Your favorite photography website...

[Nate Battles]

So what's your favorite photography website? I am talking about individual photographers websites. Based on layout, design, content, overall look, etc., if you had a personal web design staff at you disposal, what would you like your web page to look like?

some of my favorites:

http://www.joachimknill.com/

http://www.uelsmann.net/

[Walter Calahan]

My next web site design, ha!

Now I simply need to find the time to do it. Grin.

[Gordon Moat]

I actually view many, and my listing changes often on which I consider top quality. Currently I have these marked on my list of 55 websites as the ones I consider the best of my list. In no particular order:

Marcus Doyle
Chris Gordaneer
Stephen Romer
William Huber
Frank Le Petit
Olaf Veltman
Steffen Jahn
West Side Studio
Andric
Michael Prince
Frank Schott
Adrian Tyler
William Lamson
Mats Cordt

Some are Flash based, which I try to avoid, so I don't think I would consider emulating those. My own site went through a hefty range of design choices, and I am quite happy with how it has developed. I did get some feedback from some corporate ADs, and it was the idea of busy people viewing my work that led me to a simple solution. I still need to add more content, and expand the About section.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Asher Kelman]

This is going to be a great resource. What a great idea. This expands one's vistas. Thanks all!

Asher

[Sylvester Graham]

Hmm. Gordon, a lot of those sites seem to be commercial. Which is great. I guess you're a commercial photographer so those types of website pertain more to you, you certainly pay enough attention to good websites to keep a list. But do you think what makes a good site for a commercial photographer also applies for art photographers? I'm no web designer, and obviously getting the right balance between aesthetics and speed/ease of access is important no matter what, but are you extending the same evaluative umbrella over every photographic website, or just commercial ones? Since all sites serve just about the same purpose, exposing as many eyes as possible to an artists work, should there even be a difference?

[Gordon Moat]

Hmm. Gordon, a lot of those sites seem to be commercial. Which is great. I guess you're a commercial photographer so those types of website pertain more to you, you certainly pay enough attention to good websites to keep a list. But do you think what makes a good site for a commercial photographer also applies for art photographers?

In one aspect it does, that being the presentation of compelling images. Remember that a good website will consider the target audience.

I'm no web designer, and obviously getting the right balance between aesthetics and speed/ease of access is important no matter what, but are you extending the same evaluative umbrella over every photographic website, or just commercial ones?

The only aspect I think an art photographer might want different is the About Me section, which would list galleries, exhibits, or some other difference in work approach. Beyond that, if a photographer was handling direct sales through their website, then that might be another difference.

Compare this to the average wedding and portrait photographer: different target audience, different approach, though maybe a bit closer to what an art photographer might want. Unfortunately, I have never seen a wedding or portrait photographers website that left a lasting impression on me . . . and so I cannot recommend any to you.

Since all sites serve just about the same purpose, exposing as many eyes as possible to an artists work, should there even be a difference?

Commercial photography caters to companies, even if a few individuals at a company are making the decision on whether or not to consider you for working with them. I think this is fundamentally different from photographers trying to attract the general public, either with art photography, portrait work, or wedding photography; the viewers have more time, and they are more likely to want more background on the photographer.

So having said all that, I still think a few fundamental aspects need to be there. Your work needs to be unique, memorable, compelling, and stand out above your competitors. What I think that implies is that there is very little difference, and I hope that answers your questions.

Okay, so just to throw some last website up for you to consider, check out Marge Casey + Associates website. It is Flash based, though very clean and simple, and shows the work of several really talented individuals. This site was done by Group 94 out of Belgium, who have gained a great deal of notoriety for their work; you might want to explore their website a bit too. I think if an art photographer was able to pay for Group 94 to design something, the result might be quite interesting, and probably not much different in approach than what they might do for a commercial photographer. You can see what they did for Hans Op De Beeck, and get a little idea of a more art oriented website from Group 94.

If you look through the previous list I posted, even if you only looked at the landscape images of some of those, I think you might find quite an art (or fine art) influence. There is a greater awareness in the commercial imaging world towards fine art, which is one of the reasons I still exhibit at various venues.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[uniB]

Okay, so just to throw some last website up for you to consider, check out Marge Casey + Associates website. It is Flash based, though very clean and simple, and shows the work of several really talented individuals. This site was done by Group 94 out of Belgium, who have gained a great deal of notoriety for their work; you might want to explore their website a bit too. I think if an art photographer was able to pay for Group 94 to design something, the result might be quite interesting, and probably not much different in approach than what they might do for a commercial photographer. You can see what they did for Hans Op De Beeck, and get a little idea of a more art oriented website from Group 94.

Thanks for providing those links Gordon, for a Flash site, which I'm not normally too bothered for, the Hans Op De Beeck site is quite nice, and not too over-the-top to put people off. I s'pose the good thing about a Flash site is that it's harder to take the images, you can't just copy them like jpgs.

[uniB]

As a web designer I must say most photographer's websites are horrible, the off-the-shelf options are dreadful. Obviously the main aim of any photographers website is to show off their photos, many photographers are so paranoid about people stealing their work their images are too small, too compressed, or too covered in watermarks.

This is one of the nicest ones I've seen: http://www.mikemcfarlane.co.uk

[tim atherton]

As a web designer I must say most photographer's websites are horrible, the off-the-shelf options are dreadful. Obviously the main aim of any photographers website is to show off their photos, many photographers are so paranoid about people stealing their work their images are too small, too compressed, or too covered in watermarks.

This is one of the nicest ones I've seen: http://www.mikemcfarlane.co.uk

it might be okay as a web design, but in terms of presenting his work, parts of it are just horrible (along with the the big "20% off" style sticker on the front page - taaaacky...)

The galleries are just too cluttered - there's the massive pano across the top, there's a sidebar full of stuff, there text all over and around and then the overpowered pictures stuck in the middle of it all - your eye doesn't know where to go.

Surely, it's about the photographs - that's what the photographers is presenting/selling (and themselves in relation to those) - but you wouldn't think so from this website

Clean and simple with just enough information - especially as far as image presentation goes - is far more preferable.

I'd have to say that many of the art photographers I come across often have really nice sites (I'll try and remeber which) - apart from those that go mad with flash everything and euro/techno background music...

[uniB]

it might be okay as a web design, but in terms of presenting his work, parts of it are just horrible (along with the the big "20% off" style sticker on the front page - taaaacky...)

Do you mean the 'Take a View winner' bit? Well I guess flashes are a bit tacky but I guess he's proud of the fact.

I like the fact there's some background about what the photographer believes in and that his photos are about. Obviously the aim with his site is more commercial than those of art photographers.

The galleries are just too cluttered - there's the massive pano across the top, there's a sidebar full of stuff, there text all over and around and then the overpowered pictures stuck in the middle of it all - your eye doesn't know where to go.

Surely, it's about the photographs - that's what the photographers is presenting/selling (and themselves in relation to those) - but you wouldn't think so from this website

Clean and simple with just enough information - especially as far as image presentation goes - is far more preferable.

I'd have to say that many of the art photographers I come across often have really nice sites (I'll try and remeber which) - apart from those that go mad with flash everything and euro/techno background music...

I guess I look at things in a different way, as a designer, I think the site works as a whole, with information, news RSS feeds etc, and I can see his images well enough. I agree that over-the-top Flash is a no no.

The problem I have with a lot of very simple 'art' websites is that I get no background information, about the photos or why the photographers taking them.

It's all a matter of opinion of course.