Fashion Portfolio/Book, Why are they 11 x 14 inches?

[rosalind_chad]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am in the process of producing my first fashion portfolio, I understand the industry standard presentation is an 11 x 14 inch book, ideally leather bound, with archive quality ultra clear pockets and the photographers name embossed on the front.<><br>

However what I don't under stand is the format, 11 x 14 inches, the un-cropped image produced by my camera (EOS 30D) works out at 11.68 x 7.773 inches ( 3504 x 2332 pixels ) almost 12 x 8 inches exactly. As I always try to crop in camera, if I was to resize my images to 11 x 14 inches I would have crop into the image loosing resolution, or alternatively I could add more onto the image but this would only be practical with a plain background and both would almost cetainly destroy my intentional crop.<br>

Am I missing the point here?<br>

this has really confounded me, so I would be extremely grateful for your feedback.....</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>11x14 is very close to a full-frame 35mm film negative, which is where the standard came from. You have a lot of choices in regard to digital printing. 300 dots per inch is a common inkjet resolution, which is what you're basing your math on, but for practical purposes 200 dots per inch is very viewable--certainly better than the old-fashioned Tri-X prints, with the added advantage of color. If you wanted to resize the image, you'd get very good perceived quality and no perceptible grain at 720 or 1440 dpi, both common resolutions on an Epson.<br>

The industry standard presentation is changing due to the digital revolution. It's now common to leave your portfolio in the form of a DVD, or simply a business card that references your website.</p>

[allen_r1]

<p>"The industry standard presentation is changing due to the digital revolution. It's now common to leave your portfolio in the form of a DVD, or simply a business card that references your website".<br>

I'd be interested in knowing the basis of this statement. As far as I know, in the fashion industry, both models and photographers are expected to have books of the type described by the OP.</p>

[rosalind_chad]

<p>Thanks for explaining why 11 x 14 inches is the industry standard for a Photographers book, it would appear to make sense in that it reflects 35mm film negative (14 x11 inches = 35.6 x 27.5cm). However surely it would still be necessary to re-crop my images to reflect the 11 x 14 book format, as the proportions are different. The main issue is that I would not want to re-crop my images as my best work is always cropped in camera, if I was to resize my images to 11 x 14 inches it would appear that I would have crop into the image, (often not possible with tight crops) or alternatively add more onto the image, but this would only be practical with a plain background and both would almost certainly destroy my intentional in camera crop and undermine my portfolio. In regard to your comments regarding DPI I assume your stating that if I did crop into my image I would not necessarily loose to much quality, which is good to know, but my main question remains, won’t I have to re-crop my images to achieve the 11 x 14 format as the proportions are different to the camera capture? (EOS 30D APS-C 22X15MM) and does this not mean that potentially I will have to photograph everything in a different way, bearing in mind that I may want to re-crop the photographs to 11 x14 inches for my portfolio which seems ludicrous....<br>

Definitely confuzzled…..</p>

 

[matthew_newton]

<p>Unfortunately Rosalind, you are correct on the cropping. 11x14 also was not choosen because it is in the same or a similar ratio to a 35mm negative, a 35mm negative is 36x24mm...not the same ratio as 11x14. I find the same issue with cropping as I use 35mm film, though admitedly I have the advantage that I don't produce output for anyone but myself, friends and family members, so I can give them whatever print format I wish. I generally do 4x6, 6x9 and 8x12 so that I don't have to crop at all, since when it comes down to it 99% of the time when I take a picture I have it exactly the way I want it in the viewfinder when I snap the shutter.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Allen,<br>

You have a portfolio because you do go for formal interviews and it's usually the simplest way to show a designer that you know your stuff. You have, and leave, a DVD, usually with the work watermarked and the copyright noted, because designers see a lot of portfolios, you want work, and you want the designer to be able to reference your exemplars in the future and possibly pass them on. You have a website for essentially the same reason.<br>

Rosalind,<br>

The images don't have to be 11x14 bleed prints, they have to be mounted on or printed on 11x14 stock to fit the binder, and they should be large enough to persuade the viewer that you know your technical onions. You prefer consistent formatting and layout because your portfolio will be viewed by people sensitive to such things and it tells them they can work with you. The easiest way to lay out a portfolio is usually a series of full pages, which is why most photographers use it. It's not a requirement. Whatever format and layout you choose should of course be sensitive to the content, which is to say your work. It's common sense. Yes, really. ;-)</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>11x14 is very close to a full-frame 35mm film negative</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is wrong. 11x14 is much closer in aspect ratio to 6x7 than 35mm. 35mm full frame would be 11x16.5. 6x7 would be 11x12.8. So it clearly can't be the reason. BTW, 4x5 is even closer in aspect ratio to 11x14 than 6x7. It's probably true that except for 6x9 and panoramic formats, 35mm full frame is the furthest from 11x14.</p>

<p>I've seen a lot of books with 11x14 pages with 8x10 images and with multiple smaller images. One thing that may drive the size is tearsheets, since almost any magazine page will fit on 11x14 pages.</p>

[ian_warren]

<p>I work for an agency in London and can categorically say any model or photographer who turned up to a casting or client meeting without a physical book to show the client wouldn't be looked upon favourably put it that way.<br>

In terms of physical book dimensions people here aren't too fussed, but the general rule is the bigger the better!<br>

Don't forget as well if you have landscape images don't put them in rotated at 90 degrees, print them off on a portrait sheet with large borders at the top and bottom... it's much better if clients don't have to be turning your hefty book as they browse through the images.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Jeff,<br>

The 11x14 portfolio has been around a long time--longer, actually, than the 6x7 format you reference--and it became standardized in the post-war years when a lot of people started shooting 35mm, so the historical basis is correct. I'm sorry you don't find 11x14 a particularly good fit for 35mm, but let me assure you it's still better than 8x10, 16x20, or 20x24--all of which we used to print 35mm negatives on, even though it was wrong, wrong, wrong . . . :-)<br>

Ian,<br>

I'm very impressed with the Done Thing and being looked upon favourably, but if you really want to vet quality, there's simply no substitute for zooming in on a file with a large monitor; and a wall-mounted monitor is much more sharable at a meeting of more than two people, there's no issue of image rotation, and it's not too hefty for the clients, either.</p>

[tim_foster4]

<p>The standard image crops (4X5, 8X10, 11X14, 16X20, 20X24, etc) do not come from any derivative of 35mm. These are all holdovers from large format photography. However, you'll find 11X14 is closer to the magazine form factor than 8X12, which is part of the reason it's still standard in fashion. (Additionally, most fashion photographers shoot medium format, where aspect ratios are closer to 11X14). Consider what you're shooting for and pay attention when you crop in camera. Mask the focusing screen if you need to.</p>

[rosalind_chad]

<p>Thanks for your input Tim, I can see on investigation that 11 x 14 is certainly closer to the standard magazine form factor, so on this level it would make sense for your portfolio to reflect this layout, as a DSLR user as opposed to a digital medium format user the aspect ratio for my shots is closer to 12 x 8 so I guess cropping in Camera will continue to be an issue unless I take into account the differant aspect ratio and shoot accordingly.<br>

Do you happen to know a good way to mask the focusing screen?</p>

[bruce_smith8]

<p>11x14 pages take both good sized prints for viewing at c 2ft and almost any size of tear sheet from most publications. It is very close to the average publication page cirtainly of fashion magazines.<br>

The format of most if not all 35 DSLRs ratio is an ideal creative format matching the laws of natures design proportions of 1 to 1.3. and fills very close to the size of a double page spread on 11x14 ie 22x14 with little cropping.<br>

Bruce</p><div></div>

[yenny_louisa]

<p>HELP! same concern here....=(<br>

when my picture appears in Adobe RAW,it's standard 12.96x8.64 which I can make it even to 12x8 inch in PSD easily.<br>

So all this time I have post processed my images to 12x8. Now how can I stretch it to make them 11x14 in PSD? wouldn't it involved cropping and pixel manipulation in image sizing? How to minimize the risk of damaging pixel quality?<br>

And for the future images, should I adjust in RAW (in workflow option) to have them opened as 11x16 and then cropped in PSD to 11x14?<br>

please help...</p>

[ren_ket]

<p>mine is 11x17. I've seen many good fashion photographers with this size book. Actually, I'd say most professional fashion photographers I've seen go with this size. 2 images per page if vertical, 1 if horizontal. Leave white space if your ratio is off. <br>

Fashion photogs have hundreds of images in their books, so this is a more manageable way to present it. 11x14 sometimes does not provide enough pages. </p>

[ren_ket]

<p>mine is 11x17. I've seen many good fashion photographers with this size book. Actually, I'd say most professional fashion photographers I've seen go with this size. 2 images per page if vertical, 1 if horizontal. Leave white space if your ratio is off. <br>

Fashion photogs have hundreds of images in their books, so this is a more manageable way to present it. 11x14 sometimes does not provide enough pages. </p>

[denniswms]

<p>I love a good laugh in the morning... but moving along... </p>

<p>I've used 11 X 14 books for decades. They are large enough to show image quality which is imperceptible at contact sheet -or internet- sizes. I never just leave or send discs which bookers can be hesitant to open in their computers and often go straight to the trash. Chances are in this day and age if you have an in person meet and greet your work has been reviewed beforehand. In my experience anyways.</p>

<p>As for your format conflict, float your images on the 11 x 14 pages. No they will not fit as snugly full frame as in 67, but it is what you are working with and educated viewers understand formats and aspect ratios. Horizontal images should be printed on vertical pages so the client can leaf through the portfolio without rotating the book. I also print on oversized paper and cut to make double page spreads. The detail from medium format at 20 x 24 (cut to two 11 x 14s) takes some of the wind out of high definition digital sails.</p>

<p>There are of course 13 X 19 books from the same manufacturers if you want to go bigger. They hold the same number of images with 20 pockets accommodating up to 40 images. More than enough for a meet and greet. Way more. If someone wants to dig through your archives online so be it, but in person, show stellar images chosen to suit the client. Clients see portfolios all the time, are on a schedule, and dropping portfolios the equivalent of War and Peace on the desk sends up red flags. </p><div></div>