square????

I've seen some effective ones for interiors, but it seems like all the architecture portfolios I see are landscape. It would stand out, and I think that's always a good thing.

as long as its not 8.5x11

I worked for a bunch of squares once....they had a square porfolio.

I have a square portfolio. It may not work for everyone, but it worked for me. 9" x 9".

My last portfolio was square as well. I tend to go 8x8 so that printing is cheaper. In a way it's square, but in another way it's landscape: a spread becomes 2:1, which is a generally pleasing proportion.

Choose the dimensions based on your work and how you want to display it. Square portfolios can rock, 8.5x11 portfolios can rock, and they can all also suck. A set of dimensions is neither inherently good nor bad, but your choice of dimensions will have ramifications on the way your work is viewed and should be a considered selection as opposed to an arbitrary one.

My portfolio is square and I love it!

11x17 double sided matte from Red River, printed and trimed to 10x10... but others are correct, it has to fit your layout, your work, methods, etc.

I have to disagree. 8.5x11 sucks. It just does. Why does it suck? you may ask... It sucks because it is an awkward proportion. It sucks because it is the standard, the default, the path of least resistance. It sucks because most people don't do it full bleed, and if you do do it full bleed it usually means you've printed on a larger sheet of paper and could have chosen another dimension, but didn't bother. It sucks because it is a symbol of strange american measurement systems that are illogical and inelegant.

Anyway, some proportions are inherently easier on the eye than others. You're architects for christ's sake, you should know that already! Don't settle for the standard, don't default. Do what you think is really truly best.

"the standard, default, the path of least resistance" when considered by a thoughtful designer can really become something beautiful.

I hear what you're saying rationalist, but I’ve also seen what really creative people can do with 8.5x11 and have to say that at times the standard paper size can act as a nice contrast to thoughtful layouts and good work and probably shouldn't be discounted just because it's standard.

Hey, I've got two other good reasons in there for avoiding the 8.5x11...

Hehe, yes I know; one seemed like a knock on the designer not the paper size (full bleeds), and the other (illogical American measurements) I have to agree with. (How'd they come up with that anyway?)


Besides, when it comes to arbitrary judgements on standard paper dimensions, we can all agree that A4 rocks 8.5x11's world any day, right?

.

i had never really considered ISO before (i am in the united states).

i'm going to try it. i bet it gives you nice grid lines for page layouts.

Sometimes, possibly often, the content of the portfolio is more important than its format. One should resist the urge to design everything, for in accepting that all things need not be constantly re-designed lies the path that leads towards tranquility.

I believe that this bit of wisdom comes from the Hagakure, which may or may not have been originally formatted to fit on standard Letter.

I did a square 8x8 wire bound grad school application with aircraft ply covers... gluing the pages together for double sided was a pain since no printers or high quality paper was available back in the day...

i use a4. cuz, well...cuz i do. it is the path of least resistance and there is enough things i have to resist all day long already to need to bother with the a4 demons. i print full bleed with my epson printer and it looks fine...we have a binder in the office that makes things look snazzy and all the accessories are already designed for it ,so i can put my a4 work into an a clear plastic folder and my a4 computer case and it fits with the other documents, like contracts and info sheets on all kinds of a4-thingies...gosh a4 universe is great.

anyway, go square if it rocks your boat, and especially if it floats your boat...but don't expect it to actually matter.

a good designer will always, to steal a page from tim gunn's book, 'make it work'. using a size paper that is against the norm for the sake of it only being against the norm is juvenile and can prove to be kitschy. the nice thing about using, say, 8.5 x 11, is that the focus becomes the work inside, the layout, the subtleties of paper selection, etc. and 'wow' factor is in the simple approach.

I was going to print some 11x17 pages for my portfolio..accendently got A3 paper. Let me tell you, A3 looks SO MUCH NICER than 11x17

go for the golden rectangle...

how about a circle?

my daughter has a book shaped like a dinosaur. that could be cool for portfolio. yeah id definitley do it dinosaur shaped. definitely. ;-)

it's the design of the portfolio and content, not the size. My old portfolio was 8.5x11. It also makes it is easy to send as PDFs and allow people to print or photo copy (which people will do).

Depends on the use and where it is going. Printing costs should be consideration.

Do do something just because it is different. If you have a good reason to do something different, then go for it, if not, consider why and how it will enhance the presentation of your work.

If you do a square, I would highly suggest making it something like 8.5x8.5, so it can:
a) be chopped off in only one dimension, thereby limiting the amount of trouble used to produce this size. If you're making it yourself, this will minimize your efforts, and if you're having it made then it can minimize the costs, because each cut costs $$$$.
b) still fit within a standard filing system (which even 11x11 would preclude, since in the US there is going to be an 8.5" dimension.)

I can understand rationalist's point. But watch out... sometimes the rejection of standard sizing can be an priori bias in itself (much like how many architects/designers/photographers/etc are conditioned to be opposed to symmetry.) but on the other hand- standard formats make things easy for the people who have to deal with a ton of portfolios coming their way. If you are going to deviate from a standard 8.5x11, the most popular standard sized paper, I would suggest choosing a proportion that is, if anything, slightly smaller, so people can still fit it in bags/xerox it/file it with ease. But not too small, or it can be lost due to mis-aligning.

Personally, I have no problem with 8.5x11. It can be lame and boring, or it can be beautifully done - that's up to the designer. I also don't think you need some Grand Reason to NOT use 8.5x11 either! If it somehow feels better to you and works with your content, then go for it.

also, the coolest thing about ISO is when you fold down a construction set into an A4 binder. take that american bitches (oh wait, that's me...)

does anyone happen to have a sample of a square portfolio for reference? this thread has really helped me solidify that personally, my portfolio format will be square.

i'm aware of the schools of thought in that i agree that a standard letter sized portfolio can be really amazing. trust me, i've seen some. so to me, it's not that i have anything against the 8.5 x 11 size, it's more that for my projects/ work, i really feel that a square format will make for a more interesting and suitable display.

any input or advise is appreciated...

Print designers opinion here...

For readability's sake, square paper is kind of annoying. Since humans have binocular vision, our eyes tend to observe images in terms of rectangles.

That's why landscape works so well is that it replaces the natural field of view. That is when you hold up a big landscaped piece of paper, it easily replaces what you would be naturally seeing.

Horizontally-oriented elements are always perceived as the most interesting and sometimes most expensive elements in a publication (think double trucks, the inside of a newspaper or magazine where the staples are). Because there is usually always only one.

I would say go for the square if you're portfolio either has a lot of repetitious square elements or that your portfolio doesn't contain very many images that require borders-- things such as sketches or renders with a lot of white space and no background.

The size might depend on the intended use of the portfolio. An academic application portfolio would suggest taking the extra effort to consider page size, etc as the selection committee will likely spend some amount of time evaluating the portfolio, it's design, it's contents, etc. The extra attention given to choosing a paper size that really accents the work inside may be the deciding factor.

However, my experience with interviews is that the portfolio is quickly scanned through for content (less than 5 minutes, if that) and then tossed aside. The additional hassle of laying out an nonstandard size paper, getting it printed, trimmed and assembled is really only self-serving. Yes 8.5x11 is an awkward dimension but it also means you don't have to spend hours deciding if 8x8 works better than 7x7 or... and you can spend the time making sure the work that goes into the portfolio is of greater quality. It also means that you can easily send a few pages with your resume and cover letter as work samples or you can leave the portfolio at the interview and it can easily be stored and filed with the resume.

8.5"x5.5" is enough..... put all your hottness in there and if you need to show bigger then bring some larger plots/etc... the 8.5x5.5 is easy to carry/print and in my opinion looks a lot better...

thanks for all the advice, ladies and gents. i'm leaning towards 8.5 x 8.5 square. by the way, the portfolio is for m. arch program application.

square is totally self serving, i understand. i really think my work will showcase best in square format as most of my projects are more intuitive than technical. square resonates more with me for this reason.

square works fine, the only thing that looks weird is the piece that gets eaten by binding...which will make your layout look a little off b/c you'll have to move the margin in farther. you need to play with this.

personally i like to trim an A3 or 11x17 down a few inches.
right now i think mine is 11.69"x14 (.69 serves well for the binding)

The A series system works so much better than this shit in the USA. Its nice and elongated as opposed to squat looking and the ability to fold is amazing.

I'm a big fan of 8.5 x 11 portrait in high quality plastic sleeves and a Pratt binder. That way the focus can be on the work.

word2bird, 8.5" x 8.5" makes a lot of sense in that you only have to make one cut per page, but remember you will only be able to bleed images on one side with 8.5" x 8.5". you will need to account for that in your layout. test print a few pages to make sure you are getting the effect you want.

who the hell cares what shape the paper is? this is perhaps one of the top 10 dumbest questions i ever saw on here. is the world flat? is it a rectangle with 2 squares? how about star shaped?

u need to focus on what is on the pages....for buddha's sake!

you can make a square portfolio that folds out to form spreads for landscape elements...

i think a square bound book is kindof weird for some reason, doesn't flip open well... i think if i made a square portfolio it would be more like a little designed CD cover / case / box with a a series of plates that slide out or fold outs that open up in a clever way...

But it really depends what kind of application this is for... that would probably be cool for a school app, but i think for a job, it's sort of over doing it... but i think it really depends on your execution in making it...

if it's going to be bound, I prefer a landscape book that opens flat...

i think it's cute that all the young kids are freaking out about portfolio size... i used to do it too......
then i worked in architecture offices and got advice from professors and realized adults think it's a total waste of time to have it be something not the standard size.
just sayin....

18x32- i think you are exactly right. square lends towards a more central view point and allows for a simple/neutral layout.

it'll only be about 14-16 pages front and back, saddle stitched, so i need not worry about the binding and how that affects the composition much.

i have already solidified the content, so it's important to me that i design my m. arch portfolio well- considering how to best showcase my work. the emphasis will be on creating interesting voids/ white space.

does anyone have any thoughts on lowercase? i'd really like to use all lowercase for heading/titles and the cover page with my name and arch program info.

thanks, ya'll!

"the emphasis will be on creating interesting voids/ white space"

i guess you don't have much to show .....

Meh, white space is just as important as content is.

The more important the content, the more white space.

squares are so 2003... go cubed!

1:1.6176470588235294117647058823529

all lowercase and square?
trend.... follower?

Make sure (since this a grad. app.) that you check with all the schools you are applying and make sure they do not have a required portfolio format. It's super annoying to make your portfolio only to find out that U of Whatever requires a 10 page, landscape, 8.5x11 format submitted in a black binder, etc. and then have to remake your entire portfolio for just one application.

I'm sure some offices actually enjoy being able to stack and file portfolios neatly, whether is ISO or 8.5by11. We're not book designers, 'conforming' to a standard system allows people to be evaluated on more important things, like work ethic, ingenuity, etc. If we're all 'special' then no one is. Would you use a custom steel member when a normative one would do the job perfectly?

Often times for me, pushing convention merely for the sake of pushing convention [as opposed to solving a real and present problem] can be just as banal and irksome as not challenging norms when the situation calls for it.

i just finished my 8.5" x 8.5" square portfolio and am beyond satisfied. couldn't have impressed myself more. ;D

for those considering square format. i would strongly suggest you go for it. just remember to keep the layout clean and simple.

aah! so glad i finally finished it. now off to the essays. applications to m. arch programs are no joke!

admitted to the 2010 term at u of michigan, ann arbor and cca. applied to 3 year programs since i have a bachelor's in economics and music history. still waiting to hear from ucla, berkeley, sci-arc and risd. i also applied to mit and haven't heard back so i don't think i'll be admitted.

for reference, here's my 8.5" x 8.5" portfolio

http://issuu.com/its.bird/docs/bird_m.arch_portfolio?viewMode=magazine

OR

http://itsbird.carbonmade.com/projects/2586189#15

either way, its worked out because i'll be happy to go to any of the schools i applied to...

for those who are thinking of a square portfolio, go for it!

what about 3D?

dont need Avatar glasses, just get yourself some lenticular plastic sheeting.

I know out a A3 square portfolio last year.

It was good when I printed it, added a decent cover and fancy binding.

However when I email it to people it was good for viewing on screen but when they tried to print it out they hadn't a clue what was going on, it ended being printed regular A3 with the excess being blank. The effect was lost.

Waste of time in my opinon.

I've now got a A4 portrait X2 page CV/Portfolio. Its de business.