help needed by young photographer (critique)

[rob_malkin]

Hello there,

Now I am not sure where I am ment to put these posts but as I am a

Nikon user I could see no better place. I have compiled a portfolio

on here which is the same one as I will be taking to a university

interview.

I would be very grateful if some of you could have a quick look at my

pictures (only 16) and tell me what you think. I have the interview

in two months and may just have time to make changes.

The pictures are lo-res mainly due to my 56k modem. I am not to

worried about colours and sharpness as I know that they are sharp.

So please have a look and say what you think.

 

Be gentle but fair.

 

Rob

ps. Dont get mad with me if this is the wrong place to post this

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=280635

[Brian1664876441]

Well I like them; and you have a lot of talent.

 

I would be interested in the Technical Data being posted as well.

 

1/16: Photoshopped or "all analog"? Very nice effect.

 

2/16: Very sharp, good capture, background structure over head slightly distracting; Do you have a 105 at your disposal?

 

6/16: I love playing with optics. Nice.

 

10/16: Pretty, well exposed, nice color. Which Lens? Very nice for a vacation photo; will a Univarsity appreciate it?

 

Buildings: Nice composition.

 

5/16: Good reflexes; good action. Josh Root should appreciate this capability.

 

12/16: Very Nice. All natural? Impressive! Most magazines these days would photoshop it.

 

15/16: Very nice; has a look similar to like filtered Infrared Ektachrome, article in Pop Photo in the '70s entitled "Unearthly Infrared" about IER and "non-standard" filters.

[Brian1664876441]

Typo: University appreciate it.

[rod g.]

Rob,

 

I like them, your focus on texture and composition is evident and interesting.

 

My question is, why stop now even if you feel this is what you want to show? Perhaps, maybe even right at this moment, you're missing the opportunity to take the one shot that would knock everybody's socks off? It wouldn't hurt to carry your camera everywhere, just because you never know.

 

One thing I've learned from lugging around a portfolio is to put your best work first and an excellent piece last with the weakest stuff toward the end. Usually viewer fatigue sets in part way through and you'll be remembered mostly for the first thing they saw and/or perhaps an ugly ending.

 

Good luck, I hope it works out!

[efusco]

Other than the boring green leaf photo with blown out highlights that's one hell of an impressive folder for anyone so much as for a 16 year old. A great eye for light and composition IMO. Best of luck to you.

[barmijo]

I find 6, 9 and 12 to be interesting. Of the bunch, 12 has the most punch with strong colors, contrast and composition. The others strike no emotional or visual response with me. Which isn't to say my opinion matters, of course, but simply that they left me flat. Then again, I can't figure out the appeal of half the photos I see in magazines either - and they're published.

[rob_malkin]

thank you!

made me blush a bit.

as for the photos

 

1/16 (digital, no PS) - all natural. photo of my lady. the red effect was made by putting my finger over the flash on my Canon Digital Ixus 400. She was sleeping, and it was dark when i took it. I like the red effect this causes.(But do watch out for hot flash tubes)

 

2/16 - Its me! It was captured with a remote cord. May try to remove the distractions with PS.

 

3/16(film, no PS) - 14mm Sigma with Kodak TCN400. This lens is so wide it made me feel dizzy.

 

4/16(film, desaturation PS) - abandoned building

 

5/16(film, no PS)- Yeah my past time. Its acually my first ever sold piece of work. I sold it to my friend for £5.It all begins somewhere.

 

6/16(film, levels PS) - Again me and my lady, 28mm with cheep fish-eye adapter.

 

7/16(film) - as 3

 

8/16(film, no PS) - abandoned building

 

9/16(film, no PS) - 17mm lens, I waited about an hour for noby to be in the walkway

 

10/16(film, no PS) - just like it really, I think it was a 50mm

 

11/16(film, some PS) - Venice, adjusted levels to give it an aged look.

 

12/16(film, no ps) - The Tate Modern London, I may try to remove the other people apert for the couple.

 

13/16(film, burn in PS) - abandoned building

 

14/16(film, no ps) - my first flower shot. it is rather bad,

 

15/16(digital) - I set the white balance to tungsten and shot away. I love the cool blue look of this photo.

 

16/16(film, lots of PS) - This started of as a pretty boring picture, but a few days later it was this. I like the photocopy look.

 

Right,

I do have a lot more pictures I am having put on cd for me. I do carry a camera with me, all the time. And I am still waiting to take a good picture. I just carry a Nikon F80/N80 and a 50mm f1.8.

 

Thank you all so far. I just have to work on my actual portfolio presentation.

 

Rob

[el_fang]

The portfolio overall is fine. I'm actually going to critique some of the advice given to you based on my experience as an editor.

 

<p><i>"I would be interested in the Technical Data being posted as well."</i><p>

Maybe OK for Photo.net, but for the love of God, leave irrelevant fluff like that out of your portfolio/application/cover letter.

 

<p><i>"One thing I've learned from lugging around a portfolio is to put your best work first and an excellent piece last with the weakest stuff toward the end. Usually viewer fatigue sets in part way through and you'll be remembered mostly for the first thing they saw and/or perhaps an ugly ending. "</i><p>

 

This applies to people who are showing their portfolios prematurely. You shouldn't even HAVE "weaker" pictures in your portfolio, and the only grouping you should need to do is a categorization of different pictures, e.g. for photojournalism, you would group spot news, feature, sports, and picture essay. Be absolutely ruthless in your editing. "Weak" shouldn't even be an issue, because if it is, you're not ready to show your portfolio yet.

 

<p><i>"I just carry a Nikon F80/N80 and a 50mm f1.8."</i><p>

 

Don't worry about the equipment. Some of the most mind-blowing portfolios I have seen over the years were shot with the simplest equipment. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of stuff shot by people who own enough equipment to finance a house, yet couldn't shoot their way out of a paper bag if their life depended on it.

 

<p><i>"Thank you all so far. I just have to work on my actual portfolio presentation."</i><p>

 

Remember to keep it simple and professional. You want your work to speak for itself, and fluff or overindulgent salesmanship will just get in the way.

[el_fang]

Oh, and a couple more of your own comments:

 

<p><i>"my first flower shot. it is rather bad"</i><br>

<i>"This started of as a pretty boring picture"</i>

 

<p>Whatever you think of any given picture, don't ever make excuses or apologize for it in front of the editor. This is the equivalent of hara-kiri during a portfolio review. In fact, this shouldn't even be an issue because if you don't like a picture, what is it doing in your portfolio? And as tempted as you might be to offer a running commentary, DON'T. Editors want to look and comprehend in peace and quiet. If they want more information, they will ask for it.

[Brian1664876441]

Thankyou for the Photoshop vs Analog explanations; FOR ME it indicates that you know how to make an impressive photograph with the camera as well as use tools at your disposal.

 

Good luck at University.

[rod g.]

<<<<<(Me:) "One thing I've learned from lugging around a portfolio is to put your best work first and an excellent piece last with the weakest stuff toward the end. Usually viewer fatigue sets in part way through and you'll be remembered mostly for the first thing they saw and/or perhaps an ugly ending. "

 

(Al:) This applies to people who are showing their portfolios prematurely. You shouldn't even HAVE "weaker" pictures in your portfolio,...>>>>>

 

Actually Al my advice is based on over 10 years of hauling around (or having a rep haul around) an illustration portfolio and going through interview after interview with what amounts to the entire spectrum of human personality defects. There are always one or two pieces that people gravitiate toward. Those should make your first impression especially because art directors (and teachers) get visually fatigued after looking though a bunch of anonymous portfolios and are most likely to remember best the first thing you show them. What you mean by "weak" and what I mean't are not tne same thing. It's all about selling...

[el_fang]

<i>"There are always one or two pieces that people gravitiate toward."</i>

 

<p>If your portfolio is so weak that there are only one or two pieces that people gravitate toward, then the simple fact of the matter is, you need to ask yourself why people aren't "gravitated" to your other work. This should be especially obvious to you if people "gravitate" to the EXACT SAME one or two pieces with any level of consistency.

 

<p>The point is, you're missing my point. As an editor I have seen portfolios like the one you describe, and I've never offered a job to anyone holding a portfolio of that description. Why? Because I have other "anonymous" portfolios in the pile in which EVERY SINGLE picture is so strong and compelling that I didn't even realize there were no tearsheets, nor did I even notice until much later that they were submitted in $5 Itoya folders. I never got bored looking through such portfolios. So why should I waste my time with ones in which I only found 1-2 pieces that held my attention longer than a nanosecond?

 

<p>Now, I haven't seen your work, but it seems to me like you're making excuses for having sub-par images in your portfolio and justifying it with "10 years of experience." That kind of attitude will never fly in the real world. Maybe you live in a very small community, or operate in such a small niche that you can get away with it, and that's OK... but it's extremely poor and inconsiderate advice to give to anyone, let alone a beginner just starting out.