Heavy imagery that still loads
The defining problem of the category. Modern formats, correct sizing, lazy loading below the fold, and never lazy loading the first image. A portfolio nobody waits for is not a portfolio.
Your work is the pitch. Portfolio sites are also the slowest category on the web, and image weight is why.
A portfolio website has two problems: carrying heavy imagery without becoming unusable on a phone, and turning browsing into qualified enquiries. Project pages with real text solve the second and make you findable, because a gallery grid with no words ranks for nothing.
The defining problem of the category. Modern formats, correct sizing, lazy loading below the fold, and never lazy loading the first image. A portfolio nobody waits for is not a portfolio.
A grid of images with no text is invisible to search. Each project needs a page: the brief, the constraint, what you did, for whom, where and when. That text is what makes the work findable.
Creative budgets vary enormously. A day rate, a project minimum or a typical range filters out enquiries that were never in range and saves you the call that ends in ninety seconds.
Project type, date, location, scope and budget. Five fields that make your first conversation useful. A name-and-email form guarantees it is qualification instead.
For individual creatives the person is the offer. A named about page with your background, clients and approach does more than another gallery.
Instagram and Behance are feeds you do not control and that do not rank in search. They complement a portfolio site; they do not replace one.
| Problem | What it costs |
|---|---|
| Uncompressed images | Unusable on the phones clients browse on |
| Gallery grid with no text | Nothing to rank for |
| No rate or budget signal | Enquiries never in range |
| Name and email only | Every first call is qualification |
| No about page | The person, which is the offer, is missing |
| Instagram as the only portfolio | Not owned, not searchable |
| Ask them | What good sounds like | Red flag |
|---|---|---|
| How will we know it worked? | A metric agreed before work starts | Activity reports |
| Will we get the design files? | Yes, in an editable format | We work in our own system |
| What is the response time when it breaks? | A stated number of hours, in writing | We are always available |
| How long until we can edit it ourselves? | From handover, with training included | Send us your changes |
The month-two question separates firms that build assets from firms that build invoices.
Uncompressed images, almost always. Files exported at full resolution and displayed at a fraction of it mean the browser downloads all of it. Modern formats and correct sizing typically halve page weight in an afternoon.
Yes. A grid with no text ranks for nothing. A project page with the brief, constraints, client type and location is findable and convinces far more than the image alone.
A signal at least: a day rate, a project minimum, or a typical range. Creative budgets vary enormously and no signal produces enquiries from clients who were never in range.
No. You do not own it, it does not rank in search, and serious clients look for a site to verify you are real and to see work in context. It is a good feed and a poor portfolio of record.
Project type, date, location, scope and rough budget. Short enough to complete, specific enough that your first conversation is real rather than qualification.
Fewer, better, and current. Ten strong projects with real detail beat forty thumbnails. Anything you would not want to be hired for again should come off the site.
Tell us what exists today and we will tell you what we would change first. There is no obligation and no follow-up sequence.