Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc)
Pratt Institute
University of Southern California (USC)
Tulane University
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Temple University
University of Oregon
Cranbrook Academy of Art
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
Kansas State University
general portfolio question
Prior to undergraduate (architectural) studies, and throughout my undergraduate studies, I have been an active craftsmen. While photographic documentation of my ("in-the-field") work was NOT a huge priority, most of my work was captured with average (or slightly above-average) quality snapshots.
I'd like to include this work in my undergraduate portfolio. Should I not? Obviously, if the photos are low quality, I can't.
Of those that are decent enough quality, any advice as to how much space to dedicate to this work, placement in the portfolio, and/or composition on the page?
Any suggestions or examples?
(Lesson: ALWAYS document almost everything, in high quality)
I am of the camp that it is what you are showing, not how you show it, that is the most important part of a portfolio. I have some low quality construction photos of some of my projects that I show because they are interesting.
If the work is interesting, I would go ahead and show a lot of it. I wouldnt have 10 pictures of the same table or anything, but I would vary it up. Employers / school admins like to see what kind of background you have (even if it isnt 100% architectural). Sometimes your craftiness may be an asset to an employer and he or she will hire you based on that
I agree with your position on this. It's important (or at the very least, relevant) to the world of academia to understand WHO the person is (through their work and study) when viewing a portfolio. However, I'm trying to imagine low to medium quality photos in a portfolio and I'm not seeing it. Even with good images I can't imagine their placement on a page in a portfolio...
Any examples of this?
(Thank you for the response- your feedback is much appreciated!)
If in doubt, enlarge it twice the size and convert to grayscale.
Like mdler said... it's what it shows. Fortunately, color is not really that important in that regards.
Crappy pictures always look better in grayscale.
Convert a photo to grayscale? Hmmm... I'll give it a try. Thanks!
in this day and age where everyone uses their camera phone to document everything, low res/low quality has become acceptable, as long as it captures the subject matter appropriately. Not everyone has a $5000 Nikon at their disposal all the time...dont worry about it
While I agree with mdler that the subject matter is most important, I actually disagree with him on his (her?) second statement.
With high-quality digital cameras and the adobe suite being so widespread, I actually see no real reason for having garbage looking photos in a portfolio. It can reflect poorly on your craft and attention to deal, often looking rushed or unconsidered.
In short, if you've got a few "in-progress" shots that are a bit messy (but nonetheless show something worthwhile), that's ok. But images of finished projects, models, etc. should be captured well. Maybe I'm oldschool, but I feel like these things matter.
lol @ attention to deal
___
Photoshop - in the right hands - can do wonders!
Look for someone who can touch up your low quality pictures to medium quality pictures, and your medium quality pictures to good quality pictures.
You can owe them an arm, a leg and some organs if you dont have money to pay them.
what? attention to deal is very important in our line of work ;)
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.