How Do I Create a (Free) Photo Website?
October 17, 2017 5:16 PM   Subscribe

I need tips on how to organize the site, how to name it, where to host it...the works.

In particular, I need recommendations of free sites - I can't afford to pay *anything*. I have a little HTML but much prefer some kind of template

Other than photos, what else do I include?

And how do I decide what to call it?

And....what else do I need to consider?

If it makes a difference, most of my work is street photography, in multiple countries, as well as architectural and some landscapes. Mix of B & W and color.
posted by Archipelago to Computers & Internet (6 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
What is the purpose of creating a site? Sharing your photos with friends and family? Showing it off to Internet strangers? A portfolio to get a job? Getting hired for freelance work? Selling or licensing photos? Something else? Different goals will lead to different answers (especially to stuff like "what else do I include?" and "what else do I need to consider?").
posted by primethyme at 5:41 PM on October 17, 2017


Response by poster: I'm going for an artist's site.
posted by Archipelago at 6:52 PM on October 17, 2017


Maybe do a free website or free blog on wordpress.com?
posted by wenestvedt at 7:46 PM on October 17, 2017 [1 favorite]


Speaking as both a photographer and consumer of photography: if you just want to show off your photos, no one's gonna care where they are if your stuff is good enough. If as you say you can't afford to pay anything then you're not buying your own domain name, and you're limited to whatever sub-domains that X service allows you.

There are dozens of great photography-based templates on Tumblr.

exposure.co gives you three "stories" for free. I tried it out just because, and for two of mine I posted photos-only and for the third I went with a tutorial of sorts that included words and examples. I'm linking it here for an example but if that's too much self-promotion then I'm fine if the mods just wipe this whole sentence.

I have a personal site that could use some updating and that's because it was developed years ago where the standards for display image height/width were different. If you try to put together your own you'll probably fall prey to the same thing. At this point why not use a site that is more dynamic than any weekend HTML jockey can pull off?

The heyday of Flickr has probably passed but still, it's very free and allows you to organize into albums and whatnot. I met most of my best photography peoples through Flickr back in the day, and am still active there now.

I guess my tl;dr is: doesn't matter where you put them, photos are about looking-at and no one's gonna care what the domain name is if the shots are good. Most of the time they won't care about your words either unless you're a really good writer. And to address one last question of yours, which was "how do I decide what to call it?" - I can't tell you the name of a single photography blog or site. I just know whose photos they are. If you're not buying a domain name for yourself then who cares? If you're comfortable with using your real name online then that's all you need. Recognition won't be bought with a catchy name but with the quality of your photos.
posted by komara at 8:05 PM on October 17, 2017 [3 favorites]


Oooh, Flickr -- good call! They're still around, still free, and they do a nice job.

Make some money, then go to SquareSpace.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:54 PM on October 21, 2017


Adobe's Behance site might also be a good free option. I don't think it allows for much customization, but it's set up specifically for creative projects and galleries, so it might be worth checking out to see if it would be useful to you. Bonus: there are also free Wordpress plugins that can pull in your Behance projects to display on your Wordpress site, should you choose to go that route.
posted by helloimjennsco at 7:17 AM on October 24, 2017


« Older HBO via Amazon   |   Digital Private Geocaching App??? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.