Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
I posted my portfolio a while back and the only feedback I got was I should change my font. Well since then, I've done quite a bit more than change my font and I'd like some feedback on the new overhaul. I'll be submitting it Friday for a portfolio competition but, in general, it's intended to be used in my search for an internship. The last project is in total disarray while I figure out what to do with it so disregard it unless you REALLY want to try and make sense of the non-sense.
Thanks in advance for your input!http://issuu.com/gregmorse/docs/spring2013portfolio4
I'm picky, but I don't see much to talk about. Your presentation is unclear. All I see are weak concepts, me-too diagrams, and technically competent renderings.
You have some really interesting images! However, the presentation is unclear (snail) and defeating (tiorted). Spruce up your plans, and take them into photoshop. Don't add colour like you're using MS Paint, but instead focus on shading, poche, layering, opacity. Make the floor plans and such read as "drawings" instead of leaving them to "float" like they do now.
Some of the images are pretty nice; I think the models with photoshoping are more compelling than the pure renderings though. I'll let others speak to the content beyond that...
I think you would be wise to figure out how to be more uniform in the way you present the different projects. Text is flying all over the place, there appears to be no concrete grid, and even the tile pages for each project have mostly different formats.
Your "How was it made" section in the end is pretty unneccessary. That can be used as a talking point in your interviews.
It looks good. I would keep the plans in plan in white and do some space programs diagrams in photoshop. To add diversity to get hired at a Arch firm or a Construction firm add some detailing work. Show that you really know how to put a water/air tight building together.
Your drawings look pretty generic, I agree with tiorted about "sprucing" them up. Just don't get too carried away with colour. I had a teacher who always said "once you add colour to a drawing it becomes worthless". He studied under the Texas Rangers and is a bit of a jerk, but in a funny way. Needless to say, he was one of the best professors I have ever had.
I liked it, I think there was a lot more "text" than what needs to be (context, concept, wheelchair accessibility, how it was made). Now, that's not to say that all text is bad thing, just keep the text simple, one-liners for example.
I think an on going design theme should be addressed throughout. You address something similar with the "ARC" logo on page 13, but you don't see anything else on that nature. There is nothing that says these pages belong to your portfolio other than the binding.
If I were you, I'd ditch page numbers and Table of Contents. Your portfolio is going to change (a lot) and the last thing you want to do is burden yourself with something that people aren't going to care/pay attention to. Page numbers are for research and reference
Woa I didn't expect this post to get brought back up after a month and a half of sitting around. Thanks for the feedback!
I'm currently working on replacing text with diagrams, making my images a little flashier, and increasing graphic consistency between projects.
On a side note, I include the "How It's Made" index in the back whenever I email my portfolio so who ever reads it can gauge my proficiencies in each program. I left it out of my physical copy though because, as med. mentioned, I can just address that in person. I think I might reorder it though so that the headings are the programs/techniques and the projects will be listed under the programs so that, at a glance, you can see I've done x number of projects in Revit, y number of projects in Photoshop, etc.
I've only had one interview so far but I got the job (YEAH!). Like pretty much everyone else here though, I'm still improving my portfolio and looking for more work.