Website Philosophy

I'm thinking about building a new website. Before I start burning my brain cells with the site layout I think it's fundamental the think about it's purpose and target.
My question is: what's the main purpose of your site? Is it simply a showcase meant for editors? Is is a gallery to share you're passion with other photographers or the public in general? Is it just place to sell prints?
What do you get back from you're site?

Other question: when you visit other photographers sites do you usually prefer a sober approach with plain and simple thumbnails or do you usually prefer more creative sites with animations and/or innovative layouts?

The only thing I'm sure is that my future site will not demand often updates, because I know that it wouldn't work for me.

Thanks for your thoughts about this issue.

I put my site up mainly because I kept getting people who asked me if I had a website . I get a lot of hits on the site a quite a few emails asking questions about the the Sigma 50-500mm. lens. I also get a number of requests from people who'd like to cross link with my site but since the majority of those request have been from sites taht don't have photography that's of interest to me, I generally decline the offer. I've done extremely litle in the way of sales. I've tried to keep the site as uncomplicated, simple and clean in appearance as possible. IMHO too much gimickery is distractive.

The purpose of my site is to be able to have an accessible online gallery of images- it's like having a highly customizable and portable portfolio. I enjoy providing the URL to people I meet in the field, such as birders and other photographers, and tell them that if they check back in a week or two they can see the images I shot at that location. It's work to get a trip gallery up soon after returning home, but people seem to enjoy it.

As far as design, there are a few things I personally consider extremely important. One is ease of navigation and clean presention. Nothing worse than clutter, too much information to wade through, and/or not being able to find the links I want to go to. I also like simple designs and feel that this helps direct more focus to the most important aspect of the site - the images!

I set up my site and leave it alone except for periodic additions, so I find it's fairly maintence-free.

Hope this helps!

..

I vote for simple. Things like Flash is nice the first time you go to a site but after that its just annoying.

Ok, Let me add a few examples of what I consider simple and not so simple sites. Let me know which ones do you prefer, independently from the image quality point of view.

Plain and simple:
http://www.chrisgomersall.co.uk/index.html
http://www.anaturaleye.com/index.html
http://www.oatney.com/
http://www.rodplanck.com/rpp_gal_land.htm

Not so simple:
http://www.vincentmunier.com/
http://www.jimbrandenburg.com/home.html
http://www.antoniosa.com/

Alexandre Vaz wrote:The only thing I'm sure is that my future site will not demand often updates, because I know that it wouldn't work for me.

If you don't update it, don't expect a lot of returning traffic.

The sites you listed are all nice in some way or another. (Except as much as I love Jim Brandenburg's work - some of the gimmicks on his site now are a bit annoying.) Some would flat out fail if you wanted to try to buy an image. So it really depends on what you are using it for.

Great thread as ive just gotten off the phone with someone's whos going to design my site. Hopefully ill have everything organized and ready to go by early spring.

With that said i have a couple questions.

As far as say links to others sites, should one expect payment for these? Id like to add quite a few links to others sites on mine when said and done for those who have helped me along the road of nature photography. Money isnt an issue, im just curious.

Also, John Barclay a friend of mine site, is kinda the direction im leaning towards for my site as i find it very easy to navigate thru with small images laid out nicely for the vistor to view. Of course there will be some personal touches added, but id like your thoughts on his site and what you either do or dont like about it. Or what you might do differently.

http://WWW.Barclayphoto.com

Thanks for any replys gang,
robert...........

robert hasty wrote:
As far as say links to others sites, should one expect payment for these?
robert...........

No. But reciprocosity is expected.

Gotcha Harvey, thanks. Thats what i was expecting to hear actually. Nothing wrong with a little back scratching

robert........

I guess anyone can call simple or not to simple because what they are capable of. I actually find the not to simple site very awesome sites, however that's only my opinion. If you are looking to built your site, do it by what you think you are going to use it for (business card, editors, make friends, show your work).

I love simple, yet elegant web sites. Don't make me figure out how to navigate around the site. Get me to the goods easily and efficiently. Flash can be a good tool, but it is overdone too often. Flash should enhance the experience, not show off that you learned some new script in the application.

Give me complementary colors that are pleasing to the eyes when reading the site. Help me find my way back 'home' from any place inside of the web site. Use consistent fonts throughout your web site.

Just a few thoughts. I like to think that my own web site follows my own desires. I am going through a redesign of my site at the moment, which happens about once a year, to keep people interested in coming back time after time.

E.J. Peiker wrote:I vote for simple. Things like Flash is nice the first time you go to a site but after that its just annoying.

Actually, I find it annoying the first time, too!

(Notwithstanding the above, it can be well done--look at Gloria Hopkins' site. But such sites are extremely rare.)

-Paul