As to your first question: In the menu bar select 'Links', then select 'Member Sites'. This will give you an idea as to which members have their own sites. You could look at as many as you want and then e-mail the owner to ask about the site's development and who their host is.
I built my own site using MS Front Page 2003. Front Page has been superceded by MS Expression Web-2. EW-2 is a nice program. If you want to develop a data-driven site and/or one that uses Asp.Net, you can download and install the free MS Visual Web Developer 2008 Express (VWD) and MS SQL Server 2008 Express with Advanced Tools (The database). I am using both EW and VWD to develop another site. They work very well together: EW for the design side and VWD and SQL for the 'code' side. If you would like more info, e-mail me and I will send you some links where you can find more info.
I use Web.Com for hosting. They have been excellent. They have plans on either Linux or Windows platforms. Note, that if you want to use Asp.Net or MS SQL database, you will need to have your site hosted on a Windows server.
Developing your own site is fun. If you have no experience with HTML or CSS you will have a pretty steep learning curve to negotiate. There is a vast quantity of learning aids out there to help you get started, though.
If the curve is to steep, or, you need something up in the near term, there are templates available.that you can use. You will still have to have a way to modify them, though, by using an editor such as EW or Adobe Dreamweaver.
If this is too much for you, your best bet may be to find a developer to do your site. I don't have any recommendations for you in this regard. Hopefully, others will chime in and give you some ideas. Do keep in mind that if you hire someone to develop your site, it will be costly. Do your homework!
I hope this helps,
-Preston
Posted by Kevin Trinkner on October 30, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Thanks for the info Preston.
I have worked some with Dreamweaver in the past, but it has been a while. I work in the computer networking field, but I don't play with code much. I don't doubt I could learn it and build something descent, but on the same note I don't know if I want to take that much time away from my shooting and processing...
I will have to take a look around and see what options I have. I know some of the hosting sites have free building tools, but I'm sure they are pretty limited.
Posted by Varina Patel on October 30, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I built my own website using Adobe Fireworks, Dreamweaver, and Flash. I also used a downloadable and customizable Flash component called SlideShowPro to display my images. I prefer to do my own programming, since I'm pretty picky about design and coding. I know enough HTML to edit the code in any way I like - though the Fireworks/Dreamweaver interface makes it easy enough to work without knowing any HTML at all. I don't like the idea of having to wait for someone else to update my site. I prefer to do it my way and on my time. :) I guess I'm a control freak.
I update my website frequently, so paying someone else to do it seemed inconvenient and expensive. The site is constantly growing as I add more articles, images, free downloads, and travel information - paying someone to make those frequent updates would be cost-prohibitive. Also, if someone else designed the site, it would be more difficult for me to find my way around their code. I know my own coding style, so I can make minor adjustments as often as I like.
I recently reprogrammed my site from the ground up using the software I listed above. I designed the old site using MS Front Page, just as Preston did. The Adobe products are certainly more advanced, but my old site worked very well, and was just as easy to work with.
My site is hosted by PowWeb.com. They do a great job. Customer service is excellent. Response time is fantastic, and they are expanding their offerings all the time.
Posted by Robert Fisher on October 30, 2008 at 1:19 PM
FWIW, I built my site as well. Initially, because I wasn't familiar with using software like Dreamweaver or FrontPage, I did everything in PS, saved as JPEGs then imported those JPEGs into FrontPage pages. Now, I'm going back and redoing some things in FrontPage directly, but some are still imported JPEGs (nav bars and the like). I recently used LR to create Flash image galleries that I've included in the site.
I'm hosted with HostPapa. Inexpensive. Great service. Excellent range of products and services.
Posted by Keith Bauer on October 30, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Kevin: Here's another option that does not require as much intimate knowledge.... smugmug.com While I work in the computer science world, I chose to use smugmug so I could spend less time in front of the computer writing code. You can click on my "www" link below to see what I decided to do with smugmug. There are a lot of customizations you can make and if you want, get in and write code. Just another option...
I did my own site then I found a few functions on SmugMug I liked so I made my galleries there and host my site around it. You should also check out RedBubble.com and Imagekind.com
Hi Kevin,
I've written and maintained my website for many years, using plain code, html and style sheets, and validator programs. "Keep it Simple." No doubt it is not the best, but it allows me to do frequent updates and upload of new images and text to the host. If a third party does it, they sometimes don't wish to be bothered by small issues. So they should perhaps hand it off to you after the launch if you feel sufficienlty confident to maintain it regularly.
You need to keep good records of how the website is structured, and what you do on each update, so it is easier to change, add features later (e.g. shopping cart).
I test the results first in a validator and then after removing errors (there's always something!), test using the major browsers: IE,Safari, Opera etc as each one responds differently to your code. E.G. I'm looking at different ways to handle large screen (Mac) display. And yes there's a learning curve. It's a challenge to balance web site demands and your regular activities.
One source is to look at good photographic sites and view the source code to see how they execute their features. Other: http://www.w3schools.com/.
Some advice...not too much Flash please! Gimmicks and poor colors can annoy.Ten seconds is max allowable load time for a page before viewers move on.
Simple elegant sites work well. Hope that this helps,
Frank O'Donnell
www.saltwellstudios.com
I built my own website (not photography oriented but includes a gallery) using Dreamweaver, Flash, Slideshowpro, Slideshowpro Director and a few other add in modules.
In the end it really depends on how complicated and feature rich you want to be. Just posting a gallery with images and contact information is fairly simple and there are lots of dedicated programs (or add ins) to do so. http://www.evrium.com/ is an example used by a lot of the pros to host and display their portfolios online.
It starts getting complicated when you add shopping carts, database calling, etc, etc. If I was going the shopping cart route, or needed any type of security for information I'd be farming it out to the pros.
Good Luck,
Alex
Posted by John Mumaw on October 30, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I also use a photo hosting site...not SmugMug, but PBase.
If I were selling images, then SmugMug seems to be a good bet.
Photoshop & Wordpad.
I'm old school. Come up with the design in Photoshop, splice it, and reattach it all with HTML in Wordpad. Only takes a few hours, but then adding content takes forever...
I dislike programs that do the coding for you, because they tend to insert a whole bunch of superfluous garbage that makes the code harder to read and increases loading times. Templates are ok, but they can take away individuality, and again, if you didn't code it yourself, it's harder to figure out what's doing what. These options also cost more money (but not as much as paying for a developer).
It also depends what you want your website to do. In the past I've had complex websites with numerous scripts running, but in more recent times I've gone the K.I.S.S. route, which seems to be working out better. The simpler the site, the less work you have to do to maintain it, and the easier it is for people to find what they want.
As for hosting, my host provides far more resources and features than what I require, so I plan to resell hosting for a very small fee (I'm not looking to make a profit - just break even). If interested, send me an email and I can provide more details.
Thanks for all the information everyone. I'm leaning towards trying to build it myself, maybe over the winter I will find more time for such a venture. I just don't want to get overwhelmed in the project, but I can definitely see the benefits of building it yourself, like anything else.
Thanks again.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on November 1, 2008 at 10:18 PM
This is almost like asking what is your favorite flavor ice cream?
There are so many options available. There is really no one right answer. If you have never built your own site then it is a good exercise at the very least.
As a software engineer I have tried just about about every option out there. What it really boils down to is this. What are you requirements?
The answer to this question will evolve as you get your first site up and running. You will most likely be happy with it for a while then think it sure would be great if it also had xzy features (simple admin interface, database integration, easy image uploading tool, automated thumbnail creation, dynamically generated and expanding gallery pages, hidden galleries, password protected galleries, etc...).
One of the primary things that should be considered when undergoing any software project is should it be written from scratch or are there 'existing' tools available which already do the job. Why reinvent the wheel right?
With regards to tools the list is pretty extensive. I prefer open source gallery systems which provide a wide range of funtionality. These are mainly Unix based, php, mySql systems (although will run on MS). Since most hosts run on Unix servers I prefer these technologies over MS. The two most widely used and under constant development are:
1. Coppermine - http://coppermine-gallery.net/
2. Gallery2 - http://gallery.menalto.com/
I have used both and liked both, maybe Coppermine a little more. Because these already have the gallery framework and engine you can focus on presentation. I wrote a custom skin for Coppermine which I was satisfied with. Since these are open source you can basically change/customize things under the hood as much or as little as you like.
At the time I had two sites: A more professional gallery for images which I could sell and another (zenfolio) for photo sharing with family/friends/forums and offsite unlimited backup.
Eventually I began to consider a consolidated site which could fulfill both requirements. It needed to be highly flexible and offer unlimited storage. I then saw a number of great sites which looked very customized yet used Smugmug under the hood. So I gave it a go and must say it is very flexible and hard to beat for the price. My web host alone charged signicantly more and offered much less in terms of space and performance.
The good thing about gallery hosts like SmugMug or ExposureManager is that they have *very* customizable interfaces. So you spent more time taking pictures and less coding.
Discussion
12 repliesDo most of you build your own websites or have them done by someone else?
For those that build their own, what tools do you use, any suggestions where to host?
For those who've had someone build a site, any suggestions on a good developer to work with?
Thanks in advance
Kevin
As to your first question: In the menu bar select 'Links', then select 'Member Sites'. This will give you an idea as to which members have their own sites. You could look at as many as you want and then e-mail the owner to ask about the site's development and who their host is.
I built my own site using MS Front Page 2003. Front Page has been superceded by MS Expression Web-2. EW-2 is a nice program. If you want to develop a data-driven site and/or one that uses Asp.Net, you can download and install the free MS Visual Web Developer 2008 Express (VWD) and MS SQL Server 2008 Express with Advanced Tools (The database). I am using both EW and VWD to develop another site. They work very well together: EW for the design side and VWD and SQL for the 'code' side. If you would like more info, e-mail me and I will send you some links where you can find more info.
I use Web.Com for hosting. They have been excellent. They have plans on either Linux or Windows platforms. Note, that if you want to use Asp.Net or MS SQL database, you will need to have your site hosted on a Windows server.
Developing your own site is fun. If you have no experience with HTML or CSS you will have a pretty steep learning curve to negotiate. There is a vast quantity of learning aids out there to help you get started, though.
If the curve is to steep, or, you need something up in the near term, there are templates available.that you can use. You will still have to have a way to modify them, though, by using an editor such as EW or Adobe Dreamweaver.
If this is too much for you, your best bet may be to find a developer to do your site. I don't have any recommendations for you in this regard. Hopefully, others will chime in and give you some ideas. Do keep in mind that if you hire someone to develop your site, it will be costly. Do your homework!
I hope this helps,
-Preston
I have worked some with Dreamweaver in the past, but it has been a while. I work in the computer networking field, but I don't play with code much. I don't doubt I could learn it and build something descent, but on the same note I don't know if I want to take that much time away from my shooting and processing...
I will have to take a look around and see what options I have. I know some of the hosting sites have free building tools, but I'm sure they are pretty limited.
I update my website frequently, so paying someone else to do it seemed inconvenient and expensive. The site is constantly growing as I add more articles, images, free downloads, and travel information - paying someone to make those frequent updates would be cost-prohibitive. Also, if someone else designed the site, it would be more difficult for me to find my way around their code. I know my own coding style, so I can make minor adjustments as often as I like.
I recently reprogrammed my site from the ground up using the software I listed above. I designed the old site using MS Front Page, just as Preston did. The Adobe products are certainly more advanced, but my old site worked very well, and was just as easy to work with.
My site is hosted by PowWeb.com. They do a great job. Customer service is excellent. Response time is fantastic, and they are expanding their offerings all the time.
Varina Patel
www.photographybyvarina.com
My Blog
I'm hosted with HostPapa. Inexpensive. Great service. Excellent range of products and services.
I've written and maintained my website for many years, using plain code, html and style sheets, and validator programs. "Keep it Simple." No doubt it is not the best, but it allows me to do frequent updates and upload of new images and text to the host. If a third party does it, they sometimes don't wish to be bothered by small issues. So they should perhaps hand it off to you after the launch if you feel sufficienlty confident to maintain it regularly.
You need to keep good records of how the website is structured, and what you do on each update, so it is easier to change, add features later (e.g. shopping cart).
I test the results first in a validator and then after removing errors (there's always something!), test using the major browsers: IE,Safari, Opera etc as each one responds differently to your code. E.G. I'm looking at different ways to handle large screen (Mac) display. And yes there's a learning curve. It's a challenge to balance web site demands and your regular activities.
One source is to look at good photographic sites and view the source code to see how they execute their features. Other: http://www.w3schools.com/.
Some advice...not too much Flash please! Gimmicks and poor colors can annoy.Ten seconds is max allowable load time for a page before viewers move on.
Simple elegant sites work well. Hope that this helps,
Frank O'Donnell
www.saltwellstudios.com
I built my own website (not photography oriented but includes a gallery) using Dreamweaver, Flash, Slideshowpro, Slideshowpro Director and a few other add in modules.
Link to the mainpage: http://www.madagascarfish.org/ click on the gallery link to see Slideshowpro in action.
I'm no web genius, but by following some tutorials at http://www.communitymx.com and http://alistapart.com/ I was able to muddle throught it all.
In the end it really depends on how complicated and feature rich you want to be. Just posting a gallery with images and contact information is fairly simple and there are lots of dedicated programs (or add ins) to do so. http://www.evrium.com/ is an example used by a lot of the pros to host and display their portfolios online.
It starts getting complicated when you add shopping carts, database calling, etc, etc. If I was going the shopping cart route, or needed any type of security for information I'd be farming it out to the pros.
Good Luck,
Alex
If I were selling images, then SmugMug seems to be a good bet.
I'm old school. Come up with the design in Photoshop, splice it, and reattach it all with HTML in Wordpad. Only takes a few hours, but then adding content takes forever...
I dislike programs that do the coding for you, because they tend to insert a whole bunch of superfluous garbage that makes the code harder to read and increases loading times. Templates are ok, but they can take away individuality, and again, if you didn't code it yourself, it's harder to figure out what's doing what. These options also cost more money (but not as much as paying for a developer).
It also depends what you want your website to do. In the past I've had complex websites with numerous scripts running, but in more recent times I've gone the K.I.S.S. route, which seems to be working out better. The simpler the site, the less work you have to do to maintain it, and the easier it is for people to find what they want.
As for hosting, my host provides far more resources and features than what I require, so I plan to resell hosting for a very small fee (I'm not looking to make a profit - just break even). If interested, send me an email and I can provide more details.
Thanks again.
There are so many options available. There is really no one right answer. If you have never built your own site then it is a good exercise at the very least.
As a software engineer I have tried just about about every option out there. What it really boils down to is this. What are you requirements?
The answer to this question will evolve as you get your first site up and running. You will most likely be happy with it for a while then think it sure would be great if it also had xzy features (simple admin interface, database integration, easy image uploading tool, automated thumbnail creation, dynamically generated and expanding gallery pages, hidden galleries, password protected galleries, etc...).
One of the primary things that should be considered when undergoing any software project is should it be written from scratch or are there 'existing' tools available which already do the job. Why reinvent the wheel right?
With regards to tools the list is pretty extensive. I prefer open source gallery systems which provide a wide range of funtionality. These are mainly Unix based, php, mySql systems (although will run on MS). Since most hosts run on Unix servers I prefer these technologies over MS. The two most widely used and under constant development are:
1. Coppermine - http://coppermine-gallery.net/
2. Gallery2 - http://gallery.menalto.com/
I have used both and liked both, maybe Coppermine a little more. Because these already have the gallery framework and engine you can focus on presentation. I wrote a custom skin for Coppermine which I was satisfied with. Since these are open source you can basically change/customize things under the hood as much or as little as you like.
At the time I had two sites: A more professional gallery for images which I could sell and another (zenfolio) for photo sharing with family/friends/forums and offsite unlimited backup.
Eventually I began to consider a consolidated site which could fulfill both requirements. It needed to be highly flexible and offer unlimited storage. I then saw a number of great sites which looked very customized yet used Smugmug under the hood. So I gave it a go and must say it is very flexible and hard to beat for the price. My web host alone charged signicantly more and offered much less in terms of space and performance.
The good thing about gallery hosts like SmugMug or ExposureManager is that they have *very* customizable interfaces. So you spent more time taking pictures and less coding.
Derek
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com