Valenten Photography wrote:
Indeed it may seem a bit complex at first but you can easily maintain your website, update it, etc.

Wordpress is great, although I always go for self hosted, you get a lot more versatility than you get going with wordpress.com.

Like Valenten says, it can seem a bit complex at first, but once it's all setup, it's a doddle to maintain.

Kaouthia wrote:

Wordpress is great, although I always go for self hosted, you get a lot more versatility than you get going with wordpress.com.

Like Valenten says, it can seem a bit complex at first, but once it's all setup, it's a doddle to maintain.

Self-hosted is ideal indeed. I'm already hosting some websites for some musical projects, so I was not really willing to host another one myself. Having it hosted on wp.com was just more "simple" for me.

John Allan wrote:
One of the pervasive problems/issues with 'photography templates' is that little or no attention is given to the process of actually updating the images displayed.
Yes, it looks good in their demo, when you get it home, you find that you're hand-adding images.
I'm not against templates and in fact I think themeforest is one of the better template aggregators. But template creators are basically graphic artists and their intention is to get something that will display well. They don't necessarily even understand the requirements of a working site based on images.

So, it's the modules or plugins or components that are sold by the respective cottage industries that really make the difference. For instance my website uses a Joomla template which was sold on themeforest. However, it wasn't a photography template. It's the module functionality that makes it one. Not the template.

Just have to hunt for one that works. Ive played with 12 different TF themes and all displayed my photos great.

To add. I do know what you mean about adding photos... some are time consuming.

John Allan wrote:
One of the pervasive problems/issues with 'photography templates' is that little or no attention is given to the process of actually updating the images displayed.
Yes, it looks good in their demo, when you get it home, you find that you're hand-adding images.
I'm not against templates and in fact I think themeforest is one of the better template aggregators. But template creators are basically graphic artists and their intention is to get something that will display well. They don't necessarily even understand the requirements of a working site based on images.

So, it's the modules or plugins or components that are sold by the respective cottage industries that really make the difference. For instance my website uses a Joomla template which was sold on themeforest. However, it wasn't a photography template. It's the module functionality that makes it one. Not the template.

Most of the templates that I am looking at are very easy to add, delete, move and order the images, mostly thru drag and drop which is why I like them.  I need the site to be as easy to maintain by the Client as possible.

I just completed a Wordpress site for a restaurant Client.  The Owner is already making some modifications / changes to the site on his own and I have only spent about a 1/2 hour showing him the Admin section of the site.  I think most people will not have a problem using a Wordpress site with a minimal amount of training / instruction.

Nelia wrote:
Most of the templates that I am looking at are very easy to add, delete, move and order the images, mostly thru drag and drop which is why I like them.  I need the site to be as easy to maintain by the Client as possible.

No disrespect intended, but my guess is that we have different definitions of what constitutes a smooth workflow from camera to website.

And Joomla is open enough to give web/component designers the latitude to really make management an unbearable headache. But it has the largest cottage industry behind it - which in the end is what is most important for the most people.

In 2010 I was brought in to correct an architecture based on Joomla where the developer had done just that. I billed well into the six figures for that project. Although, I don't usually take on web development. I more typically do large scale database driven production system architecture and development. But I specialize in flows and architecture, so I know something about it.

John Allan wrote:
No disrespect intended, but my guess is that we have different definitions of what constitutes a smooth workflow from camera to website.

And Joomla is open enough to give web/component designers the latitude to really make management an unbearable headache. But it has the largest cottage industry behind it - which in the end is what is most important for the most people.

In 2010 I was brought in to correct an architecture based on Joomla where the developer had done just that. I billed well into the six figures for that project. Although, I don't usually take on web development. I more typically do large scale database driven production system architecture and development. But I specialize in flows and architecture, so I know something about it.

As you say, no disrespect intended, but I am quite positive that we have different definitions of what constitutes a smooth workflow from camera to website.  Like you I have a vert strong background in website / system development.

I built my first website a bit over 20 years ago.  I taught myself HTML from viewing the source code of other's website.  I was the managing partner for a Internet Service Provider that specialized in web based system development for small to medium size businesses.  I also taught advanced web page designed at Coastline Community College for a year back in 1997 until a sudden illness side tracked that.

So like you, I believe that I speak with quite a bit of knowledge on the subject as well.

However, as you say, we have different definitions of what constitutes a smooth workflow from camera to website.

DIGITAL DREAMS OF FL wrote:
Who did your website and who do you use for your hosting?  Looking to switch web developer!

I built my website (from scratch) and Cotsco (through dotCanada) does my webhosting.

DIGITAL DREAMS OF FL wrote:
1)  Who did your website and
2)  who do you use for your hosting?

1)  I did my own web site, back in the early 90s.  I used Microsoft's Front Page and some knowledge of HTML.  Front Page had a user interface a big lot like Microsoft Word's (which I knew well), and it had a lot of nice built-ins (themes, examples, page counters, forms, etc.).  Unfortunately, Microsoft obsoleted Front Page a couple of years ago, replacing it with it's "Dreamweaver competitor", Expressions Web -- Expressions Web is complex, expensive, and much more than I'd like -- at the same time, it doesn't have the easy built-in features I like in Front Page.  I haven't found a good replacement for Front Page (but that's another thread).  My web site isn't flashy (pun intended) but I don't like super-fancy web sites -- the site is there to display my photography, not to impress folks with my web development skills.

2)  I started out with a cheap web host.  They were great, but they were small, and they got acquired.  The new host was less responsive, less reliable, and more expensive.  That new host got acquired, and the next host was less responsive, less reliable, and more expensive.  That cycle actually occurred a few times.  In the end, I "had" a host with maybe 50% uptime, three times as expensive, and there was no way to contact them (no phone, no e-mail, no web site of their own).  I had to cancel payments to leave them.

So, when I went looking for a new host, I wanted the following:
...  Too big to be acquired,
...  Super reliable and exceptional uptime,
...  Not shy about hosting my fine art nude photography,
...  24x7 phone support,
...  Good control panels & other features,
...  Reasonable (but not necessarily rock bottom) price.
You might want to look for something else, but that's what I looked for. 

When I had a small number of candidates, this is what I did.  I called their phone support number & timed how long it took before I was talking with a human being who was prepared to answer my questions.

GoDaddy won.  I've been on it for several years now -- no issues, no downtime.


BTW:  Tangent Alert:  You didn't ask, but if you want people to visit your web site, you'll need to keep refreshing it, at least once a month or so.  So, if you get someone else to develop your site for you, keep that in mind.  Will you be able to update it yourself, or will you have to get someone else to do it for you?

Finally -- having your own web site is great and well worth the effort.

Jay Lee Studios wrote:
Don't go wordpress. It is definitely over used and does not give you the functionality you need. I used it, and it even the $85 theme i purchased never really looked the way I wanted it too. As well as if any other photographer had the theme I looked just like the rest of them.

Go with a custom developer.

Never paid that much for a really nice theme and if you private host you can customize the HTML and back end FTP so you dont look like another. You can also alway go with a developer to customize.

SEO is the poo with WP over any other sites Ive used.

As long as I dont look like anyone local to me I dont care about the guy/gal thats 1000 miles away.

Holly Summers wrote:
I don't know nearly as much about this sort of thing as you all do I'm sure...  That being said I have a wix site that I linked to a domain name I bought.  I've not gotten any bad reviews yet. It's cheap and easy to use. Take a look and let me know what you think...
www.ahollywoodsummer.com

This is nothing against you but WIX code is utter garbage!

Typical WIX garbage code ... page generates 720 Errors and 1 warning when trying to validate. Why do they even bother declaring a doc type if they won't follow the standards.

I mean! HONESTLY! the WIDTH parameter has been deprecated for ages now on elements ... you do that shit in CSS!

Humm ... I just validated mine (handcoded by myself) 16 stupid little errors ... let ye who is withouth sin cast the first stone and all. Need to fix those.