I'm setting up a website at the moment to display my work. The majority of my work is done on photoshop/illustrator. I saved the files as TIFF/JPEG. Thing is these are A1-A3 sized pages and whenever i reduce them in size to fit to my website it becomes (albeit slightly) pixellated so it doesnt look like the level of quality it once was.
in photoshop go to file and select "save for web" then redurce the quality to match the file size you want. hopefully this should do it. also, if they are A1-A3 size, reduce the image size (no dpi) a little to help. as nobody has an A1 size monitor... not many anyway. lucky bastards. how cool would a A1 monitor be!
Reduce them to A4 sized PDF's - no ones gonna be happy downloading an mmf [multi megabyte file] file. You can tweak it so it opens at different views and resolutions.
Go take some web design classes or buy a few good books. I find it pretty hypocritical (not necessarily anyone on this thread, just in general) that people here will ridicule a doctor that buys books and takes time to learn about architecture, then goes and designs/builds something, but everyone here thinks they can design a website without so much as one chapter on graphic/web design under them!!
It's really no wonder 95% of the architect's sites out there stink. I guess it directly reflects the quality of architecture out there too.
writing action scripts can actually be pretty easy on Flash. Flashkit.com is a good site that has good tutorials on different things. I learned how to use flash with that site.
I think a piece of advice might be to make sure your work speaks for itself. Indeed, put a very good website together, but don't let that take precedence over your work. Sometimes, firms hire people to make an unbelievable site, and then your get to their actual work and it isn't anything all that great.
Usually it's some of the better designers that hire good designers to do their sites. But you are right, it sucks when a site looks great but the content stinks (or vice versus, for that matter).
Usually it's some of the better designers that hire good designers to do their sites. But you are right, it sucks when a site looks great but the content stinks (or vice versus, for that matter).
which is way too often.
flash is obnoxious. so, i'd suggest a nice layout of thumbs. each thumb linked to that project's page containing more detail and a larger pic (or a few project thumbs linked to larger jpgs).
you could provide links to flash, but few people will click them, because flash is suitable for true animation (toons), not boring slideshows.
To each his own, but when I go to the KD site I am bored instantaneously and can't tell one image from another. It's more to do with the design than the content, but I've yet to bother clicking more than once. The KD site looks, to me, like someone was lazy making it (although I know that's not the case).
It all comes down to design, not if it's Flash or HTML. Flash is as fast as HTML and more reliable (no broken links, random loading of pieces, etc.). A good site is a good site, just as good architecture is good architecture, regardless if it is a modern design or crazy contemporary.
Flash is as appropriate for portfolios, more so I'd argue (it's flexible and reliable, and you can control how things load), as HTML.
I am surprised at the state of Zaha Hadid's website, it is just bad, i don't know why architects choose to make things more complicated than they need to be. if you make me download a PDF just to view your work in a higher res i would slap you, keep it on the web i don't want vomit all over my desktop.
the richard rogers site is really nice (they've added some flash components, it used to be all css, I think) it was done by professionals and you can tell. they get away with some really large project images as well...
Jul 7, 06 9:55 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
work on website
I'm setting up a website at the moment to display my work. The majority of my work is done on photoshop/illustrator. I saved the files as TIFF/JPEG. Thing is these are A1-A3 sized pages and whenever i reduce them in size to fit to my website it becomes (albeit slightly) pixellated so it doesnt look like the level of quality it once was.
can anyone help me out here?
thankyou.
in photoshop go to file and select "save for web" then redurce the quality to match the file size you want. hopefully this should do it. also, if they are A1-A3 size, reduce the image size (no dpi) a little to help. as nobody has an A1 size monitor... not many anyway. lucky bastards. how cool would a A1 monitor be!
Reduce them to A4 sized PDF's - no ones gonna be happy downloading an mmf [multi megabyte file] file. You can tweak it so it opens at different views and resolutions.
Go take some web design classes or buy a few good books. I find it pretty hypocritical (not necessarily anyone on this thread, just in general) that people here will ridicule a doctor that buys books and takes time to learn about architecture, then goes and designs/builds something, but everyone here thinks they can design a website without so much as one chapter on graphic/web design under them!!
It's really no wonder 95% of the architect's sites out there stink. I guess it directly reflects the quality of architecture out there too.
writing action scripts can actually be pretty easy on Flash. Flashkit.com is a good site that has good tutorials on different things. I learned how to use flash with that site.
I think a piece of advice might be to make sure your work speaks for itself. Indeed, put a very good website together, but don't let that take precedence over your work. Sometimes, firms hire people to make an unbelievable site, and then your get to their actual work and it isn't anything all that great.
Usually it's some of the better designers that hire good designers to do their sites. But you are right, it sucks when a site looks great but the content stinks (or vice versus, for that matter).
which is way too often.
flash is obnoxious. so, i'd suggest a nice layout of thumbs. each thumb linked to that project's page containing more detail and a larger pic (or a few project thumbs linked to larger jpgs).
you could provide links to flash, but few people will click them, because flash is suitable for true animation (toons), not boring slideshows.
To each his own, but when I go to the KD site I am bored instantaneously and can't tell one image from another. It's more to do with the design than the content, but I've yet to bother clicking more than once. The KD site looks, to me, like someone was lazy making it (although I know that's not the case).
It all comes down to design, not if it's Flash or HTML. Flash is as fast as HTML and more reliable (no broken links, random loading of pieces, etc.). A good site is a good site, just as good architecture is good architecture, regardless if it is a modern design or crazy contemporary.
Flash is as appropriate for portfolios, more so I'd argue (it's flexible and reliable, and you can control how things load), as HTML.
I am surprised at the state of Zaha Hadid's website, it is just bad, i don't know why architects choose to make things more complicated than they need to be. if you make me download a PDF just to view your work in a higher res i would slap you, keep it on the web i don't want vomit all over my desktop.
that site is one of the worst. It's amazing that she lets something like that represent her.
the richard rogers site is really nice (they've added some flash components, it used to be all css, I think) it was done by professionals and you can tell. they get away with some really large project images as well...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.