Photographer
The Gross Bite
Posts: 3966
Lansing, Michigan, US
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.
Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em?
Photographer
The Dave
Posts: 8848
Ann Arbor, Michigan, US
Photographer
RTE Photography
Posts: 1511
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, US
They must since I frequently get comments and/or lists from images near the bottom of my portfolio page.
Photographer
Ultimate Dream
Posts: 860
London, England, United Kingdom
The Effective Image wrote:
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.
Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em? If the images look good, people would take the time to go through them (i think)
Photographer
ImOutOfHere
Posts: 2227
New York, New York, US
To be honest, it kinda irritates me lol. Usually (the people that I see posting hundreds of pictures) their work is not really about quality, it's about quantity. It's as if they don't know how to edit down to only show their best work in order to look their best. On top of that, a lot of it looks exactly the same so it makes no sense to show so much of it. I have only seen like 1 person on here that in my mind can get and is getting away with doing it because their work is reeeally good, but most of the time, in my opinion, that is not the case.
Edit: But to answer your question, I do look, but at a certain point, if I don't like their work, I lose interest and stop looking.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
Yajhil Alvarez wrote:
To be honest, it kinda irritates me lol. Do you allow yourself to become irritated easily Yajhil?
If so, why not just move on?
I’ve been here 8 years now and it never bothers me. The opposite amuses me sometimes. When I contribute to these forums and I read about where I am going wrong from someone that can only manage to find 15 photos - usually of dubious quality and often featuring many of the same model.
Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re incorrect in whatever they write, it just means I may take it with a pinch of salt.
What people write on the forums always has to be read in the light of the work they show IMHO.
Photographer
exartica
Posts: 1399
Bowie, Maryland, US
Derek Ridgers wrote:
When I contribute to these forums and I read about where I am going wrong from someone that can only manage to find 15 photos - usually of dubious quality and often featuring many of the same model. I am looking forward to eventually coming back from my shooting hiatus and reworking most of my portfolio, but I don't know why I would go past 30 images. No one has ever managed to adequately explain to me the marginal value of the 375th photo that is just like 100 previous ones except with different models. Consistency? That can be a good thing, but it is obvious long before the 50th repeat of the same basic shot.
Photographer
David Kirk
Posts: 4852
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I look until I get bored. Usually that is before I reach 50 photos. Occasionally I will find someone that I will browse through more than that, but it is pretty rare.
I keep my MM portfolio between 12-20 photos. I figure that if I can't entice someone to shoot with me using 12-20 photos then I doubt another bunch of them is going to do the trick. I don't think you need more than 10 to show a level of quality and consistency. Of course if you really have a lot of variety in your portfolio then maybe using 30+ images makes sense. For me it doesn't - I just don't shoot that much variety.
Photographer
Steve Korn
Posts: 390
Seattle, Washington, US
I do feel that too many photos begins to lose impact. I tend to start glossing over and missing the stuff that doesn't immediately jump out. I really enjoy thise portfolios where every image knocks your socks off. Something to be said for a strong, concise statement.
Photographer
ImOutOfHere
Posts: 2227
New York, New York, US
Derek Ridgers wrote:
Do you allow yourself to become irritated easily Yajhil?
If so, why not just move on?
I’ve been here 8 years now and it never bothers me. The opposite amuses me sometimes. When I contribute to these forums and I read about where I am going wrong from someone that can only manage to find 15 photos - usually of dubious quality and often featuring many of the same model.
Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re incorrect in whatever they write, it just means I may take it with a pinch of salt.
What people write on the forums always has to be read in the light of the work they show IMHO. LOL yes, I am throwing a table right now! WAAAAAAA! Anyway, my kind of irritation is probably very different than yours. My kind translates to me seeing something, thinking "this is too much" followed by an "ugh", and then moving on, just like I stated in my original post when I said "But to answer your question, I do look, but at a certain point, if I don't like their work, I lose interest and stop looking.". Not sure if you only read my first sentence and then dismissed the rest or not but I don't linger there slowly seething, it's not that serious.
From what I know, traditionally a portfolio has no more than 20 images and they are supposed to be of your best work. That completely makes sense to me because I would rather see the same model and poor quality of work 20 times than 500 times. After awhile it's like come on! If you have like 500 images, and they all look the same, as in the execution and post work is consistently not great, it shows a lack of growth, an obviously willful lack of growth. But if that same issue is displayed over 20 images, then it looks more like someone is just starting out which in my opinion looks better.
Can it be done and still look great? Like I stated, yes, yes it can. But I have only seen it done once. Maybe you have seen it done way more than I have, I have no idea. I can only speak from my own experience on here.
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
The Effective Image wrote:
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.
Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em? when i saw the Garry Winogrand show at The Metropolitan Museum of Art there were 175 of his photographs on display....
but the guy IS dead....so maybe he had no say in the matter.....
Photographer
Rich Burroughs
Posts: 3259
Portland, Oregon, US
I like to keep my portfolio small. Too many images make my eyes glaze over. I really do think a smaller set of images has a bigger impact here. It's quite a different situation than a museum exhibition. If people want a deeper dive into my work I have links on my profile for that.
Also I don't see a lot of point in keeping up images I shot 4 years ago. I want the focus to be on the work I'm doing now, because that's what people who work with me are going to get.
Photographer
Ruben Vasquez
Posts: 3117
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Steve Korn wrote:
I do feel that too many photos begins to lose impact. I tend to start glossing over and missing the stuff that doesn't immediately jump out. I really enjoy thise portfolios where every image knocks your socks off. Something to be said for a strong, concise statement. +1
This is pretty much how I feel on the matter. I look but after a while I just start skimming through looking for the ones that really jump out at me.
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
yes... more is more better
Photographer
Backstreet Photography
Posts: 151
Salem, Oregon, US
Obviously not ALL long portfolios fit into this catagory, but many have 5~10 shots of the same person, same outfit, just slight changes in the pose = BORING. If a person can't 'sell' their skill in 30-100 images, then something might be missing. I've found that most, but not all, portfolios with more than 150 images fail to hold my attention. There are a few photographers/models that i'd be willing to see 1,000 of their shots ~ m'
Photographer
exartica
Posts: 1399
Bowie, Maryland, US
L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
when i saw the Garry Winogrand show at The Metropolitan Museum of Art there were 175 of his photographs on display....
but the guy IS dead....so maybe he had no say in the matter..... There is a difference between a portfolio and showing work in a gallery. Some people think MM is more like one, some people think it is more like the other. Of course, I doubt that the 175 Garry Winogrand images were all essentially copies of the exact same shot. He related different scenes and stories with different people. This is not the same as the photographer I know whose printed portfolio consists of 100 nearly identical shots of models in bikinis against white seamless. That is not a portfolio of photographic work. It is a trophy book.
Photographer
Viator Defessus Photos
Posts: 1259
Houston, Texas, US
MM gives me 75 slots with my Premium membership and I try to hold the line at 50-60 images. I don't want to have a 200 image port so I'll never be VIP.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
exartica wrote:
No one has ever managed to adequately explain to me the marginal value of the 375th photo that is just like 100 previous ones except with different models. Consistency? That can be a good thing, but it is obvious long before the 50th repeat of the same basic shot. I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with repetition in photography because it’s often the repetition around a theme that will give the work it’s power and resonance.
For instance, the work of August Sander.
30 images and one might think "wow, there are some great faces there.”
After 375 one might start to see the work as an invaluable document of a whole era.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
Yajhil Alvarez wrote:
From what I know, traditionally a portfolio has no more than 20 images and they are supposed to be of your best work. When it was part of my job to look at photographers portfolios (with either them or their agent sitting there) an average number of images in a portfolio would probably have been 30 - 40. Much less than that isn’t quite enough to be taken seriously and much more and I can’t really spare the time. I could ALWAYS tell, after two or three images, whether the photographer was any good or not and, if they weren’t, all I was thinking was “how quickly can I politely get them out of the door.”
Online 20, 50 or a 100 and it still only takes seconds to scroll through and see if they’re of any interest.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
The Effective Image wrote:
Does anybody look at 'em? No.
I rarely see an actually good portfolio with that many images.
Photographer
ImOutOfHere
Posts: 2227
New York, New York, US
Derek Ridgers wrote:
When it was part of my job to look at photographers portfolios (with either them or their agent sitting there) an average number of images in a portfolio would probably have been 30 - 40. Much less than that isn’t quite enough to be taken seriously and much more and I can’t really spare the time. I could ALWAYS tell, after two or three images, whether the photographer was any good or not and, if they weren’t, all I was thinking was “how quickly can I politely get them out of the door.”
Online 20, 50 or a 100 and it still only takes seconds to scroll through and see if they’re of any interest. Well I was told 20 in school by a professor that did the same job. But even if it's 40, my point is that some people overdo it and they aren't doing themselves any favors. Viewing images on here to me is actually a little trickier than seeing a detailed print in person because even though you can scroll through images and tell if you will like someone's work right away, you can also be tricked if you don't look carefully enough. I often see someone's work and think it looks nice but then when I click to see the larger version, well, it looks bad. That's why I try to never just scroll. The amount of out of focus, overly retouched, poorly retouched, and grainy/noisy for no reason images on here is pretty high. I like to inspect things when I look at images. Seeing a bunch of bad images I believe makes a photographer look bad.
Photographer
Bob Helm Photography
Posts: 18907
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US
Some times 10 is too many, sometimes 100 leaves you wanting for more. The challenge is to find out how many is too many
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
More than thirty is too many in my opinion.
Photographer
Markus Andrews
Posts: 472
Miami Beach, Florida, US
The Effective Image wrote:
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.
Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em? Digital age has changed many things in the business.... I don't believe the 20 image portfolio applies to todays standards for most photographers/artists.... I know when you are submitting to magazines/agencies you would probably would want to keep it at a minimum.... but if you are wanting to show your work off in a artistic light and you have some sweet work to look at the more the merrier..... It all depends on the situation.
http://www.artpartner.com.............. some of the best photographers who have been shooting for years have very few of there images up.... circumstances I believe play a big part.
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
Too much. 20-25 tops for photographer and 10 12 tops for model. I find myself looking at a port and never go to the next page of images unless something really catches my eye. Then I will just look at there web page if they have one listed. I avoid FB like the plague. I don't like how images come up on it. The layout is such a pain.
Simple is best in my opinion.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Caitin Bre wrote:
Too much. 20-25 tops for photographer and 10 12 tops for model. I find myself looking at a port and never go to the next page of images unless something really catches my eye. Then I will just look at there web page if they have one listed. I avoid FB like the plague. I don't like how images come up on it. The layout is such a pain.
Simple is best in my opinion. Why is it different for a model vs a photographer?
Photographer
F-1 Photo
Posts: 1164
New York, New York, US
Some people use MM as an image hosting site rather than a showcase for the best of their portfolio. Nothing wrong with that! If you don't like it you're free to move along.
As Derick pointed out above repitittion takes on an aesthetic all its own.
I was at a show if Avedon's that featured only his large format white tent work. While I'm not a big fan if that it was certainly worth seeing; there had to have been well over 100 of them. I was at a Bert Stern show that only featured his last few shoots with Marilyn Monroe; again, well over 100 images from the same few settings. Repetitious but pretty damn cool!
Photographer
Sablesword
Posts: 383
Gurnee, Illinois, US
I find the 15 photo limit on free accounts to be cramped - but not enough to get me to pay money to MM for more. And the limit is probably good for me, like broccoli. :p
OTOH, a photographer or model might well have a use for three or four categories with 15-20 photos each, and that will add up to 40-80 photos total.
Photographer
David Stone Imaging
Posts: 1032
Seattle, Washington, US
The Effective Image wrote:
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.
Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em? There is also the "public relations" aspect. Models often like to see that a pic from a shoot got posted.
Photographer
F-1 Photo
Posts: 1164
New York, New York, US
David Stone Imaging wrote:
There is also the "public relations" aspect. Models often like to see that a pic from a shoot got posted. That's certainly true! I know I sure do!
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
Caitin Bre wrote:
Too much. 20-25 tops for photographer and 10 12 tops for model. I find myself looking at a port and never go to the next page of images unless something really catches my eye. Then I will just look at there web page if they have one listed. I avoid FB like the plague. I don't like how images come up on it. The layout is such a pain.
Simple is best in my opinion. You’ve been a model for 26 years and worked with "many photographers from MM and many many more not on MM.”
And yet you only show 4 photographs, two of which are self portraits and only one that shows your face.
IMHO it doesn’t say much for the photographers you’ve worked with that you only see fit to show two of their images.
I just can’t see how showing this few photographs, of this particular nature, can possibly work.
I’ve read some of your tags, so I know it does work for you.
But how exactly?
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Why is it different for a model vs a photographer? I think this is because one needs to know a bit more about a photographer.
For a young model, just starting out, 10-12 recent, unPhotoshopped photos should suffice. For a more experienced model, and one who has worked with photographers one might have heard of, I’d like to see more, say 30-40.
If I’m hiring a photographer, I want to see a lot more because the financial investment will probably be more too. Some of the photoshoots I’ve recently art directed have involved big studios and set building plus attendance from up to half a dozen people from the client. So one needs as much information as one can get in order not to f--- up.
(And still it can happen. Commissioning art from creative people is not always the easiest thing).
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Why is it different for a model vs a photographer? Well a photographer is showing his skill set with lighting exposure editing etc....
A model is showing what she looks like and in a few different angles. Like your Comp Card.
Maybe a couple special poses like in Zoolander. LOL
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
Derek Ridgers wrote:
You’ve been a model for 26 years and worked with "many photographers from MM and many many more not on MM.”
And yet you only show 4 photographs, two of which are self portraits and only one that shows your face.
IMHO it doesn’t say much for the photographers you’ve worked with that you only see fit to show two of their images.
I just can’t see how showing this few photographs, of this particular nature, can possibly work.
I’ve read some of your tags, so I know it does work for you.
But how exactly? I recently just reactivated my account on here and just put up 4 min requirement photos. I used to have Idk maybe 15- 20 up.
I had a person get upset at me on the forums and decided he was going to contact and harass all the photographers that I had worked with (listed and credited). It caused quite a stir with photographers that simply do not need the BS. I reported the person and so did a few of the photographers. MM just gave him a small warning is all and hes still on the forums. So my thinking is that if MM doesn't take my trust in their site to post my resume seriously then I can not trust them.
I decided I do not need the BS either. This last year I retired to half time from in front of camera. I spend the other half behind the camera now. I will put a few more photos up but nothing on this site that will lead to someone harassing the people I work with.
Its simply not worth it.
If MM wants to start taking crap like that seriously then I might change my mind. But until then, No more paid membership and no trust of any of my personal information. If someone wants to prove they are serious about working with me (and many do) then I will open my book for them. Otherwise its a waste of my time.
And yes who I work with is personal to me and if used in the wrong ways can harm you. And I did get harmed.
Someone should expect not to get bullied for expressing there opinions on subjects just because some maniac doesn't like your opinions.
And I might add that I'm not here to give someone a free spank bank. or in any need of amateur critique hour.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
The Effective Image wrote:
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.
Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em? Random thoughts in random order:
... An MM profile is a poor substitute for a good web site; a Facebook profile is not as good as an MM profile. But we are conditioned to accept convenience for quality.
... No, I rarely scroll through a lengthy portfolio.
... A large number of images is not a guarantee of quality.
Model
Kirst
Posts: 550
Derry, New Hampshire, US
I've seen some amazing portfolios with hundreds of images, each image capturing my attention. I love that. But I also see portfolios that make me want to yell at the photographer/model. To be honest, it worries me when I'm contacted by a photographer who has only a few photos, whether they are nice or not. So knowing that a photographer has done many shoots with many models, well that's comforting sometimes! I give everybody a chance though. I suppose it's about the quality and not the quantity. and even better if there's a large quantity of high quality photos  I think personally, for me, i like to keep it around 50 ish.
Artist/Painter
MainePaintah
Posts: 1892
Saco, Maine, US
The amount of images does not matter to me. I can be a "speed scroller" (just like being a "speed reader") when I want to. If the photos are good in a Photographer's port, I will slow down to enjoy them. If the photos are good in a Model's port, I will slow WAAAAY down to enjoy them! 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
My opinion is that if you can't get someone's attention with your work in 20 images, you're not going to get it with 200.
Of the portfolios here that are hundreds of images, I basically see the same images over and over, just slightly different faces and slightly different outfits. Generally, I'm bored by the 3rd time I use my scroll wheel.
But again, that's just MY opinion.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
The Effective Image wrote:
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.
Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em? Any more than 80-100 hurts my head. So, no.
Photographer
Derek Ridgers
Posts: 1625
London, England, United Kingdom
Caitin Bre wrote:
I recently just reactivated my account on here and just put up 4 min requirement photos. I used to have Idk maybe 15- 20 up.
I had a person get upset at me on the forums and decided he was going to contact and harass all the photographers that I had worked with (listed and credited). It caused quite a stir with photographers that simply do not need the BS. I reported the person and so did a few of the photographers. MM just gave him a small warning is all and hes still on the forums. So my thinking is that if MM doesn't take my trust in their site to post my resume seriously then I can not trust them.
I decided I do not need the BS either. This last year I retired to half time from in front of camera. I spend the other half behind the camera now. I will put a few more photos up but nothing on this site that will lead to someone harassing the people I work with.
Its simply not worth it.
If MM wants to start taking crap like that seriously then I might change my mind. But until then, No more paid membership and no trust of any of my personal information. If someone wants to prove they are serious about working with me (and many do) then I will open my book for them. Otherwise its a waste of my time.
And yes who I work with is personal to me and if used in the wrong ways can harm you. And I did get harmed.
Someone should expect not to get bullied for expressing there opinions on subjects just because some maniac doesn't like your opinions.
And I might add that I'm not here to give someone a free spank bank. or in any need of amateur critique hour. Apologies Catlin, I didn’t mean to kick a hornets nest of different issues.
My intention was merely to cross reference what you had said on this thread with what you are showing in your port and stating in your profile - which I do with everyone on here that writes anything of interest to me.
I could quickly see that I wasn’t getting the full picture which was why I asked the question.
I now have the answer, thanks.
|
