How many are too many?

[iancoxleigh]

I usually like to look at a person's whole portfolio (here on Photo.net) before

I leave a detailed response to an image I find particularly provocative.

Sometimes when I do this I discover a portfolio of some 900 images and give up.

 

For you, how many images are too many?

Does it matter if they are tightly organized into groups or if they are left in

a random assortment? Would 200 jumbled 'single images' be as hard to look

through as 500 carefully grouped and sorted?

How few are too few?

[AJHingel]

657 are too many.. I have to do something about it.

 

There are no answer to such a question. if I upload 5 photos and 4 are complete failures, 5

are too many. Out of my 657, I would guess that at least 557 could have stayed on my

computer but which 557 ? That is the question I have not yet found an answer to.

[shots worth sharing]

I've been starting to think it's time for a portfolio cleaning myself. As a way of avoiding the agony of actually deleting any of my masterpieces (which, I'm sure you all agree, would be criminal), I figure I'll just move them to a hidden archival folder, which would allow me to easily reinstate them at a later point. The portfolio would then become a sort of rotating exhibition.

[hjoseph7]

If they are neatly stored in folders by category then you only need to browse the categories that interest you. OK so how many images should be stored in a Folder ? I think about 200.

[lake_photography]

When you find there are too many images in a portfolio do you not leave a response to that

image you found that you liked? I am curious as to what number you think should be the

limit. I too am certain that I have too many pictures here and I have fewer then most. I have

wondered at times if I was not receiving comments because I had too many images or if my

work was just not that interesting.

[AJHingel]

You are right Dave, it would be interesting if we all did exactly that. A rotating exhibition of

some tens of photos as a maximum. An alternative would of course be to create a folder

named "Exhibition" where one puts the "best" of the month, but leave the rest as before.

[leicaglow]

Also, I don't know that I would call it a portfolio, even though Pnet does. I don't typically load my best or most current images because I don't need them ripped off. I know a lot of people don't post any. Besides the volume of the portfolio is the fact that many post dozens of similar pictures, like tons of birds or the same model.

[jgalyon]

I currently have around 150 photos posted. At one time I posted around 450. So, I've done some serious house cleaning. PN states that it is their intent that we post our "best photos". Obviously that's a guideline and not a hard, fast rule...that I would assume is mentioned with the intent of encouraging people to be discriminate in what they post, so that the site isn't flooded with every boring, mundane, crappy shot we've ever taken. (oh well!) Perhaps it's just ego...but I generally want to put my best photos forward, and as well, don't want to subject others to my "junk". So, my deletion of 300 photos came after I tried to be a bit more objective about what others would find appealing/interesting...and remove the shots that were often nothing more than sentimental favorites. Somewhere along the line I learned that "if it doesn't have a purpose...get rid of it!" In this case, my purpose is to offer the viewer a meaningful experience when they view one of my photographs...while tempering that effort with presenting work that I feel good about myself.

 

How many is too many? A very subjective question. I've viewed portfolios that contained ten photos and I've begged the photographer to please give me more! I've viewed portfolios that contained ten photos and I've considered begging the photographer to take up needlepoint. I've viewed portolios with well over a thousand photos that were nothing less than mesmerizing...while I found some portfolios of the same size that were filled with dozens of repetitive shots of mindless, boring subject matter...that made me wonder if the photographer was just being self-indulgent, or if they had an obsessive-compulsive disorder that compelled them to post every photograph they had ever taken.

 

How many are too many? I'll put it in these terms: Only place the photographs in your portfolio that have purpose...and you won't have too many.

[bobatkins]

My largest folder here has 60 images in it, all related to the same theme.

 

It would be impossible to give any sort of reasonable critique of a portfolio containing 900 images, epsecially if they were basically 900 random images with nothing tying them togther.

 

I'd say maybe 20 images are probably enough to create a meaningful folder within an overall portfolio and give someone something to critique or comment on.

[JDMvW]

Most of us end up trying to make some didactic or other statement and have too many actually posted at any one time. As any of several Bauhaus figures are supposed to have said: "Less is more."

[Norma Desmond]

Ian--

 

I've kept about 35 to 40 photos viewable in my portfolio. That seems a manageable

amount for other photographers to look through if they want an idea of my work. It also

came about through a process of editing which helped me see which of my photos were

better and which I wanted to put on display that I felt spoke about what I was doing in the

most effective way.

 

I've kept about another 35 or 40 photos in a hidden folder called HOLDS, which anyone

can access from my PN main page. It is not viewable as part of my regular portfolio, but I

tell anyone who's interested in seeing more of my stuff (some oldies, some rejects, but

stuff I got some good comments on and didn't want to delete from the site) to click on

that folder and they will see those randomly viewable in one folder.

 

I'm like you. I like to view the photos of photographers before commenting on one

individual photo, so I can get a sense of who they are and what they are trying to

accomplish. That helps me contextualize my critique and work within the photographer's

framework instead of just my own perspective.

 

I wish a lot more people would do that. We are not all trying to accomplish the same

things with our photography. Certain comments given on particular photos within a

certain type of portfolio seem ridiculous. Spending just a couple of minutes understanding

the overall endeavor of a photographer will go a long way in helping a critiquer to make a

useful and appropriate critique.

 

Like you, when I open a portfolio and see hundreds of photos, it's a turn off. It feels like

the photographer has not bothered to focus, which is often a benefit in photography.

That's not to say there needs to be a particular theme and that there can't be a variety of

types of shots. But it is to expect some pruning and attention to our own displays to make

it easier for others to grasp just what it is we're attempting to do.

[mr. sullen]

It does not matter. Organize it how you want. For Me? That changes all the time.

[AJHingel]

I think what Fred states is very wise. My own situation is that my portfolio is the result of

accumulated series of photo that I at one time or another considered as something

interesting that I would like friends on PN to see and comment on. Many did and I feel that

I would do injustice to all these friends by just deleting or hiding photos that I today

consider redundant or not as interesting as some newer photos. The result is that more

than five hundred photos are viewable! Doing what you suggest would equal put a cross

over all the efforts many have done over time to comment on my works.

 

I think that the suggestion above of creating a specific "Exhibition" folder where some few

tens of photos are chosen would be a better solution leaving the rest still viewable in other

folders.

[tonmestrom]

The answer isn't all that hard, because here really the less is more principle applies. If you exhibit in an art gallery you're limited in the images you can mount and put on the wall. That means making some hard choices. So apply the same principle here for yourself. Of course it's nearly impossible to give a hard number, but just a question: how many portfolio's you can find that consist of 50 excellent and meaningfull images? We should all be more critical on our own work. So in my opnion a limit of about 40-50 images would be perfect.

Excellence is not a matter of quantity but of quality.

[iancoxleigh]

Thank you all for your replies. Some of them have been certainly thought provoking.

 

I never really considered whether there was a folder versus overall portfolio issue. Now that we only see the first 22 images in a given folder (unless you expand the gallery to show all) I admit that it is less totally overwhelming to open a large portfolio.

 

Some individual replies:

 

Shay, you said: "It does not matter. Organize it how you want. For Me? That changes all the time."

 

Well, I feel it does matter. I get turned off when faced with a huge portfolio and can be dissuaded from looking over it thoroughly. I change from examining a photographers work in context to examining a single image. I assume at least a few others would feel the same way.

 

That leads nicely into William's question: "When you find there are too many images in a portfolio do you not leave a response to that image you found that you liked?"

 

Well, I'll still leave a comment. But, it will probably be much shorter and be based much more upon the particular image rather than upon any relationship with the overall portfolio and the style therein.

 

"OK so how many images should be stored in a Folder? I think about 200."

 

I don't think it is quite that simple. There is something about the shear size of the portfolio as a whole that is at play here. Even if I'm only particularly interested in a given subset of that photographer's images, I still want to make my comments with some understanding of their overall work and at some point that becomes very difficult to do with any ease.

 

Even if I was to look at a photographer's page folder by folder I think 200 images per folder is way too many. I wouldn't stop to carefully look over that many images on any given subject. I think somewhere between 40 and 50 is the maximum for me in a given folder.

 

I also agree with John Galyon that a lot depends on the quality of the images. But, there are some absolutes.

 

For example, I find Marina Cano's portfolio is pushing the limits of what I'm willing to wade through -- even though I really like her images (particularly her Cantabrian landscapes). David Clapp's portfolio is almost as large but doesn't quite push the limits as much. So, I guess for me 400 images is an upper limit with 100-300 a reasonable range. But, I wondered if that was a higher threshold than others had.

[jgalyon]

Ian,

 

I hope you don't mind one more comment! There's been an abundance of thoughtful input to your question and I thought you did a good job of breaking it all down.

 

Going back to what Shay said.

 

"It does not matter. Organize it how you want"

 

Shay is a breath of fresh air for this site. I think sometimes there is an overabundance of philosophical yada yada yada...and Shay cuts through it all like a hot knife through butter. Anytime we fall in love with the sound of our own voice and make much to do about relatively nothing...Shay is there to bring us down to earth.

[sandysocks]

As Shay and others have said, it just doesn't matter.

 

I enjoy immersing myself in hundreds of excellent nature images whenever I can find them. When I run into something I don't like, I move on and size doesn't matter. Pnet portfolios for me function as entertainment, and not as portfolios in the literal sense.

 

That said, I have begun sizing my folders at 20 images because that is all that comes up unless someone hits the see rest of photos button. The gist of this is that I produce more folders, not fewer images. If a folio has lots of images, I like them organized. If 20 or fewer, I prefer them random.

[timzeipekis]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[jgalyon]

Zeipekis...i want some of the drugs you're using!

[pnital]

Ian, came late to the discussion, so here I'm and my 2 cents of my point of view....

 

First before anything else my work is a " self portrait" of my photographic life, and my attitude to life in general, expressed in my work, uploaded here, and therefor important for me. I photo a variety of different subjects and I have divided them to folders. Mostly I try to upload photos that say or depict some aspect that belongs to human life. I have feeling to each photo I upload, so they are gathering to a saying. I keep it as well as a "catalogue" of my work, when I need to show what I do.

 

From time to time I return to read what people wrote and examine the photo as I see it in the passage of time and my development. Some of them I will delete.

 

If I look at a member's folder with many photos in it, I will start and see some of the folders or images, if I find it interesting, I will take the time to look deeper.

So I don't mind the number, I mind the quality. To get an impression of a photographic folder one don't need to see all of them, just to choose one or two which feels like leaveng a comment or live one on the body of works.

[pnital]

sorry about the typo, should be leave and not live....

[iancoxleigh]

Interesting, Pnina. It seems you are willing to look at a portfolio one bite at a time and I want to be able to 'consume' the whole thing at once.

 

Maybe this is a reflection of a particularly North American mindset on my behalf.