First of all I want to introduce myself, my name is Heath Jeppson and I am a professional web designer and aspiring photog. While I have only done one website for a photog I wanted to share a few thoughts with you all.

1. Flash based websites look great, however they index with search engines very poorly. They also can be VERY slow to load. If you rely on the internet to get business, this is NOT the way to go.

2. NEVER link to images that are not located directly on your hosting server, the main reason for this is simply if said hosting site is down for any reason...so are your images.

3. Cookie cutter style websites look exactly like what they are...CHEAP!!

4. Find a professional web designer talk about ideas and discuss looks for your website, any web designer worth his salt will be able to discuss these things INTELLIGENTLY!!

5. Beware of per page pricing schemes, if the web designer is any good they will quote a price for a finished product.

I hope some of these insights help anyone looking for a first website or looking to upgrade their current website.

Here is the site that I done for Robert Michael Photography

wow that is very clean looking...

Thanks, I see so many photographers websites out there that are just horrid. I just wanted to share a bit of my knowledge with the community. I like CLEAN AND SIMPLE websites for displaying photos/artwork, you never want the website to over power what it is you are selling!! I am actually working on a new website right now just for my photography, I should have something up and running in a couple of weeks depending on my workload. I will be sure to share when I am done, I have LOTS of new shots to put up on the new site, alot of the stuff that is on my current site is pretty old.

If you liked Robert Michael Photography check out Tom Roberts Studio not photography, but a really good local artist.

Nice layout but using IE8 all I get are Error messages on the links. I no longer use Firefox as it recommends due to off the chart colors it would show for images. Is it made for IE8?

This particular site was built before IE8...all new sites are IE8 compliant, one thing that you can do with IE8 is to use compatibility mode, that should clear up any issues.

IE8 really threw a monkey wrench into web design, just when we all thought the nightmare of IE6 was over...Microsoft threw us a curveball!

If I understand things correctly here is what I have learned about the color problems with Firefox and IE. I found that as long as the image is tagged with the sRGB profile, things are all cool in Firefox, HOWEVER, if the image is not tagged (most cameras tag them automatically as well as photoshops save for web feature) it can create unbelievable chaos on your images. IE8 now uses the system profile which in most cases is sRGB by default. It is a complicated issue without a doubt, I know most photogs have color calibrated monitors and are keenly aware of even the slightest color changes, I know I am, however 99% of the visitors coming to a website have no clue as to what sRGB or color calibration even is. So now that I know about this issue, I will be making sure all images are tagged with the sRGB color profile, but I am not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

I would like to add one thing to your list:

6. The aesthetic design of your website is just as important as the quality of your photos.

Imagine you had the opportunity to show your work in an art gallery. If you did you would pay great attention to the type of frame the photo was mounted in, whether it had a matte border, what type of paper it was printed on, how the lights were positioned in the room, etc. That same attention to detail should be present in your web design, as ultimately the look of your website is what "frames" the experience for your user. I find that when a photographer has a horribly ugly web site, it makes me think the photographer has little understanding of design. When in actuality, the photographer might just be inexperienced when it comes to web design.

trendynoise wrote:
I would like to add one thing to your list:

6. The aesthetic design of your website is just as important as the quality of your photos.

Imagine you had the opportunity to show your work in an art gallery. If you did you would pay great attention to the type of frame the photo was mounted in, whether it had a matte border, what type of paper it was printed on, how the lights were positioned in the room, etc. That same attention to detail should be present in your web design, as ultimately the look of your website is what "frames" the experience for your user. I find that when a photographer has a horribly ugly web site, it makes me think the photographer has little understanding of design. When in actuality, the photographer might just be inexperienced when it comes to web design.


Absolutely, thanks for adding that as well. One of the things that I personally like to incorporate is the use of thumbnails and a lightbox, which will darken the rest of your website and pull the image being viewed to the front. This does two things, first and foremost it puts the viewers attention directly on the image being viewed, secondly it shows a level of sophistication in the web design itself.

spiritwind wrote:
IE8 really threw a monkey wrench into web design, just when we all thought the nightmare of IE6 was over...Microsoft threw us a curveball!

IE8 did not throw a 'monkey wrench' into web design. IE8 is actually the most standards-compliant browser out of any version of IE. IE6 forced a lot of designers to degrade their code for use in that browser. If your site looks messed up in IE8, then you have a big problem.

mdude85 wrote:
IE8 did not throw a 'monkey wrench' into web design. IE8 is actually the most standards-compliant browser out of any version of IE. IE6 forced a lot of designers to degrade their code for use in that browser. If your site looks messed up in IE8, then you have a big problem.

O RLY? Try to run http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 in IE8.....FAIL almost instantly.

wow that is very clean looking...

To the contrary, I find it cluttered and claustrophobic. There are 8 photos on the homepage contained in boxes within boxes, and even the menu bar is a collection of boxes. There's an additional bar at the bottom to chop up the page, not to mention a far too large credit at the bottom by the designer's company. The site is lacking a natural flow and graceful aesthetic.

I think you need a little more experience behind you before you begin handing out advice.

I totally agree. Chopping up the gallery links to either side of a bio block is really problematic as well (I normally wouldn't read the bio or scroll past it until after determining whether or not I like someone's photography...if I don't like their work, do I care who they are?) and all of the photos on the homepage are way, way too large...especially that bio photo.

...aaaaaand the site went down before I could click any further into it. Not your fault, obviously, but still ironic.

spiritwind wrote:
First of all I want to introduce myself, my name is Heath Jeppson and I am a professional web designer and aspiring photog. While I have only done one website for a photog I wanted to share a few thoughts with you all.
1. Flash based websites look great, however they index with search engines very poorly. They also can be VERY slow to load. If you rely on the internet to get business, this is NOT the way to go.
2. NEVER link to images that are not located directly on your hosting server, the main reason for this is simply if said hosting site is down for any reason...so are your images.
3. Cookie cutter style websites look exactly like what they are...CHEAP!!
4. Find a professional web designer talk about ideas and discuss looks for your website, any web designer worth his salt will be able to discuss these things INTELLIGENTLY!!
5. Beware of per page pricing schemes, if the web designer is any good they will quote a price for a finished product.
I hope some of these insights help anyone looking for a first website or looking to upgrade their current website.
Here is the site that I done for Robert Michael Photography

You've provided some valuable tips here, but I'm afraid what you've posted is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to simple yet fresh, exciting, interesting and attractive web site design and construction.

You've also left out the fact that the single most crucial step to take when designing a web site is step #1: constructing the navigation map. Designing and building a web site without a navigation structure is like trying to drive from Florida to Oregon without a road map. Sure, you might get lucky and get on the right roads once in a while, but sooner or later you'll find yourself having taken a serious wrong turn and needing to go back where you came from and starting all over again. Navigation maps aren't stressed often enough these days, but they were top-of-mind up til a few years ago. To my mind, they're indispensable.

Most web sites ... the vast majority ... violate even the most basic guidelines and rules for good design. Most have no distinction, no core concept, no creative positioning nor marketing strategy. These are also important to good web site execution. Structure is only the beginning.

FYI: prior to becoming a photographer, I was Senior Project Designer for America Online from 1992 through 2000 ... an era we call "the burst years" for the Web. During those years I designed web sites for quite an assortment of blue-chip companies, including Reebock, AAA, Sprint, Merrill-Lynch, Prudential and others. My final project before parting with AOL was to draft the entire first volume of Standards & Practices/Policies & Procedures for online commerce, most of which are still in use today.

I do appreciate what you have posted here. But it's a little too simplistic and, in one way, misleading, ie web site templates ... or what you call "cookie cutter" sites. My site happens to be a template site hosted by a terrific company with a lot to offer in the way of creative variations on many themes. And they're FAR from cheap. The best of the template site providers are quite expensive, in fact. But what they offer is usually worth every penny. My site is never down, and I have full access for modifying the site at any time, from uploading new images and new text to experimenting with different styles, looks, colors, themes, etc., in real time right from my desktop. I don't have to call anyone to update my site or for anything else having to do with the site's content and flow. They also introduce new templates from time to time as well as upgrade earlier ones. The design flexibility they offer is really tremendous. So I wouldn't put down "cookie cutter" sites. Done well, they are of great value ... and usually better than what most "pro" web site designers are putting out these days.

As you say, most sites are horrid.

- Steve

Deezie wrote:
wow that is very clean looking...
To the contrary, I find it cluttered and claustrophobic. There are 8 photos on the homepage contained in boxes within boxes, and even the menu bar is a collection of boxes. There's an additional bar at the bottom to chop up the page, not to mention a far too large credit at the bottom by the designer's company. The site is lacking a natural flow and graceful aesthetic. I think you need a little more experience behind you before you begin handing out advice.

I'm afraid I have to degree. The site looks like every other site out there and is not at all representative of top-flight design. The look of the site is quite generic. It could be the web site for a floor covering store, a real estate agent, a fitness gym or pet shop. Just needs a new name, header, text and new images and ... voila ... it's somebody else's site.

It does, indeed, bear the marks of inexperience.

- Steve

veroman wrote:
But it's a little too simplistic and, in one way, misleading, ie web site templates ... or what you call "cookie cutter" sites. My site happens to be a template site hosted by a terrific company with a lot to offer in the way of creative variations on many themes. And they're FAR from cheap. The best of the template site providers are quite expensive, in fact. But what they offer is usually worth every penny.



I admit I should have been a little more clear on that point, yes there are some good "template" sites available, but the good ones are not cheap. It all goes back to, you get what you pay for!

A couple other points on your site:

It's generally considered a no-no to implement critical functions such as navigation with Javascript or Flash. The site breaks if someone does not have JS.

Placing a "this site best viewed with (insert browser here)" is equivalent to stating "this web developer couldn't figure out how to make the site work across browsers". Same with "Please enable pop-ups" or "please set your browser to xxx resolution" kinds of "helpful tips". Not the best marketing move for a web developer...

Dave

spiritwind wrote:
mdude85 wrote:
IE8 did not throw a 'monkey wrench' into web design. IE8 is actually the most standards-compliant browser out of any version of IE. IE6 forced a lot of designers to degrade their code for use in that browser. If your site looks messed up in IE8, then you have a big problem.

O RLY? Try to run http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 in IE8.....FAIL almost instantly.

Please see here

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/02/19/ie8-standards-mode-opt-in/

1. Flash based websites look great, however they index with search engines very poorly. They also can be VERY slow to load. If you rely on the internet to get business, this is NOT the way to go.

That depends on who does the website. Livebooks builds a shadow html site into the sites they create for that very reason.

Ellis wrote: That depends on who does the website. Livebooks builds a shadow html site into the sites they create for that very reason.

It seem that more companies that offer flash-template sites to photographers are doing this. I'm with Clickbooq, which also offer search engine friendly flash sites.