote: »

And tellses this: would most people like the pure white backdrop?

They just seam like two really unflattering options that people go for.

I wonder do they pick those two options because they don't know anything else. Such peculiar choices by people that might not know much about what they think they like on other people and what might suit them.

Beaming white background suits Kate Moss with a team of pros behind her but holy moly it isn't good on the average joes.

Seems to depend. Most communion/confirmation bookings have been going with a blue backdrop (I email people a choice) most standard stuff is done on white. I've the black bottletop for the hilite and not one time has it been requested (which is odd, as i'd have thought it'd look nice). Perhaps people have a subconscious preferred colour for particular life events? (most communion photos I've seen are on blue backdrops though, so maybe it's a photographer thing, either!?).

Most people have preferred white because 'it goes with everything' (so if they're getting prints/canavs/etc. it'll look alright hanging anywhere).

That said, I admit that white is my preferred backdrop choice. I think it's nice and clean looking. I don't like the 'floating' effect some photos have with it (where the person doesn't look grounded, though I'm looking into getting white boards to sort that) but all-in-all I think it's the best backdrop choice for most stuff, and most people do seem to go for it, so and prefer it so.. win-win, I suppose (for me, anyway. Obviously not for a photographer that dislikes white! ).

Anyway... I think we've derailed the thread enough by now. I'm happy to let anyone pester me or call me a prick by PM if they like, but I think I'll leave this thread alone now

kjt

Deleted User wrote: »

I've no idea why you're reviewing me/my site though.

My take, it looks like you were shocked at the level of imagery the original photographer was producing and seemed to have a go at them by starting this thread (not necessarily a 'go' but more name and shame). From Pete's review, he can't see too much of a difference in your gallery and hers...


(Correct me if I'm wrong....?)

kjt

kjt wrote: »

My take, it looks like you were shocked at the level of imagery the original photographer was producing and seemed to have a go at them by starting this thread

I think everyone was, no?

I started the thread asking other people their opinion. I gave mine later. Pete's reply is fairly trollish to be fair.

mikka631

Why did you give your opinion later if you had already formed that opinion. Waiting for others to point out the faults and then rowing in behind I think was a bit unfair.
You would rather people pester you about your own site/work by pm whereas you went for it in public about the other person, I don't understand why you didn't drop them a polite email in the first place.
TBH honest you left yourself wide open and I don't think that Pete is trolling, he actually gave what I would consider to be some constructive criticism and advice.

OldGoat

This thread is gone handbags and I'm locking it for Mod review.