Ronald N. Tan wrote:
Jack,

Full bleeds are WONDERFUL, provided they are responsive. For us photographers, the better our images are "in-your-face," the better the first impression. Of course, the first impression replies on the quality of the images.

Keep in mind that we're in 2014 and most people now have smart devices. Heck, I used to be one of those people who abhorred them. I finally jump on the wagon, because Verizon was running a GREAT deal I just cannot pass. This was Thanksgiving 2013. Having a smartphone is fun, but also distracting. Let's not get into that.

Getting back to your website. Right now, it is good. Someone mentioned about the horrible Flash. I highly recommend you pick something from Livebooks that isn't Flash-based. You should try to find a theme/template, where the site complete adapts to any user's screen AND does not change the image and composition. Some of the full-screen sites  look amazing on Apple Cinema screens.

Of course, if your clients are wealthy and could afford them, they are superb. What about the "regular people" who can't afford those. They're like browsing on screens like 1280 X 1024. Unless your site is completely responsive, they won't be seeing the same image and composition like people on large Cinema screens.

Something to consider.

Exactly, there is no reason to have anything but a responsive site these days.  Also no reason to use flash

Jack English wrote:
I am looking to change my site up a little ( http://www.jackenglish.com / Livebooks)
and was thinking of this template http://stature.light.scaler.sites.livebooks.com/
you like???

if that's what you like, there is a responsive theme that can be easily customized and it includes password-protected client proof gallery. check it out: BORDER on Themeforest.

AJ Garcia wrote:
Yeah, like has been said full bleed looks great, IF they work right. The issue is full bleed gives very little latitude for differing resolutions and aspect ratios/devices. So while it may look amazing on my desktop, it could look horrid on my laptop.

I've come across a ton of full bleed sites that just look ridiculously look quality because it didn't optimize right. Add to the fact that with full bleed you will have to take into account not just low res screens but also very hi res. Meaning you will have to upload very hi res, high quality pics or risk having pixelated low quality images show up when people see your site. This decreases the speed of the site, because even with reduced quality jpegs, the picture files will be quite large by internet standards. So many people will be waiting for their internet speeds to catch up and load your site as well.

So yes, full speed looks great in theory, but it could be a nightmare in practice.

With aphotofolio it's done using the Design X platform - it's all HTML5.  The site automatically generates mobile versions for phone and tablets and also generates a flash version for browsers that are not HTML5 compatible - an option that can be turned off.

The only problem I have with the full bleed into (I would never have everything stay full bleed - it's more of a hook than practically useful for an art buyer) is the inability to have two versions of your logo for both light and dark background photos.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
To me, the most important factor is that a site have a highly responsive design, so that it displays well on a wide range of devices, screen sizes and browsers. There are so many people now viewing the web on phones and tablets that it's missing the mark if a website, particularly a portfolio-based one, does not display well on them. That not only means choosing a responsive layout, but avoiding the use of Flash at all costs. IMO, HTML 5/CSS3 on the front end (designed to degrade nicely for older browsers), regardless of what is or isn't on the back end, is the way to go.

+1

And I think the best websites are the ones that resonate with the target audience. I think that a lot of people here on MM are trying to target either high end art directors, or fellow photographers rather than who their clients really could be and what their needs really are.





Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com