cristian_bosch

<p>Hey guys, you might find this article useful when building your next website:<br>

http://www.thephotoargus.com/freelance/10-trends-in-photography-website-design/</p>

<p>Hey guys, here's an article that you might find interesting:<br>

http://www.thephotoargus.com/freelance/10-trends-in-photography-website-design/</p>

<p>I haven't heard of any template sites that do this, since you need root server access and support to configure subdomains. What company do you use?</p>

<p>Agreed with Scott. Keep you domain and use subdomains like so:<br>

weddings.mayameyers.com<br>

studio.mayameyers.com<br>

Structure the URL so the directory names go before the domain to save characters and keep it clean.<br>

On your index/landing page (www.mayameyers.com) link to other subdomains and use a sitemap to let search engine crawlers know where to find your other pages and subdomains.</p>

<p>Michael, I would go with the normal blog post layout. By using a lightbox to display pop-up images you still have to load images individually, so both options take time. The method used in the Allen blog is not Flash, but Javascript. There are many alternatives to flash nowadays. HTML5/JavaScript is a big trend. I prefer to scroll down and have images appear automatically as I scroll. The advantage of the scroll is once all images have finished loading you can quickly go back to the first or last without wasting clicks, because they're all on the same page.</p>

<p>wow! it's almost unanimous, music is out for the count. My two cents: in 99% of cases it's tacky.</p>

<p>Great responses! I see a trend in the no flash approach. But I agree with Ellis, there's no problem with good use of Flash. The sad reality is that the vast majority of Flash sites out there are poorly designed and implemented. Thus the bad rep. However when we talk about keywords and SEO with Flash it get's tricky. What about WordPress, anyone have any ideas about what's possible with it?</p>

<p>Hi Kira, cool website! I like the graphic use of typography on your main site. Very vintage looking. I was actually more drawn to the images on the blog. Maybe because there was less graphic distraction. I see a lot of photographers have two different sites, one for their portfolio and another for their blog. Maybe integrating the two could be more powerful. Just my opinion. Great job!</p>

<p>Hello Everybody. Besides being a serious photo enthusiast I'm a web designer in the process of designing a photography website and I would greatly appreciate the feedback of professional photographers. When visiting a photographer's website, what elements do you look for, home page or elsewhere? I started a new web design project and I want to push the envelope on this one. The web is full of Flashy web galleries, but this time around I'm opting for a magazine style structure and layout. What's your ideal photographer's website and why? What's the good, the bad, and the ugly in term of website design for photographers? Examples are welcome.</p>

<p>Cool site! I like the minimalism. Will have to agree with the logo suggestion, something that stands out a bit more is needed. Another thing, the images could be larger and borders could be made thinner to give images more supremacy. And one last thing, maybe it's just me, but I find too much space below the navigation bar. This pushes the images down so I have to scroll just a bit that I'm mildly annoyed. Just my opinion. Hope these contribute to a better site and viewing experience.</p>

<p>It's a good start. I like the colors you chose. I still find the headline typography (dirty typewriter) too loud. Your line spacing could also use a bit of work. A photography site or blog, in my opinion, should exalt the images, and the typography or iconography should complement it. Here's what I mean: www.ten18photography.com</p>

<p>This is a great way to boost your google page rank, and it's worth a shot. But if you sold the rights to your image then I don't know if they'll be open to backlinking. It depends on NG's website policy. What would be more beneficial is to get other backlinks for sites that are in the context of your type of photography, say nature photography and link it with that keyword: "nature photography" That way your site, ie: nature-photography.com, gets inbound links for that particular keyword search in Google. Google has yet to find semantic value in images. The best you can do is use the ALT tag in all your images to label them contextually. Hope that helps!</p>

<p>Cool website, beautiful images, and great logo! I like the vertical scroll of you galleries. A few things of note: 1) the logo is being cut off on the left. May be a conflict with the full-width functionality of your page because your navigation is pretty long, or the default width you have it set to, which is wider than the standard 1048px. 2) The music which comes automatic as default may be set to optional for users and have them switch it on if they like. Some people get a sudden burst of unexpected loud music when loading your site for the first time, which detracts from the viewing experience. Great job! </p>

<p>Nice website. It's very well organized so I'll give it a A+ for information architecture. I think the galleries are nicely laid out and the enlargement pop-up works well also. This type of lightbox popup is very common in website design. It's a very convenient way of showing large images without exiting the main page, so a click to close is ok. And to answer Robert K:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>- On an enlargement, to the left of the close button is a button that is always grayed out. What is it, and why is it there?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is because the pop-up navigation allows for a full-screen view, however the image is probably sized to the max. This is a functionality for high-res images. Not the case here I presume.<br>

But overall great work with the site and beautiful images!</p>

<p>Back to the case in point, if the "website provider" was a Do-it-yourself pick-a-template type website, it's a free-for-all. No legal debate there. But if the site was custom made by a professional design studio and stolen, that's a different case altogether, which I don't think applies here, since the affected photographer James referred the copycat photographer to a "website provider", not a web design studio. And considering the coding of websites, most are Open Source if created with HTML/CSS/PHP/Javascript, except for the designs, illustrations, and icons, which are property of the site owner if it's a custom made job. To avoid this type of problems a custom made site is your best bet.</p>

<p>Wow. I understand your concern. This is not really a legal issue, but an ethical one. I'm assuming she got the same website design as you because you used some type of template from a quick DIY web company. This happens all the time in web design. In terms of design I don't think there's copyright infringement, but in terms of text copy there may be, depending on the extent of how much copy was copied, no pun intended. So the underlying issue here is the person who copied. You can either confront the person to get it out of your system or say, try a different design from the company's template service, if they have alternatives that is. The problem here lies in that you're both in the same area and market, so having the identical design is a marketing tragedy. You would think people have more common sense than to do that.</p>