Re: [Leica] Portfolios (disquisition alert)

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Good post, sir!
In the vein of the current discussion of the Rapidgrip, as well- it brings
to mind a concurrent problem- unfortunately one I often have!
I need something- anything- that would get me to simply grip my Leica and
haul it out of the bag...AND TAKE PICTURES!
That, and my tendency to carefully file away my negatives, and forget them
(saving them for posterity?)

Yes, the idea of 'getting a round tuit' and actually making an effort to
complete the photographic process, and actually make some pictures- and even
(SHUDDER!) putting them in a portfolio is one that I personally need to work
on! It's nice to know I am not alone- maybe we can form a 12 step group!!

Dan ( Don't put off 'til tomorrow anything that can reasonably be put off
'til next week!) Post
- ----- 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>