I want to build a Website. Who & How Much?

[harvwallbanger]

I want to build a website for my photography business.

I'm looking for a FLASH based site.

I already have my domain name.

So I guess I am looking for some sort of online builder.

Can anyone recommend anything?

The cheaper the better and free is always nice.

Thanks for your help.

[Fenster]

I recently rebuilt mine - with flash elements - for free, using Wordpress and a freely available flash gallery, Simple Viewer:

http://www.bhalash.com/

[sadowsk2]

Check out:

www.bludomain.com (http://www.bludomain.com)

I think they're thee absolute BEST and its all Flash...

BTW- if you do decide to go with them, I did (www.nicksadowskiphotography.com (http://www.nicksadowskiphotography.com)), I'd appreciate a referral reference! ;)

[tbisaacs]

As a professional web developer, I can tell you that I've personally passed on clients with requests such as yours. The problem? You tell me that you want a website, and it needs to be flash. Deciding on a technology first is a big red flag for most professional designers.

Instead, I would take your designer some basic documentation to help him or her put together a solution that really fits your needs, instead fulfilling your requirement for flash. Things that might be helpful:

Who is your audience
What action to you want a visitor to take (call you, buy something, schedule an appointment, etc)
What type of photography will be featured (portraits, kids, weddings, etc)
Will you be selling anything
Will you be maintaining the website or will you need some sort of maintenance package
What is your budget
How will visitors find out about your site, where will your traffic come from
What style would you like (traditional gallery, etc)


I would also caution against bluedomain.com. They crank out hundreds of template sites a month, that all look pretty much the same. And their development is sub-par, dirty code, poor SEO, and really bad service. You'd be best hiring a designer that would work directly with you.

And remember, you get what you pay for. Garbage in, garbage out. Hiring the right person and delivering a professional, and stunning website for your visitors makes you look good in the end.

Good luck!

[EnronRocks]

As much as you seem set on a flash based website, look into HTML and see if you can have what you wanted delivered in a non flash format. Flash websites are loosing their appeal, and not all your potential customers are on high speed, so a flash website could be slow.

If you are still looking for flash, http://www.fuzzproductions.com - I used them for a project back in the day. They at one time did the Microsoft website - http://www.microsoft.com/about/brandcampaigns/innovation/yourpotential/main.html

That is the only website on the internet designed in flash that I have ever sat through and used.

[blackshadow]

To be honest if I click on a flash website unless I absolutely must look at it I close the window down.

[bwolford]

I want to build a website for my photography business.

I'm looking for a FLASH based site.

I already have my domain name.

So I guess I am looking for some sort of online builder.

Can anyone recommend anything?

The cheaper the better and free is always nice.

Thanks for your help.

Good luck with your business. You are going to get what you pay for and the results will reflect on the quality of your business.

[bradm77]

I would avoid Flash if at all possible - it's just a big headache. You need to, at a minimum, hire a designer or learn some HTML/PHP. There are some free PHP products that you can customize to the 'nines', such as Gallery and WordPress. I would stay away from any template or cookie-cutter package.

Brad

[crash331]

Flash sucks and so do free websites.

If this is the attitude you take with your website, I don't think I would want to use you as a photographer.

[Michael_Lambert]

If this is the attitude you take with your website, I don't think I would want to use you as a photographer.

Wow;


That’s kind of a harsh comment, just because someone has to be economical on there website does not say that person is cheap or provides a bad service. If one where to judge hiring someone or not based on the way there website is laid out and not the content on that said website I would not want you as a client to start with!

[crash331]

Wow;


just because someone has to be economical on there website does not say that person is cheap

Actually, it says exactly that.

You can have the best content in the world, but if it is presented in the wrong way it does no good. If you can't understand that, then you need to take some marketing/business classes. Imagine if wikipedia was organised in a way similar to this website (http://www.usabilitynet.org/home.htm).

Sorry that the truth is considered harsh to you. I bet if you take a poll right now, a majority of people would would immediately close a website if it had a template look, was 100% flash, looked cheap, etc. Like this God-awful website (http://www.kcthecatalog.com/index2.html).

If you don't believe me, just read this thread. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=454243) Sorry, but I'm not gonna sugarcoat stuff just to seem nice.

I can sit here and dig up terrible websites all day, but only one fact remains, a bad website is a bad website. People won't use it. And a cheap website usually ALWAYS means a bad website. Especially a cheap FLASH website.

[Michael_Lambert]

well,

This would be an argument that could go on for 10 more pages i am sure, however we will just leave it as two differing opionions :)

[toldey]

I like to stick with html/php based websites, sure flash is nice but i think content is more important. I personally, don't have the patience to wait for the animated load bar to finish when i want to one photo, etc.

here is my website, http://www.tonyluong.net

I tried to make it as simple as possible without having the 'template' look

[Fenster]

Flash sucks and so do free websites.

If this is the attitude you take with your website, I don't think I would want to use you as a photographer.

That's a miserable attitude to take. PotN runs on Apache and Linux...quick, close your browser before TEH FREE infects you!

More seriously, it is a very uncharitable attitude because I can go out in an hour probably find twenty well-built photographer's websites built using open tools and CMS': Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla, and so on. It's not what you have, but what you do with it.

[photoguy6405]

I want to build a website for my photography business.

I'm looking for a FLASH based site.

I already have my domain name.

So I guess I am looking for some sort of online builder.

Can anyone recommend anything?

The cheaper the better and free is always nice.

Thanks for your help.

A couple random thoughts...

Your comments suggest you really haven't put much thought into this. The desire for flash especially comes off as "I saw some cool flash websites and I like those, so I want one of those."... without thinking about the pros and cons of having flash.

Cheap and economical aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You can "cheap it out" and have a cheap looking website. Or, you can economize, and invest some time to learn, and do much of it yourself, and have a great looking product. There is some truth to 'you get what you pay for', but that's no reason to throw money around foolishly and sweat equity can count, also.

[harvwallbanger]

Thanks for word everyones input.

Actually I believe the best way to get yourself known is by word of mouth. Do a great job at a reasonable price and other will recommend you. So far this approach has worked best for me.

I haven't actually started my business up yet and today I booked two different weddings coming up in May.

I will be using my website as an online business card. Of course I will be showing off some of my work on there. To me and the other website pro's out there, sure templates are easy to spot. But for the average Joe Public out there looking at sites, I believe a clean looking easy to get around site is the way to go. I'm not selling websites or products, just a service.

Thanks again for everyones input.

[S.Horton]

Good luck with your business. You are going to get what you pay for and the results will reflect on the quality of your business.

I would not have been quite as direct, but, +1.

Consider instead a hosting site you subscribe to, such as smugmug, flickr.....

[EnronRocks]

Actually, it says exactly that.

You can have the best content in the world, but if it is presented in the wrong way it does no good. If you can't understand that, then you need to take some marketing/business classes. Imagine if wikipedia was organised in a way similar to this website (http://www.usabilitynet.org/home.htm).

Sorry that the truth is considered harsh to you. I bet if you take a poll right now, a majority of people would would immediately close a website if it had a template look, was 100% flash, looked cheap, etc. Like this God-awful website (http://www.kcthecatalog.com/index2.html).

If you don't believe me, just read this thread. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=454243) Sorry, but I'm not gonna sugarcoat stuff just to seem nice.

I can sit here and dig up terrible websites all day, but only one fact remains, a bad website is a bad website. People won't use it. And a cheap website usually ALWAYS means a bad website. Especially a cheap FLASH website.

A bad website does not mean people will just stop using it, the Microsoft website is one of the worst I have used. Content is hard to find, the home page is somewhat hard to navigate, and I still can not find the update I was looking for MONTHS ago.

That does not matter, if you run Windows and need something, you HAVE to use the Microsoft website. In your theory, their website would have lost them money because I don't like it and it is designed poorly, but that is simply not the case. It depends on the need of the site, once you have the market in your town/area - it does not matter how bad your website is, people will use it. It's a bad way to look at it, but its true.

[photoguy6405]

A bad website does not mean people will just stop using it, the Microsoft website is one of the worst I have used. Content is hard to find, the home page is somewhat hard to navigate, and I still can not find the update I was looking for MONTHS ago.

That does not matter, if you run Windows and need something, you HAVE to use the Microsoft website. In your theory, their website would have lost them money because I don't like it and it is designed poorly, but that is simply not the case. It depends on the need of the site, once you have the market in your town/area - it does not matter how bad your website is, people will use it. It's a bad way to look at it, but its true.

That's the difference. Many people need Microsoft's stuff and don't have any other realistic choice. You just grumble and deal with it. For a photographer, if you drive them away, there's a line of other photographers waiting to be signed up in your place.

[EnronRocks]

That's the difference. Many people need Microsoft's stuff and don't have any other realistic choice. You just grumble and deal with it. For a photographer, if you drive them away, there's a line of other photographers waiting to be signed up in your place.

Not everywhere, I am one of two sports photographers in my county. The other one I am in business with.

[crash331]

That's a miserable attitude to take. PotN runs on Apache and Linux...quick, close your browser before TEH FREE infects you!

More seriously, it is a very uncharitable attitude because I can go out in an hour probably find twenty well-built photographer's websites built using open tools and CMS': Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla, and so on. It's not what you have, but what you do with it.



POTN is also a messege board. And I highly doubt the server, storage space and bandwidth are free. Don't confuse free as in open source and free as in beer.

[crash331]

Not everywhere, I am one of two sports photographers in my county. The other one I am in business with.

Well, guess what, if your website sucks, I am going with the other guy.

If both your websites suck, then I guess you get to enjoy the same monopoly-like advantage that Microsoft has.

I know all my customers tell me when they come in "Man, your photography sucks, but you are the only person within 10 miles of me! Here's 300 bucks!"

[EnronRocks]

POTN is also a messege board. And I highly doubt the server, storage space and bandwidth are free. Don't confuse free as in open source and free as in beer.

True, but without open source this website would cost thousands more a MONTH to run. You would have to run Microsoft Database Software, Microsoft Windows Server software, and you would have to have HUGE HEFTY licenses to use the Database software on top of buying it. I can guarantee that the serer to run POTN is less than $700.00 dollars a month, and if its costs more they are wasting money. To be honest, for a dedicated box with as many connections as SoftLayer offers, and open source - POTN is costing on the lower end to run it.

Well, guess what, if your website sucks, I am going with the other guy.

If both your websites suck, then I guess you get to enjoy the same monopoly-like advantage that Microsoft has.

I know all my customers tell me when they come in "Man, your photography sucks, but you are the only person within 10 miles of me! Here's 300 bucks!"

Money is money, and when you are making enough of it you forget about the little people who started it all. It's fact. Not to mention that online deliverance of photographs is not a huge selling point, its the qualify of the product If you run your entire operation off of a website and do not deal with customers directly as a photographer, I personally wouldn't want to deal with you. Just because Donald Trump can tell someone how to build a building does not mean he can do it himself, same goes for businesses online presence.

[crash331]

True, but without open source this website would cost thousands more a MONTH to run. You would have to run Microsoft Database Software, Microsoft Windows Server software, and you would have to have HUGE HEFTY licenses to use the Database software on top of buying it. I can guarantee that the serer to run POTN is less than $700.00 dollars a month, and if its costs more they are wasting money. To be honest, for a dedicated box with as many connections as SoftLayer offers, and open source - POTN is costing on the lower end to run it.



Money is money, and when you are making enough of it you forget about the little people who started it all. It's fact. Not to mention that online deliverance of photographs is not a huge selling point, its the qualify of the product If you run your entire operation off of a website and do not deal with customers directly as a photographer, I personally wouldn't want to deal with you. Just because Donald Trump can tell someone how to build a building does not mean he can do it himself, same goes for businesses online presence.



That's fine that you wouldn't want to deal with me, because I wouldn't want to deal with you either. Get a clue, it's 2008. A website is as big a part of your stroefront as your actual storefront is. If you run a store that looks ghetto, I'm not coming in, same with a website.

And stop trying to compare POTN with what we are talking about. When you can show me the bill for POTN and show that it is FREE like this guy wants, then you will have a point. POTN is not free. It is ran with some free software, but it is far from free. If it was free, it would handle about 30 users then the free server would crash. Free software does not equate to free hosting.

[John Mireles]

When I clicked on this link, I knew that there were going to be a lot of posts saying "no" to Flash. It's been my experience that photographers who like to be able to quickly go from site to site hate Flash. They don't like the loading times and you can't right-click on images to download them.

But photographers are not the same as clients. I've never heard a client complain about a Flash site. Moreover, my bookings went way up when I transitioned from an html site to a Flash site. Clients appreciate the experience and want to be dazzled by your photos. (Photographers just want to flip through them as quickly as possible.)

And there's nothing wrong with wanting to pay as little as possible on a web site. Keeping costs down is a good thing. A very good thing. Bludomain has exceptional sites. Yes, they are templates and others will have the exact same template, but, for the money, you can't beat them.

I don't know anything about all the goobleygook code stuff that someone mentioned. Who cares? The site looks good, loads quickly and is more or less easy to use. I have three Bludomain sites and I'm happy with all three. (And my wife has one too.)

Bludomain customer service on the other hand is a bit of a challenge. Sometimes they are good; sometimes they suck. I've personally lectured the owners at a trade show in the hopes of getting them on the ball. They're trying, but in my opinion not hard enough.

Still, their designs are the best of all the template sites so it's hard not to go with them. Don't bother trying to design your own site. It takes too much time and the results look like you did it yourself. The $600 you spend on a template site will be the best money you ever spent.

John

[Fenster]

POTN is also a message board. And I highly doubt the server, storage space and bandwidth are free. Don't confuse free as in open source and free as in beer.

Right. I'm trying to make the point that it's possible to build a well-considered and accessible website using free tools (and yes I pay for hosting) and free software.

..then again I have more choice than most because I use Linux, Windows and OS X daily at work and at home.

[photoguy6405]

Not everywhere, I am one of two sports photographers in my county. The other one I am in business with.

Nothing is absolute, and YMMV, but as a general rule...

Plus, most counties aren't that big. Don't be surprised if some photogs from adjoining counties are willing to make the drive.

[prilamai]

When I clicked on this link, I knew that there were going to be a lot of posts saying "no" to Flash. It's been my experience that photographers who like to be able to quickly go from site to site hate Flash. They don't like the loading times and you can't right-click on images to download them.

But photographers are not the same as clients. I've never heard a client complain about a Flash site. Moreover, my bookings went way up when I transitioned from an html site to a Flash site. Clients appreciate the experience and want to be dazzled by your photos. (Photographers just want to flip through them as quickly as possible.)

And there's nothing wrong with wanting to pay as little as possible on a web site. Keeping costs down is a good thing. A very good thing. Bludomain has exceptional sites. Yes, they are templates and others will have the exact same template, but, for the money, you can't beat them.

I don't know anything about all the goobleygook code stuff that someone mentioned. Who cares? The site looks good, loads quickly and is more or less easy to use. I have three Bludomain sites and I'm happy with all three. (And my wife has one too.)

Bludomain customer service on the other hand is a bit of a challenge. Sometimes they are good; sometimes they suck. I've personally lectured the owners at a trade show in the hopes of getting them on the ball. They're trying, but in my opinion not hard enough.

Still, their designs are the best of all the template sites so it's hard not to go with them. Don't bother trying to design your own site. It takes too much time and the results look like you did it yourself. The $600 you spend on a template site will be the best money you ever spent.

John

John,

I have to agree. I love my Blu site but their lack of service makes me crazy. And my clients love the flash and music. They are always raving about it!!

[S.Horton]

When I see threads like this, I appreciate the time the mods volunteer on POTN.

[John Mireles]

Right. I'm trying to make the point that it's possible to build a well-considered and accessible website using free tools (and yes I pay for hosting) and free software.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Unless you're really good designer and programmer, spend the money and get something good. A client doesn't care how much you spent or whether something is homemade or custom-made. They just want it to look better than your competition's and they want the price for your services to be right. A do-it-yourself web site was ok ten years ago. Now, it's just sad.

John

[Fenster]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Unless you're really good designer and programmer, spend the money and get something good. A client doesn't care how much you spent or whether something is homemade or custom-made. They just want it to look better than your competition's and they want the price for your services to be right. A do-it-yourself web site was ok ten years ago. Now, it's just sad.

John

So how much did you pay for your website?

I'm not trying to cast stones, but you equate that cost and quality are directly proportional.

I'm looking at your website in that light and I'm not reassured that this is true. Using some of those very same freely available tools I've found that your website is an off-the-shelf template built using WebSite Tonight (http://www.starfieldtech.com/products/websitetonight.htm), which in turn seems to be (as best I can tell) the off-the-shelf beginners website package offered by your host.

[inthedeck]

Lots of info in this thread, but no one's really suggesting what 'YOU' want to hear...so, try this....

Do a search in google for flash templates and you'll come up with lots of stuff...such as this --> http://www.easytemplates.com/ or this --> http://templatenavigator.com/

[John Mireles]

So how much did you pay for your website?

I'm not trying to cast stones, but you equate that cost and quality are directly proportional.

I'm looking at your website in that light and I'm not reassured that this is true. Using some of those very same freely available tools I've found that your website is an off-the-shelf template built using WebSite Tonight (http://www.starfieldtech.com/products/websitetonight.htm), which in turn seems to be (as best I can tell) the off-the-shelf beginners website package offered by your host.
It's sure is. I could have tried to create something like that myself, but instead I used an inexpensive, off the shelf solution.

Check out my first response in this thread. One of my key points was that saving money is good. (Very good.) But creating a web site on your own is generally not a good way to save money. My suggestion is to purchase a template since that's the most cost-effective way to get a site nowadays. With a bludomain (or bigfolio) template, you can look like a pro for not that much money. Nowadays, you definitely don't need a custom site (as someone else was suggesting).

By the way, my www.ventanaphotography.com web site is completely custom while www.ventanakids.com is a bludomain template. On the other hand, www.lightandfastseminar.com was created using iweb from Apple. Different tools and looks for different jobs.

John

[djscrib]

True, but without open source this website would cost thousands more a MONTH to run. You would have to run Microsoft Database Software, Microsoft Windows Server software, and you would have to have HUGE HEFTY licenses to use the Database software on top of buying it. I can guarantee that the serer to run POTN is less than $700.00 dollars a month, and if its costs more they are wasting money. To be honest, for a dedicated box with as many connections as SoftLayer offers, and open source - POTN is costing on the lower end to run it.




As a microsoft and linux web developer (among other things) your statement is pretty much completely out of touch with reality.

You can get Microsoft Virtual Servers for about $20/month. SQL Server Express (which handles up to a 2gb database, and 2 gb of RAM) is FREE. ASP.Net free. You can lease a dedicated windows server for under $100/month. I have serious doubts anyone on this board needs a database any faster/larger than that. (If you're trying to actually store images in a database, which could hit the 2gb space limit, then you're an idiot)
Development tools? Visual Studio Express, Free.

This particular forum we're on? This could be run on a single machine for well under $100/month on Linux or Microsoft. Probably closer to $50 looking at the size of this thing.


Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

Oh last thing. Anyone see the analogy between these 100% flash template websites that look like crap, and Microstock? Or the "I can do it myself" websites and GWC pictures.

Moral of the story is, unless you know what the hell you're doing, and are trying to make thousands of dollars selling "professional" pictures to users, why not drop a few hundred bucks and get a site done right.

[photoguy6405]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Unless you're really good designer and programmer, spend the money and get something good. A client doesn't care how much you spent or whether something is homemade or custom-made. They just want it to look better than your competition's and they want the price for your services to be right. A do-it-yourself web site was ok ten years ago. Now, it's just sad.

I would agree to a point. As long as a website is good, which one is "better" becomes something of a moot point. I believe that, all other things being pretty much equal, the deciding factors for the vast majority of customers will be pricing and/or the quality of the photos.

[John Mireles]

I believe that, all other things being pretty much equal, the deciding factors for the vast majority of customers will be pricing and/or the quality of the photos.Well, clients have hard time knowing which photo is better. I mean who's to say? It's much like buying jewelry. If you put two similar necklaces next to each other and they both looked more or less the same, would you be able to tell which is better?

Probably not. But if you put one in a light blue box - specifically Tiffany blue - and one in simple white box, the one in the blue box would be considered more valuable. Context matters. The prettier the packaging, the more valuable the contents.

John

[EnronRocks]

As a microsoft and linux web developer (among other things) your statement is pretty much completely out of touch with reality.

You can get Microsoft Virtual Servers for about $20/month. SQL Server Express (which handles up to a 2gb database, and 2 gb of RAM) is FREE. ASP.Net free. You can lease a dedicated windows server for under $100/month. I have serious doubts anyone on this board needs a database any faster/larger than that. (If you're trying to actually store images in a database, which could hit the 2gb space limit, then you're an idiot)
Development tools? Visual Studio Express, Free.

This particular forum we're on? This could be run on a single machine for well under $100/month on Linux or Microsoft. Probably closer to $50 looking at the size of this thing.


Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

Oh last thing. Anyone see the analogy between these 100% flash template websites that look like crap, and Microstock? Or the "I can do it myself" websites and GWC pictures.

Moral of the story is, unless you know what the hell you're doing, and are trying to make thousands of dollars selling "professional" pictures to users, why not drop a few hundred bucks and get a site done right.

Find me a reliable Windows dedicated server provider with Windows and MSSQL database licenses to run a forum for less than a $100, key work on Reliable. You can barely get a box running all open source that would run a forum at good speeds for less than $100. Celeron and anything Intel Pentium is a joke when it comes to running a dedicated box.

[bradm77]

Hey, there are a LOT of high quality FREEBIES out there if you are willing to invest the time to LEARN THEM, like Wordpress, Gallery, SMF Forums, etc, etc. A little PHP/MySQL goes a looong way!

Having said that, even if you can teach yourself the skills to build a site, even if you can find free high-quality programs to manage your site with - do not, I repeat, DO NOT let yourself get suckered into FREE HOSTING!!! I can remember a name like billsmithphotos.com, but not billsmithphotos.freewebs.com - not to mention how cheesy & chincy I think it is to not at LEAST spend the $15 or so to register an actual domain name.

I'll put up with bad design, slow flash, all of that stuff if I have to - but when I see these free hosting/free subdomain sites, it just screams out "Rinky-dink, honky-tonk, fly-by-night operation" - not a good representation for your business.

Just my .02 cents worth.

Brad
OhioValleyPhoto.com

[photoguy6405]

Well, clients have hard time knowing which photo is better. I mean who's to say? It's much like buying jewelry. If you put two similar necklaces next to each other and they both looked more or less the same, would you be able to tell which is better?

Probably not. But if you put one in a light blue box - specifically Tiffany blue - and one in simple white box, the one in the blue box would be considered more valuable. Context matters. The prettier the packaging, the more valuable the contents.

Who's to say? They're to say. Unlike a tangible piece of jewelry that has a defined market value based on objective criteria, photos are (usually) personal and subjective and up to the person paying for it. You/me, as the photographer, may be able to point out individual technical difficiencies from one photo to the next, but they just know if they like it or not and in the end that's what really matters.