I want my website to be pretty bare bones, and looking around at all my options there are companies who make photographer websites for anywhere between 400-3200 a year, yearly fees included in some. Ok, I can understand why it's worth it and would pay that much if they actually had a SIMPLE, classy and smart design. Maybe to some that's code for boring. To me it means less bullshit.
I just wonder what other people like more? I find beauty in white space, and the more of it the better, if you ask me.
Here are some sites I really like, looking strictly at design....(of course there are some great photos here too)
http://www.eliotshepard.com/
http://platonphoto.com/index.
http://alecsoth.com/index.html
http://www.yerinmok.com/6/
http://www.graememitchell.com/
http://www.elizabethweinberg.
http://evanhurd.com/
http://www.simonnorfolk.com/
These are all lame, static, whatever by some standards. But there is no b.s. in getting to the photos, no sound effects, no crazy ass illustrations floating around, no growing and shrinking thumbnails, just clicks and photos ... isn't that how it should be for the most part? Where is the template website that looks simple enough to be professional and unique, but not lame. Can these sites really get people work or would an editor come across this sort of site and not bother because it's not slick and flashed out? (Besides some of the names on this list that don't even need a website at all to get work).
More importantly, do you folks (the 2 that read this I guess) like these sites? Or do you want action, sounds, buttons, etc. Cuz I hate that shit, but maybe I just need to get over it ....
I guess here's the alternative of what it could look like if I unhappily plunked down cash for a flash template (after months of saving)...I have no problem with paying $$ ... it's just no fun when it's not for a design you're really satisfied with.
http://www.thomaskokta.com/
http://www.laforetvisuals.com/main.php
http://www.heatherwalsh.com/
http://www.blusites.com/antonio/
Now I'm talking strictly design here, nothing about the photographers.
I don't know, I feel like my photography is more straightforward, formal and static. This is how I like it, I think it's who I am generally and how I see the world, and I feel it has it's place. I don't see it fitting well in these types of sites. Maybe I'm wrong.
Would welcome feedback generously from anyone who has a thought.
I've had a website since before I really had pictures worth looking at, but it's so important these days, stressed so much as one of your biggest marketing tools ... I sure don't wanna mess it up.
Posts
5 comments:
Peter as you very well know less is more.
Like you said I'm not sure those "flashy" type sites really reinforce your style and work.
From my vantage point I'd stick with the clean white background kind of sites.
A much better reinforcement of who you are as a photographer.
Can't wait to see the finished product.
I don't think you have to get over anything. I think most people have to get over all the flashy nonsensical glowing photoshop filtered lame crazy bullshit.
Keep it simple. The overall design of your site seems fine. Just work on the navigation. Maybe move the menus around and add clickable navigation? You seem to like sites with menus at the top, so maybe move them to the top and add some arrows to browse through the photos.
Don't get too discouraged. Your photos will ultimately speak for themselves. The website is just a tool for showcasing them.
hey there, thanks for the link. white space IS beautiful; remember, it's about the pictures.
Check out Photobiz.com -- plenty of classic, simple designs to showcase your work.
Post a Comment