I think one of the hardest things for a photographer to do is organize a portfolio. There are so many ways to go, and so many things to consider. I mean, you can’t just throw a bunch of images together, right?
Should the pictures flow visually in some sort of complimentary fashion? Should they be organized in contrast to each other so as to draw more attention to individual photos and concepts? Will the viewer see a photographer who understands and can coordinate and present his own consistent style while telling a visual story with his otherwise unrelated work? Or, will the viewer see an artist who is bold and rejects the notion of predictability, even in the presentation of his own pictures?
Basically, the question every photographer asks is, “Will they GET it?” And depending on the purpose of the portfolio, “Will I get the job with this?” This is a very valid question for some, especially when sending out a book to a specific buyer, for a specific job consideration. But, online is often where decisions are made these days. And, of course, reputation counts for something.
I change my online portfolio up quite regularly–I get bored. And in general, I don’t worry if the next magazine editor “gets it” or not. I figure I’d rather work with someone with an open mind, and someone who appreciates my vision. Most of the people who hire me for editorial work have learned to expect the unusual. That’s what my portfolio is all about. It’s a little off-center, often dark, quirky, often sexy, usually sensual. And these things are not contrived. They just come.
Private commissions are straight-forward and people usually decide to hire me before they contact me.
Whatever it is, my portfolio is me. Not what I put together to convince someone of something. The people who get it, really get it. That’s what I think works best for me at this point.
My latest grouping was posted today with the introduction of “Portfolio #2” on my site. Putting it together was fun.
