Shelved

A package in the mail this week saw the return of 2 early Redux-era portfolios which I had pretty much forgotten ever existed. At the time I was in to creating real books working with a cool, talented book binder in North Carolina. Back then I was actively trying to get some travel work (I eventually gave that up when I decided that I sort of hate shooting travel photography because its usually hellish). Anyway, I thought it would be fun to share this little book that I designed back in the day.

« Go to previous entry | Home | Go to next entry »

Comments (5)

John,

How did clients find this book format? Do they prefer it over the larger A3 bound option, in your experience?

@Daniel -- I think that clients found it novel and interesting, and some might have liked the printing and lack of any sort of barrier between the picture and their eyes (those poly pages can get annoying)... but ultimately this wasn't big (opened wide it's 18" x 5") or deep enough to attract any serious attention I don't think. The 11x14 book continues to be the standard, even while they are probably used and seen less these days; and the edit needs to feel substantial enough to carry a sense of experience and style, but not so large that its doesn't leave the editor/buyer wanting more. Working with a book binder is probably still a winning solution (as long as you are willing to tackle the challenges of layout and pagination), but you need to stay relative to the standard scale, otherwise its really more of a promo than a portfolio.

My first books were Epson prints on matte paper, French folded to 8.5x11" and wire-o bound. Cheapest for me at the time and I was able to do a bit of simple layout to show that I knew how to support a story with smaller pictures and details. Editors really seemed to like them — I sense they were paid more attention to than my new bog standard House of Portfolio (and I still loathe the acetate sleeves.) Maybe my naivite help my editing....?

Interested to know why travel work is hellish for you, John. That's about all I do and in general, wondering off on my own with text in hand and exploring and sniffing out the visual story is pretty great. And rarely is there a need for the editor to worry if I got the "one" shot. One thing that does make it less stressful is not to have to fly in and out of or around the USA. The hub SNAFU system and cro-magnon security attitude don't exist in Asia.

@Christopher -- In terms of disliking travel work, I think it boils down to personality and opportunity, and to be honest my exposure to travel work has been somewhat limited (10-12 jobs max). Though I love to wander around and make pictures, I found the 5-ft long grocery list of things that must be shot pretty confounding and so restricting emotionally that I was hardly ever able to deliver something that spoke of the experience of travel (instead of the snapshot). I think that part of the problem is that I felt too beholden to my clients and let their ignorance of places outside of NYC dictate the agenda too heavily. I've always respected those who can shoot travel in a personal way (and get it published), on such tight budgets and timelines. Maybe its different working from Asia, or working for a different set of clients, but I'm unlikely to accept any travel job that has a to-do list ever again.

I get your frustration. It used to be there was a story every other issue in ___ (insert famous travel magazine) that was just about a place or an experience. Ad pressures and fear of the unknown now make it requisite to show more "service" than anything else — spas, hot boites and the corner suite. (It seems as if some story coverage can be 50% the "foot-of-the-bed-view" images.) But it still is possible to blaze through the list fast with an eye to avoiding the obvious and then spend more time with the odd characters or hidden side streets that, wouldn't you know it, weren't on the official shot list, but run full page. I try.

© 2006-2008 John Loomis. All Rights Reserved.