Building a website - most basic noob question

[Phantomas]

I'm way overdue to start at least attempting to learn and build a website. I have meant to do so for a few years now but never had time. I shoot a lot, so much that all my free time goes to shooting, the rest goes to processing, scanning. I don't even have time to build a portfolio. But I need to make that time. I'm a little bit fed up with dropping anything and everything I've shot on Flickr and would like to give my photography some direction. In that I think building a website with a distinct portfolio/direction would help.

The problem is, I'm completely out of touch with all things web-design. I consider myself relatively computer-savvy person, so I think I'll manage whatever's thrown at me, but I think it would be a good idea to concentrate on one tool/application/process from the start. The last time I tried my hand in website design was still in internet infancy days. I managed fine with Dreamweaver and Adobe GoLive (was that the program?) but have since forgot all about them. So what's out there today? Dreamweaver still exists and rules webdesign world? Other apps took over? What's a good, universal, versatile program that is safe to invest time into? Sort of like Photoshop for webdesign. I know, sounds like an immature question, I'll proceed with Google shortly, just wanted to ask for your advice.

Obviously the website will be photo-portfolio related. Would like to eventually end up with something simple but slick. I'm also looking at ready-made template services, but still wouldn't mind learning webdesign myself. So, which program do I start with?

[djonesii]

The cheap way to do it is to look at a myriad of open source solutions out there.

However, I opted for Microsoft Frontpage as that is what the company supplied in their employee discount bundle.

Often times, your ISP will have some software available as part of their offering.

If your primary interest is really just photos, check out gallery ( google it ), or maybe you really just want to start a photo blog.

Dave

[dmr]

If your primary interest is really just photos, check out gallery ( google it ), or maybe you really just want to start a photo blog.


A friend of mine helped me get Gallery on line for a potential web site I've been dreaming about for some time now. Still not ready for prime time yet (the site, that is), but it's great for displaying photos.

I also did the free photo blog thing with Blogger (now Google) and it has actually attracted a semi-regular following. (Yes, I know I should post more often.)

[Phantomas]

Thanks Dave. I've had a look at the ready-galleries and a lot of them look quite tempting (some even can serve as an example for "my site"). The reson I'm aiming for an established program rather than quick and easy way is that I'd like to learn such program and progress with it. It is not my goal to just build a site and be done with it, but to progress with it, learn more and make it better. Ongoing project, just like my photography :)
The ready design sites are indeed perfect for a quick fix and they often provide the exact look I'd go for, but they'd limit me if i wanted to progress further and customise some parts to my exact specifications.
On the other hand, they also probably offer easier workflow - updates of new materials and refresh of all the links, pages and what-not.

[Roger Hicks]

I bought Adobe DreamWeaver, which is alleged to be very good, and the industry standard. The trouble is, it does more than I want.

Cheers,

R.

[Phantomas]

I bought Adobe DreamWeaver, which is alleged to be very good, and the industry standard. The trouble is, it does more than I want.

Cheers,

R.


Tell me about it. I have the same feeling, that's why approach with caution :eek:

[Roger Hicks]

Tell me about it. I have the same feeling, that's why approach with caution :eek:

I may be able to say more when I get a proper written instruction book with words in it instead of on-line techno-nerd Californian psychobabble Newspeak instruction videos. My webmaster (who speaks highly of the program) is finding me a book. The basics are comparatively easy to pick up but the webmaster says they're 'not good html'. I suspect it'll do everything I want, and more, but right now I'm using basic tables and stuff.

Cheers,

R.

[wgerrard]

Basically, there are two parts to building and running a website.

The first part: Layout and design. Hundreds of books explain this, and a good number of software tools purport to make it easier. You can also do everything with only a text editor.

The second part: Maintaining a server, which encompasses making sure it's up and running, keeping current on security threats and tweaking the configuration or installing software to thwart new attacks, countering spam, etc.

Having waged battle on both fronts, I strongly suggest avoiding taking on responsibilities as a server admin. Life is too short. (If you go off for a two-week holiday, are you going to be able and willing to log on remotely to your server and deal with problems that arise?)


If it was me, I'd look for a canned-but-modifiable portfolio site and host it on a commercial provider that handles all maintenance. If I ever needed really extensive storage capacity, I'd look into services like Amazon's S3 sevice.

[Phantomas]

Thanks again.

Roger - that's what I hear too, Dreamweaver is a good program but makes a lot of mess with "unnecessary" HTML clutter. I had a friend who was working in DW who would make design and then spend quite some time cleaning HTML.

wgerrad - fair enough, something to consider for sure. To keep my options open, can you recomend good "canned-but-modifiable" design providers? I came across quite a few.

[martin s]

I just skimmed the thread - I'd recommend a Wordpress template. Can be changed in indefinite ways and look every way you want it to. Smashingmagazine is always worth a visit, too.

martin

[Fujitsu]

I'm way overdue to start at least attempting to learn and build a website. I have meant to do so for a few years now but never had time. I shoot a lot, so much that all my free time goes to shooting, the rest goes to processing, scanning. I don't even have time to build a portfolio. But I need to make that time. I'm a little bit fed up with dropping anything and everything I've shot on Flickr and would like to give my photography some direction. In that I think building a website with a distinct portfolio/direction would help.

The problem is, I'm completely out of touch with all things web-design. I consider myself relatively computer-savvy person, so I think I'll manage whatever's thrown at me, but I think it would be a good idea to concentrate on one tool/application/process from the start. The last time I tried my hand in website design was still in internet infancy days. I managed fine with Dreamweaver and Adobe GoLive (was that the program?) but have since forgot all about them. So what's out there today? Dreamweaver still exists and rules webdesign world? Other apps took over? What's a good, universal, versatile program that is safe to invest time into? Sort of like Photoshop for webdesign. I know, sounds like an immature question, I'll proceed with Google shortly, just wanted to ask for your advice.

Obviously the website will be photo-portfolio related. Would like to eventually end up with something simple but slick. I'm also looking at ready-made template services, but still wouldn't mind learning webdesign myself. So, which program do I start with?

Maybe you should just clean your flickr archive.

I dont see a point in designing, programming and maintaining an "own" website as a photographer, when services like flickr do most of what you could want for free. In the end, it´s the images. You can also link to slideshows or folders within your images to pass to anyone who´s interested.

[Roger Hicks]

Maybe you should just clean your flickr archive.

I dont see a point in designing, programming and maintaining an "own" website as a photographer, when services like flickr do most of what you could want for free. In the end, it´s the images. You can also link to slideshows or folders within your images to pass to anyone who´s interested.

There's a big difference between 'most of what I want' and 'what I want'.

Also, your own domain name makes it look as if you're a bit more serious than Flickr.

But a lot depends on what any indvidual wants.

Cheers,

R.

[djonesii]

There's a big difference between 'most of what I want' and 'what I want'.

Also, your own domain name makes it look as if you're a bit more serious than Flickr.

But a lot depends on what any individual wants.

Cheers,

R.

I'll agree 100%, the subdomains thing is handy too.

I send friends/family to www.jonesii.net (http://www.jonesii.net) for photos of the kids.

I put my more interesting work on www.davezphotoz.com (http://www.davezphotoz.com) ... I can password protect things, and it is done with very little effort using a program called cpanel from my ISP.

I should expand a bit ...

I first started using straight hand coded HTML and Photoshop actions to build the images very tedious!

I then used hand coded HTML and a free ware photo paged generator.

I then shifted to Front Page for indexing and Picisa for the galleries.

I now use Front Page for indexing and Light Room HTML for the galleries, I tried their flash ones, but I prefer the HTML based ones.

I use lunarpages as a hosting service, and the offer free domain names + unlimited storage, and are pretty cheap as I got a two year package. They keep it all up and running, I just FTP there.

Dave

[bmattock]

Find a service provider such as Bluehost or Hostmonster. Purchase an account. It can be quite inexpensive.

Select a domain name.

Use the Control Panel to choose 'Simple Scripts' and you will see a vast array of very nicely-designed automated tools for websites. CMS, Blogs, Forums, and Galleries of all sorts, all free to use. Select one or several and install them. You can try them out, uninstall them if you wish, etc. As much as you like. Most of the tools are 'themable' which means you can select a design you like and just click on it.

There is no need to learn any programming or scripting or even design, as long as you don't want something custom and one-off.

Easy as falling off a log.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I bought Adobe DreamWeaver, which is alleged to be very good, and the industry standard. The trouble is, it does more than I want.

Cheers,

R.

Thats ok, it does more than even most professional designers need. But it is very easy to use for the basic functions that everyone uses. Once I learned it, I preferred it to Frontpage which looks easy but really isn't (like many MS products) and FP requires you get a web host that supports it. Everyone supports Dreamweaver and so long as you stick to either plain HTML and CSS or PHP coding every web host will support everything you do on your site design.

[Warren T.]

PMFJI, but does anyone have a favorite service/company for web site hosting and domain name registration? I currently have my photos on 2 different free photoblog sites, but I am interested in at the very least having my own domain name and email (linked to that domain).

Thanks :)

Warren

[kxl]

As you have surmised, Dreamweaver will teach more than you ever want to know about building a "straightforward" website. If you're not proficient with HTML to begin with, you'll end up toggling to the graphical view in Dreamweaver anyway rather than look through pages of HTML.

My advice:

1) Select a domain name, then register it with a domain host. It's usually free when you sign up for one of their hosting plans.

2) Go to jalbum.net. Download the software and select a skin. When you upload photos, point to your domain name. Jalbum will walk you through it. Your site will be up and running in no time.

3) If you still want to play with Dreamweaver, do so, but save your files to your local desktop. Doing this allows yoiu to learn how to build a site without any time constraints, since you'll already have an online presence.

4) As an alternative, and as already mentioned, all hosting services include software and a database or two. Simply load that software and have it walk you through the process. This is the route I took, signing up with Inmotion hosting, and loading Wordpress to create a photoblog -- if you're curious, it's at www.kalahi.net (http://www.kalahi.net).

Building a website these days is straightforward. The challenge is generating traffic to your site.

Good luck!

[jslash6]

if you're already on flickr and want to make your own site then this might be the easiest way to use both.

http://flickrslidr.com/

from all the images you've posted on flickr, edit them down and create a set of the ones you want to present on your website. use flickrslidr to create the code for an embedded slideshow. copy and paste the small amount of code into your webpage editor. simple as that. this way you allow flickr to do most of the work and you'll save time resizing you images and reposting them to another server. the slideshow itself is pretty decent, they only thing indicating its pulling images from flickr is the spinning blue and pink dots that appear only if there's a hiccup.

i intend to use this when i ever get around to redesigning my site.

[wayneb]

My suggestions are:
-don't create a Flash gallery of any sort. Few people wait for them to load or figure out the interface.
-consider using Tumblr. There are many themes and templates you can tweak and re-use, more people will see your work. Also you can use your own domain.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

PMFJI, but does anyone have a favorite service/company for web site hosting and domain name registration? I currently have my photos on 2 different free photoblog sites, but I am interested in at the very least having my own domain name and email (linked to that domain).

Thanks :)

Warren

I use Mediatemple.net for mine. The Grid-service plan is $20 a month and you can host up to 100 websites on it if you want more than one or if other family members want to do sites. I know that's more expensive than many places but the customer service is in the USA and speaks English and to me that alone is worth the price. The tech people I have talked to have been very helpful and knowledgeable and have helped me with issues that really weren't thier problem (like problems with dreamweaver I had once). The service has been VERY reliable for the 7 years I have been with them. They don't support Frontpage though. Great for Dreamweaver users. Wordpress is installed already for you if you want to do a blog under your won domain name!

Another one I can recommend is crystaltech.com They offer hosting plans that are Frontpage enabled for those of you who use MS-Frontpage. I use them for one of my clients whose site is done in Coldfusion to support a shopping cart software that she had bought before I began working with her. As with mediatemple, crystaltech's tech support has been very knowledgeable and helpful and is in the USA with English speaking employees.

[MartinP]

The OP is in the Netherlands so I would suggest looking at Flexwebhosting, from Eindhoven. They have package-deals with domain-names or without, different traffic levels etc etc. The deals all come with a huge choice of software, automatic install and updates - the whole usual thing. For software, look first at Gallery (or Gallery Two), then later you can use Joomla for layout and content while keeping the pictures in Gallery. Or go the blog route with Wordpress.

And like everyone says, avoid Flash.

[wgerrard]

wgerrad - fair enough, something to consider for sure. To keep my options open, can you recomend good "canned-but-modifiable" design providers? I came across quite a few.

Sorry, I can't recommend anything or anyone specific. Wordpress blogs can be set up on a multitude of servers and thousands of Wordpress templates ("themes" in the parlance) are available. A small percentage of those are intended for use by photographers. Most are free, some are not. You can get a good feel for what is available by Googling a phrase like "Wordpress photoblog". Design credits and links are usually included in a footer at the bottom of a site's pages, so if you find something appealing you can almost always chase down the author.

I should say that modifying something like a Wordpress theme is a matter of altering code, not dragging shapes around with a mouse. Tools like Dreamweaver offer that capability, but are geared more toward static content, whereas blog software is geared to someone who wants to add and edit content frequently, accept comments, etc.

If you find someone who can design and build an acceptable site for, say, around $500, you might seriously consider that. That's a bargain basement price, but might be good enough for a college student or an unemployed web designer. Buying Dreamweaver or other tools and adding in your time is gonna get you pretty close to that amount, in any case.

[CorreCaminos]

Another one I can recommend is crystaltech.com They offer hosting plans that are Frontpage enabled for those of you who use MS-Frontpage. I use them for one of my clients whose site is done in Coldfusion to support a shopping cart software that she had bought before I began working with her. As with mediatemple, crystaltech's tech support has been very knowledgeable and helpful and is in the USA with English speaking employees.

Crystaltech is an outstanding web host company. I had a website hosted with them for close to 8 years and I can highly recommend them. Their support was fantastic too.

[Matt Sampson]

I'm not sure if you're using a Mac or not but iWeb works pretty well and is easy to get the hang of fairly quickly. The trick is to make a site that doesn't look like it was made in iWeb by manipulating the templates. The other problem I found was that it doesn't really have photographers in mind in that too many pictures can take an age to load. So I used Simpleviewer to make the portfolio pages as Flash and linked to those. It could be quicker but that's because I need to work on the images to make them a bit more web friendly and still have to get around to it. I used Cyberduck for FTP rather than the one built into iWeb, mainly because I liked it's simplicity and could more easily undersatnd what was going on. As for a host I didn't use the Mac Mobile Me service as I thought it was too expensive. I went with, and would recommend one.com. They're based in Denmark I think. The support is great, the rates sensible and I've never had a problem. If you want to get more sophisticated with online sales facilities and such like than something like Dreamweaver is probably best. I did a short Dreamweaver course but am really no web expert and I managed to create something I liked without it. Anyway you can see at www.mattsampsonphotography.com

Matt.

[Matt Sampson]

I'm not sure if you're using a Mac or not but iWeb works pretty well and is easy to get the hang of fairly quickly. The trick is to make a site that doesn't look like it was made in iWeb by manipulating the templates. The other problem I found was that it doesn't really have serious photographers in mind in that too many pictures can take an age to load. So I used Simpleviewer to make the portfolio pages as Flash and linked to those. It could be quicker but that's because I need to work on the images to make them a bit more web friendly and still have to get around to it. I used Cyberduck for FTP rather than the one built into iWeb, mainly because I liked it's simplicity and could more easily undersatnd what was going on. As for a host I didn't use the Mac Mobile Me service as I thought it was too expensive. I went with, and would recommend one.com. They're based in Denmark I think. The support is great, the rates sensible and I've never had a problem. After all that it makes iWeb sound like a bad choice but I found it a good basis for building a site. If you want to get more sophisticated with online sales facilities and such like than something like Dreamweaver is probably best. I did a short Dreamweaver course but am really no web expert and I managed to create something I liked without it. Anyway you can see at www.mattsampsonphotography.com

Matt.

[jarski]

I would not doom flash entirely as bad choice, although have also seen bad examples of use of it.

Autoviewer (http://www.simpleviewer.net/autoviewer/) for instance is neat little tool for photo slide shows. and is free.

if OP designs the whole site himself, he can choose to display both html and flash option of same gallery.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I would not doom flash entirely as bad choice, although have also seen bad examples of use of it.

Autoviewer (http://www.simpleviewer.net/autoviewer/) for instance is neat little tool for photo slide shows. and is free.

if OP designs the whole site himself, he can choose to display both html and flash option of same gallery.

Flash is a HORRID choice. It makes the site completely and totally invisible to search engines.

[jarski]

It makes the site completely and totally invisible to search engines.

well, before one uses flash, he/she must acknowledge this fact, and use it accordingly :)

flash gives you effects otherwise impossible or difficult to achieve.

[_mark__]

Wordpress is the way to go. Very simple to use and very simple to navigate for others, thousands of free templates. I can point you in the direction of a few beautiful examples of its use if you want?

[Phantomas]

Thanks a lot people! All advice much appreciated.

I just got a copy of Dreamweaver CS4. Waiting for shops to open tomorrow to get "DW for Dummies". Will proceed to learn and build.
The out-of-can-just-add-water websites look quite good and are very tempting as quick yet effective solution, but I feel like I'll be missing out on flexibility and of course I'll learn very little. Playing around in DW some things are coming back, I think I'll manage. Of course there are way too many options, but I'll enlist some help from a tutorial book and should be fine.
Well, let's see, I hope to submit a site for your critique in 2-3 months. The most difficult part by far will be selecting a portfolio....

Edit: ^^ Mark - can you still point me to those templates you've mentioned? Still something to look at.

[_mark__]

Edit: ^^ Mark - can you still point me to those templates you've mentioned? Still something to look at.

No problem my three favorite wordpress sites are design related, they were designed, in part, by Kleber

http://generationpress.co.uk/
http://www.wearebuild.com/blog/
http://www.notforcommercialuse.com/index.php?img=1&dir=.

A catalog of some great sites http://www.minimalsites.com/

free themes
http://wordpressthemesbase.com/

Finally Todd Hido's site that works really well and is dead simple to do
http://www.toddhido.com/

[tom.w.bn]

I don't understand your goal. Is it to learn how to build a website or is it to have a website to show your photos? If you want to learn it, you have to do it yourself of course. If you only want to show photos and you have limited time why not use something that is ready and spend the time on making photos?
Do you really need your own domain?
I like flash and the only disadvantage I see is, that a single photo can not be found via a search engine. If you need this, flash is no option.
I like the way carbonmade displays photos (they use flash). It's not cheap but easy to use and a lot of photographers and designers have their portfolio there.
Here is a random portfolio from my bookmarks:
http://leilagarfield.carbonmade.com/

[Phantomas]

I don't understand your goal. Is it to learn how to build a website or is it to have a website to show your photos?

Quite easy - both! :) I've considered to quickly throw my photos on one of the ready sites, but I'm in no hurry, so instead I'll concentrate on learning and slowly building my own. I don't need it to sell photos/market myself, that's not my goal. Rather I aim for clean and pleasing gallery design and, most importantly, use it as a tool to give myself a direction/portfolio of photos that I'd like to be represented with, rather than all "cute" shots together. Plus flexibility of tuning the site as I se fit to the smallest detail.

[youngmrcurtis]

While not as outright helpful as some suggestions, here's (http://colorschemedesigner.com/) a very useful tool for helping choose a colour scheme.

[Mr_Flibble]

Hey Phantomas,

For a Dutch Web Host check out www.sohosted.com (http://www.sohosted.com). I've used them for several years and I am quite pleased with their service. They're not very expensive either (there probably are cheaper services though)

My site is a mixture of Wordpress, Coppermine and some of my own HTML.
It's time to rebuild it though. It's getting a little dated.

[kipkeston]

You should check out Ruby on Rails. It's a great platform to learn.

[nonot]

I will second (or third?) open source options since learning CSS (CSS takes care of the styling of a page) is much easier than learning the myriad of programming languages needed to make a gallery site function properly.

Wordpress is a good start, but I don't know if it's suitable for the site you want to create without a lot of work. You might check out indexhibit (http://www.indexhibit.org/) as an option, it's almost perfect when it comes to a photography site's needs. You will see a lot of people's sites looking the exact same, but that's where a basic knowledge of css and the willingness to experiment come into play.

I'm happy to answer any questions I can for you along the way... good luck!

b.

[climbing_vine]

I may be able to say more when I get a proper written instruction book with words in it instead of on-line techno-nerd Californian psychobabble Newspeak instruction videos. My webmaster (who speaks highly of the program) is finding me a book. The basics are comparatively easy to pick up but the webmaster says they're 'not good html'. I suspect it'll do everything I want, and more, but right now I'm using basic tables and stuff.

Cheers,

R.

He's right about the "not good html", and it matters for a variety of reasons including searchability, load times (more and more people using comparatively slow cell connections for web), and browser compatibility. Dreamweaver is okay for some things, but paradoxically it requires someone with in-depth HTML knowledge to prod it into doing things well.

[aizan]

good choice to go with dreamweaver. the blogging tools (typepad, movable type, wordpress, blogger, etc.) are a PITA if you want to make a site the way you want it. they're fine if you want something quick and dirty, though.

[mabelsound]

My whole web design method was to go to sites I liked, Ctrl-U for "view source," copy and paste the whole thing, then rip it to pieces and replace all the elements with my own, all with an html manual by my side.

[wgerrard]

Unless the OP is a developer who already knows PHP or Ruby or another language, I can't recommend diving into any tool that requires understanding and tweaking code. HTML and CSS are hurdles enough to jump if someone goes the DIY route. A product like Dreamweaver generates its own HTML/CSS and allows someone with minimal technical expertise to build a site. If someone wants however, a site that enables daily updates, user comments, etc., then he's look at blogging software.

Smugmug and similar sites are useful to someone who wants a small place to show off his photos. You can alter the appearance of your site, use your own domain name, without getting your hands dirty with code. The next step up is to pay someone to design, build, and install your site. Ideally, pay someone to administer the site, too. Other available approaches will require getting into the weeds to one degree or another.

[wgerrard]

The problem with that approach is for most budgets it is a major setback. Wordpress, for instance, represents hundreds of thousands in developer time, you get for free. So you are getting a very expensive application for free -- something you might not be able to afford if it was custom code.

Paying someone only a few thousand dollars, leaves you back at the low end of developers. Really innovative web work is not cheap. Custom applications and code, have their advantages (which I sell to clients) but they are not for the vast majority of people needing a web site.

Very true, but I was thinking in terms of an approach that doesn't require touching code. Wordpress is a great tool. I've used it several times. If I was building a small photo site, I'd use it, but you will edit some code unless you want to adopt a canned theme unchanged.

It was my experience, in Days of Yore, that most people who wanted small sites didn't consider the admin part of it. I.e., what to do when the hosting company sent them an email that said their site had been disabled because the Frammagidget process had gobbled too many cycles.

[peripatetic]

Wordpress is very easy to use, and most hosting sites come with it as an easy-to-install option.

Choosing and configuring a decent theme is not too difficult.

I program by day, but photography is a hobby. I really didn't want to spend a lot of time on the website.

http://www.peri.org.uk

Using a theme from Graph Paper Press. (www.graphpaperpress.com)Took me less than 10 hours in total to set up.

www.Photocrati.com also do some pretty good Wordpress themes at a reasonable price.

If your aim is to present your work in a reasonably professional manner with the minimum effort and cost on your part I strongly recommend this sort of route.

[tom.w.bn]

The problems with self-programming were adressed by nikonhswebmaster correctly. Another aspect is compatibility. Your site should be compatible to current HTML, CSS and JavaScript and run on a majority of the current browsers. Do you want to maintain compatibility now and over the next 2 years or even longer. If you use standard components, someone else does all this for you.
You can build websites with no compatibility problems that are stable over many years, when you use basic old style HTML. But those sites are really boring.

[250swb]

Can I suggest the OP try Clikpic

http://www.clikpic.com/

where for a small fee you can get stylish templates (not the usual free crap), plus your .com address, you don't need to understand any code, it is easily updatable any time you like and the whole package is based around photographers and artists who want a slick looking product.

Steve

[aizan]

anybody remember the heyday of a list apart and webstandards.org? those were the good old days...

[wgerrard]

Can I suggest the OP try Clikpic

http://www.clikpic.com/

where for a small fee you can get stylish templates (not the usual free crap), plus your .com address, you don't need to understand any code, it is easily updatable any time you like and the whole package is based around photographers and artists who want a slick looking product.

Steve


I've seen a number of Clikpic sites I like. Their prices seem competitive with the annual cost of shared hosting at a reputable provider.

Before you put photos on anyone's server, give a moment's thought to how you might retrieve them should the need arise.

[Sonnar2]

Maybe you should just clean your flickr archive.

I dont see a point in designing, programming and maintaining an "own" website as a photographer, when services like flickr do most of what you could want for free. In the end, it´s the images. You can also link to slideshows or folders within your images to pass to anyone who´s interested.

Dito. There is no reason to spend time and money to develop what already exists (and probably, work better)

I just saw a great B&W slightshow on flickr. The link is somewhere in the "digital without soul?" thread.

[aniMal]

Dreamweaver is not a bad point to start from, but you will have no real control until you learn some CSS/HTML.

I would suggest that you start using dreamweaver, and at the same time try to go through the tutorials at http://www.w3schools.com

There are lots of tutorials around, but these are the clearest and a good starting point.

When you get into specific hurdles, just google them. When I work with code I use google constantly, and find solutions to most problems.

Good luck, getting web-page literate is never a bad thing these days! :)

[jamesj]

i dont know if this is something you could use. I have seen some good pages designed using this.

I know i wanted to make something using this. But am still not sure on how to use it.


http://www.indexhibit.org/

-james

[sara]

james, PM me, i do web-design + can recommend sites et

[nightfly]

If you are displaying photos, don't build a static site with Dreamweaver. It doesn't make sense. You want a database to hold the photos (actually pointers to the photos) and a template for the galleries and individual photo pages. Instead of hundreds of pages of code each pretty much the same you can have a homepage, a gallery template and an individual photo template.

To set something like this up you need some simple hosting with a database backend. Almost any host will provide this. I have clients on Dreamhost, MediaTemple and even GoDaddy. Look for the Linux hosting package with PHP and MySQL. Most have one click installs for packages like Wordpress.

You can use Wordpress or one of the more photo oriented solutions to do this or code it yourself depending on how ambitious you are. The web world today is a combination of HTML, CSS, Javascript (or one of the javascript libraries like JQuery) and often a backend language like PHP and a database like MySQL. Wordpress and other gallery solutions encompass all these.

But I think the key is thinking that it's not a bunch of web pages but a small number of templates and a database. If you ever need to change the look of the site or adapt to new technologies, it's much easier to update 3 pages and have all your photos intact than to update hundreds of pages of photos.

I'm a web developer and my photo site is here:

http://www.robertgruber.com


Feel free to PM with any questions.

[Fujitsu]

Also, your own domain name makes it look as if you're a bit more serious than Flickr.

You can have your own domain name and still use flickr to host images.

I dont see what´s not serious about flickr. If you dont want comments or notes on your photos simply disable community features.

[climbing_vine]

You can have your own domain name and still use flickr to host images.

I dont see what´s not serious about flickr. If you dont want comments or notes on your photos simply disable community features.

People can say all they want that there's nothing "unserious" about flickr, that you can use it for a professional portfolio, etc.

And they're right.

But it doesn't matter. It misses the human nature factor. You get judged by the company you keep, and most people think of flickr as the place where people post their vacation, cat, and drunk pictures. Fighting it is tilting at a windmill.

Which obviously isn't to say that it can't work for you, of course it can. But if you're looking to impress people you need to evaluate whether the pluses are worth turning off, who knows, maybe 10% (maybe more) of your potential contacts/clients/suitors/whatever.

[wgerrard]

I know I've said this before, but if someone wants only to host photos on a website, there are a number of offerings, free and otherwise, serving that purpose.

Going the DIY route does offer the greatest flexibility and the greatest outlet for creativity and personality. The learning curve, however, is not trivial. In addition, taking on the long-term maintenance of a site and a server may a commitment many people don't want to make. E.g., on some hosting providers, customers are responsible for applying security patches to their servers. If someone doesn't know what a security patch is, how one learns about new ones, and how to install it on a server that maybe thousands of miles away, perhaps admin'ing a server is something best avoided.

Alternatively, one can pay someone else to do all of the design, build, and admin work.

Suggestion: Go to wordpress.com. Read about it. See what they offer for free and what they offer for extra cost. Search their site for photoblogs. If you find one you like, scroll to the bottom and see what theme it is using.

[climbing_vine]

It's all about the images in the end, no client will care where the images are. I have been on the web now since 1994, and few clients come in trough that door, almost all are by word of mouth. They only go to your web site to see if you have a pulse.

I would imagine, like most things, that that depends. My experience is different, shrug.

I think what you're saying is much more true of people who are already a little established (hence, who can get jobs by word of mouth).

[climbing_vine]

I know I've said this before, but if someone wants only to host photos on a website, there are a number of offerings, free and otherwise, serving that purpose.

Going the DIY route does offer the greatest flexibility and the greatest outlet for creativity and personality. The learning curve, however, is not trivial. In addition, taking on the long-term maintenance of a site and a server may a commitment many people don't want to make. E.g., on some hosting providers, customers are responsible for applying security patches to their servers. If someone doesn't know what a security patch is, how one learns about new ones, and how to install it on a server that maybe thousands of miles away, perhaps admin'ing a server is something best avoided.

Alternatively, one can pay someone else to do all of the design, build, and admin work.

Suggestion: Go to wordpress.com. Read about it. See what they offer for free and what they offer for extra cost. Search their site for photoblogs. If you find one you like, scroll to the bottom and see what theme it is using.

Seconded. All of it.

[sar-photo]

I've just finished revamping my website. I built it using Dreamweaver and (shock, horror) Flash. The Flash component I use is Slideshow Pro and along with Slideshow Pro Director makes building a website relatively easy. My site is visible to Google and other search engines as the Flash component is only one part of the page and all metatags etc are coded outside of the Flash (I may not have explained that very well but I know what I mean :D ).

Anyway - have a look if you like and let me know what you think.

Cheers

[aperture64]

Roger - that's what I hear too, Dreamweaver is a good program but makes a lot of mess with "unnecessary" HTML clutter. I had a friend who was working in DW who would make design and then spend quite some time cleaning HTML.

I am a web developer and this is very true. I hand code everything, but a much less experienced developer I work with does not. He uses the WYSIWYG editor, which gives me a major headache. He then attempts to clean up the code, but has no idea what he is doing and makes it worse.

Dreamweaver is the industry standard and has a lot of bells and whistles, but I use about 5% of the features. Buy a book and stick with it. Don't be intimidated by it.

[nightfly]

Don't worry about server admin. With so many low cost options for hosting, no need to worry about maintaining a server unless you are a serious geek.

[aperture64]

I've just finished revamping my website. I built it using Dreamweaver and (shock, horror) Flash. The Flash component I use is Slideshow Pro and along with Slideshow Pro Director makes building a website relatively easy.

Nice site. Here is my use of SlideShowPro: www.aclarkphotos.com

[nightfly]

Since most sites now are really just templates for dynamic content, I don't think Dreamweaver would be useful for anything BUT prototyping.

For the amateur user Dreamweaver seems over complicated and for the professional it seems too limited for the mix of technologies that go into a web page now.

My general method is to hand code the initial design from Photoshop as a comp and then back in the dynamic content.

For an amateur user, it seems like choosing a pre-built system like Wordpress and then tweaking the template would be a far better use of their time. Or using one of the tools from Flickr to display your Flickr photos in your own template on a domain of your own choosing effecitvely using Flickr as the backend to your website.

[braver]

Or using one of the tools from Flickr to display your Flickr photos in your own template on a domain of your own choosing effecitvely using Flickr as the backend to your website.

Just as a tip (and shameless self-promotion ;) ), I just completed a mayor overhaul of my site, and that's exactly what I did.

I reworked some code from the Satellite (http://design.tedforbes.com/) project, that takes the images from flickr and places them in your site in good looking and easy to use galleries. I have limited experience with PHP an javascript/jquery, but was able to make it work just the way I wanted.

It's not much but it is mine :) Except for the complicated stuff I grabbed 'off the shelve': http://koenlageveen.nl

Dreamweaver is cool as long as you don't use the WYSIWYG part. I work at a web-development company and our graphic designer writes the HTML and CSS in DW, by hand, and it's flawless. You could have just downloaded Notepad++ though ;)

[Phantomas]

Nice, a of of really good comments, I appreciate them, everything mentioned is definitely something to consider.
I'm not able to reply to all comments, but in summary - I agree with the sensibility of the solution of using an existing database and feeding it into a template host, even an existing one. I will have to look into that but of course that will be part of the learning process. At the moment I have literally just started messing around in Dreamweaver (and expecting a big fat book to arrive). Ideally, and I'm getting ahead of myself here without any knowledge, I'll look into building a "shell" and looking into various plug-in resources to manage the contents presentation style (slideshow, etc).

About Flickr - no problem with it, hell, I love it! And of course it can be managed and at the end of the day, let's be honest, will probably generate a lot more traffic than my site ever would. However, my idea is really to create my own site - is that so hard to comprehend? :) All this talk about investment and resources etc is like I'm punishing myself. I'll actually enjoy learning and creating next to still learning and creating and messing with photos. And I might just end feeding Flickr as a raw slideshow, as long as it's on my terms and on my own design and esthetic terms.

I'm checking all the links in this thread, very informative.

[wgerrard]

Don't worry about server admin. With so many low cost options for hosting, no need to worry about maintaining a server unless you are a serious geek.

Everything is a trade off. You can spend $20-$25 a month for some space on a shared server. You won't be able to admin much of anything at all because the provider almost certainly won't give you admin access to the server. You're just renting a slice of drive space on a machine used by a bunch of other similar customers. The provider should handle all the necessary admin. However, if something breaks on your site, you're on our own.

But, using a shared host is not turn-it-on-and-forget about it experience, either.

I've setup and run my own servers, as well as sites on shared hosts. I don't do that anymore because it became more hassle than I want to take on. Hence, my recommendation: Unless someone really wants to learn about designing, building, hosting and maintaining web sites, their interest in creating a small-to-moderate sized photo site can be more happily met by using an existing canned offering.

[shalimar]

hi,
i currently host my site with http://www.xnynz.com/
, which is also a wonderful host which offers hosting services with 24X7 live support

[Titus13]

Testing the flickrslidr code, I added it to my signature, most likely it won't work

[Titus13]

trying again

[Titus13]

Not working.
No surprise since I know nothing about code, embed, program.
Oh, well, I guess I got to redo my signature, unless somebody web savvy could help me

[naren]

I wanted to get some input from people who have viewed my website (created for me for free I believe using Dreamweaver). I don't mean to hijack this thread and will start a new one for comments because my goals differ.

My audience also has changed since I first put the site up and now it is probably mostly Mac users who will be viewing it at Ad agencies, architecture firms, etc. (well the etc. will probably include a lot of PCs, but anyway). The new Mac displays are large and also using a higher resolution which makes my images look smaller (makes everything look smaller I guess). In addition to that issue there is some jumping around of pages that is more noticeable and more of a problem with the bigger displays. A few other things I wanted to address the designer said he will not be able to help me with such as maintaining the highlighting once a link is clicked, and adding a loading signal while the images come up. I need to tweak quite a few images before sending people the link but here's the address...

www.wadhwaniphoto.com

Thanks for your input...