Your photography website works against you the second a client needs more than 30 seconds to figure out what you shoot. That's the standard many working professionals now assume, and most portfolios fail it.
After rebuilding his own site top to bottom for the first time in years, Samuel Elkins walks through the thinking behind each decision, drawn from over a decade of working as a full-time freelance photographer. His main argument is that a portfolio is a pitch, not a filing cabinet. Elkins found his old site buried the work under too many folders and clickable galleries, so he stripped it down to about 15 projects spread across food, hospitality, travel, and personal portraits. The point he keeps returning to is digestibility, treating the first five to ten images a visitor sees as a trailer for everything you do.
"Less is always more" is the rule Elkins credits as some of the best advice he ever received. Every time he adds a new image or project, he takes one down. That forces a level of selectivity most photographers avoid, and it keeps the whole site pointed at the kind of work you actually want to book. He also makes a claim that stings a little: his favorite projects are almost never the ones that paid the most. Clients can't tell the difference between a huge ad campaign and a personal series shot for free, so the deciding factor becomes creative vision and personal weight. His strongest piece on the redesigned site is the Washington project that became his zine, "Homeward."
There's a broader shift hiding inside one of his categories. Elkins splits his site into six clean buckets, and one of them is motion. He frames video as a requirement now rather than a bonus, and that tracks with where commercial work has gone over the past few years. Clients who once hired a stills shooter and a video crew separately increasingly expect one person to hand back both. If you shoot with a hybrid body like the Sony a7 V, the gear side of that overlap is already solved, so the gap is usually the portfolio. Building a directing section, even from personal projects, signals you can be trusted on set for motion before anyone asks. Elkins spent six months revamping his own directing reel, including a documentary still in the edit, which is the kind of runway this takes.
Organization is where he gets most technical. Your homepage, the page that loads when someone types your domain, might be the single most important thing to get right, and he stresses optimizing it for both desktop and mobile since most people will see it on a phone. He also groups work by what a client would hire him for, mapping categories to genres rather than to individual shoots. His long-running relationship with AllTrails is the example: four years, multiple locations across Washington and California, all pulled under one umbrella so a single click shows the best of that body of work without spawning a separate gallery for every session. Watch the full breakdown above to see how he structured each project page and which images he cut.
Join the Fstoppers community for free
-
Post comments and join in the discussions
-
Browse the site ad-free
-
Share your work and get featured in the community
-
Compete in the photo contests for fun and prizes
5 Comments
Sam's work is so inspiring
"Less is more"... sometimes. Not always. Sometimes "more is more." Depends on what you're selling. Virtually every website design article/video I've seen on Fstoppers since I can remember has approached this subject the exact same way... ruthlessly cut images from your portfolio. For commercial, portrait, wedding, maybe workshop photographers too, yes, you don't want your mediocre images to sabotage the impression visitors have of your work.
What about the photographer who sells landscape prints? In my case, I need a lot more than a dozen images to sell. In fact, some of my least favorite images, images I would have cut if paring down to my best, have surprisingly found a home somewhere.
I hate the old adage "you never know" because it leads to indecisive image capture and post-processing. No, I don't need five different angles of the same subject. But distinguishing between a good picture and a bad picture may not be so straightforward.
I don't want distractions or clutter on my website any more than any other kind of photographer. I want customers to see the most relevant images for them, which seemingly would make their job easier. I have about 700 images on my website. So I've asked a number of my interior design clients about the volume of images on my website, and, without exception, they've all said browsing is enjoyable and more is better.
You have a different product than the photographer that is typically mentioned here in relation to websites. You are selling a product, your photos, while others are selling a service. For you, less is more may mean that you can have curated categories, mountains, prairies, etc with links leading similar photos. In those subpages, you won't want too many images per page since landscapes don't view well on credit card sized images.
Thank you. The way I "curate" my images is as you suggested: I limit my subject matter to the kinds of images someone in my area of Colorado and Utah would place on their wall. I could double my image count if I put pictures of car shows and street pictures, or other states on the site, but there's no market for that here.
I'm not sure what you mean by credit card size images. My website statistics tell me that 80% of my visitors are viewing the site on a desktop computer, the remainder on a mobile device. That makes sense to me because my customers work in an office. The mobile views are probably from lying in bed at night answering email. Image selections by designers are undoubtedly made on a desktop. High quality, large image size is therefore a priority. Website design has fortunately come a long way since dial-up connections limited image size to about 10k.
I have my website URL listed in my Fstoppers profile if you're interested, and always appreciate feedback.
Visited your site and it is what I was thinking about when I wrote the comment. When I mentioned "credit card size," I meant smaller "thumbnails," but had a senior moment. :)
If I were a customer at your site, viewing it would be straightforward and easy to use. It's well organized, the fonts are large enough to be legible w/o a magnifying glass. The sample images for the various subcategories are large enough to show what the subject is. The site loads quickly and doesn't have a lot HTML5 or Javascript website wizardry that slows things down.
One thing that I noticed is that it's not clear how I would order, except to call or email you. Though given the number of options for each photo, size, mat, frame, etc, building an order processing backend would involve a lot of work, even with a template.