Friday, October 5, 2012

Three From Yesterday...and Portfolio Review



 
Alcy was off yesterday so we went to a outlet mall. When we met for breakfast, she let me read a magazine she had just bought. In it was a list of four suggested "projects." One was to shoot store windows so we decided to do a few Actually, that's why we decided to go to the mall. I only did four shots and two were obvious duds. These are my two Store Window keepers. The first photograph is subtitled Round Things Found at a Mall. The third photo is Jerry Pierson, the NWHPC President, making a decision on whom to choose for his next review at the Portfolio Review last night.
 
I got four reviews, Frank White, Jim Caldwell, Frank and Rachael Kreipe and Chuck Thompson. Each was decidedly different and very helpful.
 
Frank White is very much into print quality. I expected him to be the roughest so I selected Frank for the first review. I was extremely pleased that he only found one of the photographs to be somewhat lacking in print quality, the first one. Not really that it was lacking on its own but in comparison to the remainder of the photographs it lacked equivalent contrast and tonality. The day was partly cloudy and most likely that photograph was taken when it was shaded by a cloud. He thought that it could be salvaged in a reprint. I was concerned because I had them printed at 12x18 before I discovered that to get a 12x18 mat required a 16x22 board. I wanted 16x20 so I had to settle for 11x17 mats which cropped in very tightly on photographs that I had already composed very tightly (the photographs previously posted are not cropped in, they are the full 12x18). It was very encouraging to have Frank say that it had not hurt the presentation, that he liked the very, very tight crop. Frank was very complimentary on the print quality, on the use of lights and darks in the design. When asked, I explained that the fish and the sand were very close to the same tone and that I darkened the sand considerably. He was very complimentary on my technique; saying that it was done transparently. I didn't mention how easy that is to do in NX2. We also talked a good deal about the paper. When I sent them to Mpix I expected to received back fairly neutral back and white prints. Instead they are on a paper reminiscent of Opal or Ektalure portrait papers, very, very warm toned although considerably short of sepia. That surprised me. Frank mentioned that the paper would not work for all black and white images but that it actually worked very well with these images. I wonder if Mpix made that same decision? Surviving a review by Frank is a great way to start an evening. Even though this is only the second time he has reviewed my portfolio, I have a great respect for his approach and for his  knowledge. 
 
Jim Caldwell suggested that maybe I should not approach a restaurant, especially a seafood restaurant for a hanging. As he said, Red Lobster is not going to be calling. Jim talked more about the subject matter and was complementary. He made some comparisons between these photographs and the time when he was doing medical photography because with both the subject matter is difficult for some to view. I am not sure but I think it was Jim that commented that although the photographs were of a subject matter that some would find repulsive they were done in such a way that they were not at all unpleasant to view.
 
I always look forward to a review by Frank and Rachael Kreipe. Frank has a standard question, "Which is your strongest photograph, which your weakest." I was extremely pleased when he said that question was not necessary, that there was no photograph that stood out to him as obviously being the strongest or the weakest which I took to mean that the images were well balanced. Rachael is a painter who just finished a series of paintings of fish. Her critique is always from the point of a painter rather than a photographer so it is on content and design more than on technique, which I greatly appreciate. Both talked extensively about the abstract nature of the images and probably went into the most detail on the lines and shapes. Rachael mentioned a couple of times that the photographs made her want to get home and start painting which I took as an exceptional compliment.
 
One reviewer, I'm not sure which, commented that they greatly appreciated that the artist statement was devoid of "art speak." Then I got Chuck. LOL
 
I loved Chuck Thompson's first comment. Well first he went into to great detail on what he looks for in a portfolio, how he approaches reviewing a portfolio--very informative. Then he went to the photographs. He said, "While reading your statement I kept saying to myself, OH YEAH." Meaning that he thought the statement was mostly hyperbole. The photographs seemed to change his mind even though he said he never actually got the connection between the photographs and the concept of illustrating the experience of dying. He left the impression that he thought the photographs were strong. I believe that Chuck saw the photographs more literally than any of the other reviewers. Since I intended the photographs to be seen more metaphorically I greatly appreciated his different approach. He said that he is not particularly enamored with fish, doesn't eat fish, isn't an angler, so photographing dead fish was something that he would never do but was complimentary that I had tackled the subject. Chuck also talked a great deal about the black and white technique, stating that most black and white portfolios were either printed too flat or too contrasty and that I had reached a good middle ground between the two and hit it on the nose.
 
I greatly appreciated Frank White's and Chuck Thompson's comments on the print quality. The vast majority of my photographs are only seen on a monitor. And I did not do my own printing, that I leave to Mpix. There is a great deal of difference in a back lit monitor and the reflective surface of a print so I am always concerned how well the photographs will carry over to paper. I was pleased that these seemed to pass that test.
 
In the end, as expected, it was difficult to get my head through the double doors. Actually the portfolio got much more approval than I had ever assumed it would since neither dead fish nor death is high on the list of preferred topics for discussion. I almost hate that because that just makes next year’s portfolio that much more difficult. And yes, I know that all of the reviewers are complimentary for the purpose of encouraging the photographer—this is an amateur event, for the purpose of encouraging more than rejecting—but they all sounded very sincere. I did not get the impression that any had to carefully choose their wording to be diplomatic. And no one had any suggestions on anything that needed to be changed, photos that should be removed or possibly photos that I should have included--a first!

No comments:

Post a Comment