Portfolios for architects, photographers and designers
Architects, photographers and designers are the most demanding audience a website can have, because they evaluate the page itself before they get to the work. A misaligned grid or a lazy type scale is not a detail to them — it is the first thing they see.
The other half of the problem is weight. This is the one vertical where the content is almost entirely images, at the highest quality the client can supply, and where a slow gallery undoes the impression the design just made.
I built a print-structured portfolio for an architecture practice — work shown as a numbered index with drawings that follow the cursor, one navigation staying legible across light and dark halves via mix-blend-mode — and an animation-led WordPress photography portfolio with interactive galleries and parallax.
What is different here
Typography is the design
With this little decoration, type scale, line length and spacing carry everything. At large sizes, letter spacing and where lines break are decisions, not defaults.
An index, not a thumbnail grid
Practices list their work as a record — numbered, with programme, size and year. A grid of squares flattens a body of work into wallpaper.
Image weight decides whether the design survives
Serve images at the size they display, lazy-load below the fold, and set explicit dimensions so nothing jumps. A gallery that stutters cancels out the craft above it.
Restraint over effects
The page should stay quiet until the visitor asks it for something. Hover previews and scroll transitions work here precisely because everything else is still.
What a build includes
- A type system with a real scale, set for large sizes rather than scaled up from body text
- Work presented as an index with context: programme, year, role, place
- Hover and scroll interactions written by hand, without a library doing it approximately
- Image pipeline: correct sizes, modern formats, lazy loading, explicit dimensions
- A project content model so new work is added without a developer
- Performance verified on a mid-range phone, not only on a designer's laptop
Mistakes I see most often
Uploading full-resolution images because "quality matters", then serving them at 600 pixels wide
A template portfolio, which this audience identifies in about two seconds
Work shown with no context — no brief, no site, no year, no role
An intro animation between the visitor and the work
Text set at one size throughout, so nothing has hierarchy
No way for the owner to add a project without a developer
Services for this industry
UI&UX Design
Custom design solutions for any project. Creation with 8 years of professional experience. You can get consultation, prototyping, and development-ready design. Find out more about it inside.
WordPress Development
Professional blog development tailored to your brand — fast, responsive, and SEO-optimized for growth.
Next.js Development
Next.js and React for sites that do something rather than just say something — accounts, dashboards, live data and app-like interfaces.
Have a project in this field?
Let's talk about it
Tell me what the site has to do. You get an honest range the same day.
Discuss project
Questions
No. Modern formats at the displayed size look identical and weigh a fraction. What damages quality is a browser downscaling a 4000-pixel file into a 600-pixel slot.
Yes — that is the point of building a content model rather than hand-coding pages. Adding a project should be filling in fields, not commissioning work.
Only where it does something. In this vertical restraint reads as confidence; a hover preview or a snap-scrolling rail earns its place, an intro sequence does not.
From $600 for a focused single-page portfolio. A full site with a project index, case pages and bespoke interaction is typically $1,200-2,800 depending on how much of the motion is custom.