Re: [Leica] Portfolios (disquisition alert)

["Richard W. Harig" <deputydirmh@worldnet.att.net>]

Please go on.  The information is great but the presententation is even
better.

dick harig
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Margaret Jeffcoat <margaret01@excelonline.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Portfolios (disquisition alert)


> Blow on Mike, Blow on!!
> Wilber
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 10:18 PM
> Subject: [Leica] Portfolios (disquisition alert)
>
>
> >
> >
> > > This is yet another naive question from an amateur.  What should a
> > > "personal portfolio" look like?
> >
> >
> > Ah, you have stepped into my web, Grasshopper. A topic near and dear to
my
> > heart. Disquisition alert! (Windbag alert too, maybe. You have been
> warned.)
> >
> > The form a personal portfolio would take would vary with the person, but
> its
> > function probably wouldn't. The idea is simply this--you're a
> photographer.
> > Can you show a representative sampling of your best work, in fully
> realized
> > form? Whatever that is?
> >
> > And make it so that it actually exists?
> >
> > This latter point is important. Many photographers have a vague idea in
> > their heads of some given subset of their pictures, some of which might
> > already exist in viewable form. This is their idea of "their work." But
> > that, I would argue, doth not a portfolio make.
> >
> > The idea is to do the work to have on hand something that shows off what
> you
> > do, without apologies. The question I used to ask students is, if a
museum
> > curator knocked on your door tomorrow morning and asked to "see your
> work,"
> > are you READY? Do you have something finished, right now, to show? It's
> not
> > enough to lead them to a huge pile of workprints, or lead them around
the
> > house and show them the seventeen pictures you liked enough to have
framed
> > over the past decade, or to open the slide cabinet to reveal 5,000
slides
> in
> > cascading piles and say pleadingly, "can you give me a while?" or
> (shudder)
> > to open your contact book and start flipping through it, every now and
> then
> > jabbing your finger at the page.
> >
> > The "work" I'm talking about is what my friend Allen (A. D.) Coleman
calls
> > "reification"--making it real. The idea is that other people cannot see
> your
> > visualizations about your finished work in its absence, or from
> incompletely
> > realized clues.
> >
> > What the work consists of is going to depend upon what you visualize,
but
> > generally speaking it can be divided into three main tasks: editing the
> > pictures, crafting prints (or whatever), and selecting and assembling
and
> > method of presentation.
> >
> > Re editing: most photographers are mediocre to execrable editors of
their
> > own work. The problem is that they lack a.) objectivity and b.) the
> > requisite ruthlessness. What I mean by the first point is that they
> consider
> > all sort of thoughts, feelings, and factors extraneous to the picture in
> the
> > selection process--who they were with or what kind of day they were
> having,
> > how much the subject matter means to them, how hard they worked to
> get/make
> > the pictures (this happens frequently with amateurs--if they worked hard
> to
> > get it they somehow think it has to be good), some meaningless technical
> > feature (a very saturated blue, or you like the sharpness), or (heaven
> > forfend) their fetishistic slavering over whatever nifty piece of gear
> they
> > happened to make it with (that would never be pertinent to this
> > list--Luggers are all too intelligent to get caught in that trap).
> >
> > Strategies to overcome these impediments to effective editing are
> numerous,
> > but I'll mention three: work at it; take your time; and, get help. I've
> said
> > many times and many places that the best editing tool is a large
bulletin
> > board where you put your pictures up to look at (assuming you make
> prints).
> > Another good idea is to gather other peoples' opinions and watch for
other
> > peoples' reactions as they look at your pictures.
> >
> > Another problem of editing is a false or obsequious objectivity, wherein
> we
> > pick things we think other people will like rather than the things _we_
> like
> > (I've been guilty of this my own self.)
> >
> > Then, of course, there is the problem of indulgence, wherein
photographers
> > who are sentimental over their own efforts, or egocentric, admit a lot
of
> > filler into the final selection becase they don't have the heart to
leave
> > the almost-good-enough stuff out (or they simply don't have enough work
to
> > come up with the number of truly strong pictures they think they ought
to
> > have).
> >
> > Finally there's the problem of coherence--coming up with a group of
> pictures
> > that makes some sort of sense together. Variety isn't necessarily bad,
but
> > it's got to hang together somehow.
> >
> > So, most amateurs never make it through the editing process.
> >
> > If you have enough gumption and verve to actually come up with a group
of
> > pictures that make sense together, things can get fun. Because there's
> > nothing like having a clear goal in mind to give energy to the work of
> > crafting prints. And, really, the crafting of the presentation method
can
> be
> > almost as much fun as making the pictures.
> >
> > If you've never done this sort of thing before, I think you'll find:
> >     --That it's surprisingly difficult;
> >     --That it's even more satisfying than you imagine it will be when
> you're
> > done;
> >     --That you never need return to that work again, because you have
> > already done your level best by it;
> >     --And one more very fortunate and happy result, which is that it
helps
> > direct your _future_ work. It helps you decide what kind of photography
> you
> > really like, and what you're best at; it helps you (even if only
> > half-consciously) focus your efforts on work that will more easily and
> > directly lend itself to reification later. All good.
> >
> > So as to what form your portfolio should take, I don't really know.
> Depends
> > what you do and how you want it to look. Traditional box and mounted b&w
> > prints? Laminated color prints? Transparencies in mounts? A slide show?
I
> > personally like print books. It doesn't greatly matter. What matters is
> > whether it's PERFECT, perfectly realized, a true representation of the
> best
> > you've done. No apologies or explanations necessary.
> >
> > And, unfortunately, most photographers never do all this. Even most of
> those
> > who may read this very message and become temporarily enthused about the
> > idea of reifying a master portfolio of their work will never follow
> through.
> > Don't ask me why that is, but I know photographers, and I know it to be
> the
> > case. Sad but true.
> >
> > --Mike
> >
> > P.S. If you want some practical tips as to how to actually go about
doing
> > all this, ask me tomorrow and I'll type another disquisition, presuming
> > there is not too vociferous a chorus of complaints about my
longwindedness
> > tonight.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>