• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Looking for Good Examples of Photographers Websites

Thanks, John! I don't think that tag existed (or maybe there was some browser issue) when I started putting this together some 3 or 4 years ago, but it would streamline things. I'll save that post for the next redesign.
 
Drop shadows. Can't stand drop shadows.
 
David A. Goldfarb said:
Drop shadows. Can't stand drop shadows.
Click to expand...
I agree with David, I see no need for those shadows, but overall this is the kind of site I like. If it wasnt for the shadows it would be perfect as far as I am concerned.
 
Gotta be simple and quick to get to the good stuff. In saying that; if the objective is to present the images as fine-art prints, I think there is some benefit in making the viewing feel a great deal of effort has gone in to the presentation of them.

Have you seen Andrew Eccles site? A good example of leading the viewer through the images. Quite a formal presentation. Dead Link Removed

Want grandiose?! Perhaps a bit too much for me but he does it well. It's more formal also (upper end wedding photographer).
Lester de Vere http://www.lester.co.nz/startpage.html

It's ALL about the Images. Nice and simple, easy but effective menu.
Maria Sainsbury http://www.mariasimages.com/

I'm sure Glen (Deckled Edge) wouldn't mind having his new website pointed out as a good example of one that is menu driven and effective for presenting LF images (imo) http://www.gwishon.com/

Want flashy FLASH - it isn't photography, but take a look at THIS!:
Clever webdesign tricks by Yugo Nakamura http://www.yugop.com/

have fun, John.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jorge said:
I agree with David, I see no need for those shadows, but overall this is the kind of site I like. If it wasnt for the shadows it would be perfect as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jorge, the shadows have been on the chopping block, they should be gone with the next update.
 
I'd stay away from the speeches given by many color photographers trying to justify why they are printing digital. It gets tiring... 'now my prints can surpass any known traditional technique and are far more archival' yadda yadda.. ZzzzZzzz
 
George Losse said:
Thanks Jorge, the shadows have been on the chopping block, they should be gone with the next update.
Click to expand...

I forgot to add, the photography is not too shaby either.....
 
Sean said:
I'd stay away from the speeches given by many color photographers trying to justify why they are printing digital. It gets tiring... 'now my prints can surpass any known traditional technique and are far more archival' yadda yadda.. ZzzzZzzz
Click to expand...

Or be misleading....such as:

" Photographed on 8x10 film and printed using the highest-quality archival process, "

Not a word about these being ink jet prints. I dont know if ink jet pigment prints are the "highest quality archival process" but certainly it seem he would be talking about procesess that have proven to be so.
 
mark said:
I like

http://www.billatkinson.com/Homepage.pl
and
Dead Link Removed

They are easy to navigate and I would go so far as to say elegant (as much as a website can be called elegant.)
Click to expand...

Great sites, both of 'em. Although, Schilliger needs a shopping cart. How can he put up a site with such utterly breathtaking work (Holy CRAP that guy is good!) and not give the surfer any opportunity to buy?

What is that irresistible siren call I hear? It's my credit card, seductively whispering "Buy, buy these beautiful photographs". But as soon as I have to click on the 'Contact' link, the spell is broken.

The bottom line with photo websites is that it's all about the bottom line.
 
Francesco said:
Also, I am not a big fan of wasting space on diaries and musings, but I suppose some might find that entertaining.
Click to expand...

I find it very entertaining, even key to many sites. It certainly is with Michael and Paula's site. Just don't make me slog through it in order to get to the pictures.
 
I'm inclined to look at images on the screen like transparencies on a light table. Presentation mounts for viewing transparencies on a light table usually have a wide black border, so a black background makes a certain amount of sense to me for a photo website, though I recognize that not everyone likes this.
 
Jorge said:
Or be misleading....such as:

" Photographed on 8x10 film and printed using the highest-quality archival process, "

I dont know if ink jet pigment prints are the "highest quality archival process"...
Click to expand...

For monochrome, traditional processes have got to win hands down. But I have it on good authority that for color work the inkjet pigment prints are more archival than Ilfochrome Classic. Quality? It seems to be good enough for Andreas Gursky.
 
c6h6o3 said:
For monochrome, traditional processes have got to win hands down. But I have it on good authority that for color work the inkjet pigment prints are more archival than Ilfochrome Classic. Quality? It seems to be good enough for Andreas Gursky.
Click to expand...

Hmm...why would you think Ms. Swanson is a good authority on conservation? I have never heard nor have I read any paper written by her on this subject. As to the quality I never said they were not good, only that I would like to know what I am buying, certainly Gursky's photography does not impress me so it was not a particularly good example for me. Sure, his print sell for a lot to museums....God knows why, I certainly dont see it!

I dont know nor have I seen anything written by Ms. Swanson, but to me, she is like the Tim Robbins of photography, she charges a lot of money to tell you things that I imagine should be common sense. But who knows? maybe I am wrong, as I have never taken a Tim Robbins or Swanson course.
 
I don't care how great the photographer is, if the first thing I see on a web site is "Flash" I leave immediately.
 
Flash is a great multi-media authoring tool with a small footprint and low budget cost. However, too many websites that utilize it remind me of the late 60's counter-culture art scene: flashing strobe lights, great rock, psychedelic color patterns, etc.; but you really had to be stoned to fully appreciate the artistic experience. For two-dimensional work, especially B&W photos, Flash seems antithetical to a centemplative experience.
 
Ok, I think design wise, this thread has run its course, how about focusing on what content you like or dislike on photographers sites?
 
website list


Dear Brian,

Herewith a sample of my top-hundred photography websites

http://www.chipforelli.com/fine_index.html

http://www.jeffreyconley.com/

Dead Link Removed

http://www.demarchelier.net/art/f_imagemix.html

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

http://www.jeffsphotos.com/Galleries/gallery.html

http://www.chrishoneysett.com/Thumbnails_Trees_3.htm

http://www.thorstenschimmel.com/komponenten/GALLERY/BETWEENTIME/shoutingmane.html

http://www.andreasweidner.com/galerie/

http://www.jean-turco.com/pages/cible.html

http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/urban/frames/galleryframeset.html

Dead Link Removed

http://www.bsimple.com/home.htm

Enjoy!
Hope that the choice is not too difficult.. =-)
Three elements for a website are very important I guess,
Rate
Symplicity
and lack of using a "black" background.

Kind regards
Fred
 
Back to Design

Back to design just for a minute.

You may have already done this, so if so, ignore my comments. But, my suggestion, Brian, would be to consider your target audience and what their expectations or preferences might be. If your real target viewers are ADs at magazines, your design will likely be far more cutting-edge than if you are aiming at Joe or Jill Consumer. I think once one has done the analysis to define the site's customer, so to speak, life and design decisions become much easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register