Website Advice

[PaulClements]

Hi all,

I wanted to get the opinions of everyone here on something. First of all I bought 4 domain names and I wanted to know the opinions of each user on which they think is the best one, they are:

www.digitographer.net
www.digitographer.co.uk
www.digitalimagingtechnician.co.uk
www.digitalimagingtechnician.net

The website will be my "advert" if you like for my services and equipment. I feel that digital imaging technician is a more common name given to the roll but I think digitographer looks and sounds better, is easier to type and perhaps easier to remember. Also whilst much of the work I get will be based in the uk I don't want to single myself out as uk only so do people think the .net is better than the .co.uk? Maybe I should have two lots of business cards made up, one for international clients and one for national clients? Is it worth it?

-------------------

I also wanted to get an opinion on the layout and information that others include on their website, it'd be great if people could post links of their own websites for me to look at.

I've put up a small holding page with my info on for the moment, which includes a wikipedia description for the unitiated

I really appreciate everyone's opinion on this as obviously a website's a key selling point/area of info for prospective clients.

Thanks alot

Paul

 

[Jared VanLeuven]

Paul, I like digitographer.net. Catchy, short, easy to remember and depending on how it's created it could be a very compelling logo.

FWIW, here's my site: http://www.pixelchefmedia.com/

 

[PaulClements]

That's nice PixelChef, I was thinking of using that shine effect, it's very in at the moment, what with .mac websites I suppose. I like the typography you've used too. Very clean. One thing I've never been able to decide upon is whether to go black or white? White seems cleaner and easy, but black seems slightly more dramatic.

By the way have you seriously got the trademark on "be there", if so... cool trademark

 

[PaulClements]

Also PixelChef, your dvd sounds great, I'd love to do a european version that could be sold alongside it, I'd buy your dvd but my current tv setup is poor and wouldn't do it justice... really needs updating! How long is the DVD?

One thought for you. Would it be possible to use the DVD as an ultra screen saver? I'm thinking a large 30" monitor that everysooften flicks to a random segment from hours worth of footage like a window. I can imagine myself sitting staring at the screen for hours

 

[Tom Lowe]

"pixelchef.... Over 4k served"

haha, I like it.

paul, I also like "www.digitographer.net"

 

[Paul Hazlett]

might you add REDdigitographer? it might increase hits in a search engine.

If not just digitographer for the reasons the chef gave.

Http://www.tipmedia.com

 

[Jared VanLeuven]

Also PixelChef, your dvd sounds great, I'd love to do a european version that could be sold alongside it, I'd buy your dvd but my current tv setup is poor and wouldn't do it justice... really needs updating! How long is the DVD?

One thought for you. Would it be possible to use the DVD as an ultra screen saver? I'm thinking a large 30" monitor that everysooften flicks to a random segment from hours worth of footage like a window. I can imagine myself sitting staring at the screen for hours

Heh, even my anniversary won't stop me from checking the boards before I go to bed. :shifty:

Paul, thank for the props. Your approach of a "screen saver" very nicely sums up what we're attempting to do, think of a "screen saver" if-you-will for the 50-inch plasma you could have on your wall, displaying incredible shots from around the world complete with 5.1 ambience (waves, trickling stream, eagle kaaaww). For the initial offering we're planning around 30 minutes, with each clip lasting 20-30 seconds, just enough to be cool "ambient" background in your home. Still experimenting to see what the sweet spot is between gotta-sit-down-and-see-what's-next and utter boredom, kinda depends on the clip right now.

One thing we've hit is that, the clips being mostly nature and the dramatic formations of the southwestern US, is that without some sort of movement going on the scene can end up looking like a static picture. That's why, beside all the other bennies of RED, the timelapse stuff intrigues me. Even a gentle timelapse will still at least put the clouds into motion. We've been using DSLRs which work, but as another thread is discussing, suck in the workflow dept., and given a 10-15% successful shot rate (scene, lighting, movement, camera functioning correctly etc), we were ripping through the shutter lifespan of the camera pretty quickly (30secs x 24 fps = 720 clicks per clip x 10 [# of sessions to get decent clips] = 7200 x a whole lotta scenes = 1 camera body per 2-3 months). RED's actually more cost-effective over the long haul, and it does real-time and overcrank as well!

My, I do drone on when it's late. Apologies, man. We're headed to Arches National Park in the morning to do another shoot, gotta hit the hay!:calm:

 

[Jared VanLeuven]

That's nice PixelChef, I was thinking of using that shine effect, it's very in at the moment, what with .mac websites I suppose. I like the typography you've used too. Very clean. One thing I've never been able to decide upon is whether to go black or white? White seems cleaner and easy, but black seems slightly more dramatic.

By the way have you seriously got the trademark on "be there", if so... cool trademark

I'm answering these in reverse, whoa. We're in the process of registering "Be There", but not sure if we'll be successful. Lawyers will tell ya anything.

BTW - In the US, you can use the "TM" unofficially until you're officially registered. Then you can use the "R".

 

[Simon Blackledge]

www.digitographer.co.uk of course!

wip www.matteblackfilms.com

 

[PaulClements]

Well it looks like digitographer is preferred by most either way so far.

I'm wondering about actually using www.digitographer.net as a digitographer portal/forum for the discussion of all things DIT/digitography. Of course many of the discussions would overlap discussions here but would be more specific based. Such as backup solutions in the field, flash memory etc. Either that or producing a digitographer webzine discussing products, shoots by people, listing details of digitographers and their equipment etc etc. Does anyone think there'd be any interest in either?

 

[martinnoweck]

Hi all,

I wanted to get the opinions of everyone here on something. First of all I bought 4 domain names and I wanted to know the opinions of each user on which they think is the best one, they are:

www.digitographer.net
www.digitographer.co.uk
www.digitalimagingtechnician.co.uk
www.digitalimagingtechnician.net

The website will be my "advert" if you like for my services and equipment. I feel that digital imaging technician is a more common name given to the roll but I think digitographer looks and sounds better, is easier to type and perhaps easier to remember. Also whilst much of the work I get will be based in the uk I don't want to single myself out as uk only so do people think the .net is better than the .co.uk? Maybe I should have two lots of business cards made up, one for international clients and one for national clients? Is it worth it?

-------------------

I also wanted to get an opinion on the layout and information that others include on their website, it'd be great if people could post links of their own websites for me to look at.

I've put up a small holding page with my info on for the moment, which includes a wikipedia description for the unitiated

I really appreciate everyone's opinion on this as obviously a website's a key selling point/area of info for prospective clients.

Thanks alot

Paul

Hi Paul,

IMO i would try:
www.digitalimagingtechnician.net

because more people know about this term than
www.digitographer.net

and .net sounds more international than *.co.uk

just my two cents,
martin