Not looking for a review, but more some guidance into what should go into a portfolio...
I'm having some discussions with my editor/photoshop person about how certain shots look, and what I want to show case.
I _like_ the ultra-crisp, super sharp, perfect color look of images where everything just clicks. I like to show that off.
However, it has been pointed out to me that work that I would normally toss is 'really good, after I touch it up a little'. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I look at these, and they aren't _bad_, just not the look I was after.
The real problem is, those shots sell. <sigh> _I_ don't like action shots that are blurry where I didn't intend them to be, but my editor has no problem layering on some 'softness' to make an image that, to me, looks fuzzy and out of focus, but the customer really likes. This really hit home, when we used a 4 year old shot, that I saved back when I wasn't such a stickler for details, applied some photoshop adjustments to it, softened it up, and used it as a background for a flyer we were handing out. the guy whos car was in it phoned us up, and wanted a couple of large prints of the image, just the way it was! This keeps happening the more my editor digs through my archives and works my older images over.
So, my pocket book tells me to just go with it, but my eye tells me those images suck. I find myself realizing, I have very little idea how to pick images that are 'artistic', that also happen to have technical flaws.
anyone have any suggestions on reading materials to help me train my eye a little finer? It's beyond time I should have put together an updated portfolio, and some of the things I find myself getting pulled into lately would seem to warrant I make the effort to do so.