What NOT to have in your portfolio.

Sidney

Sidney

Suspended / Banned
Messages
167
Name
Sidney
Edit My Images
No
Here is Scott Kelby's list of things not to have in your portfolio:

1. Cats

2. Pictures of Homeless People

3. Tree Stumps / Dead Trees

4. Models on Railway Tracks (and Railway Tracks in general)

5. Flowers

He reasons this by saying that 'anyone can access these' and that they have 'the same effect on a viewer as Comic Sans and Bradley Hand does on a reader'.

I wondered what your views on this were. I think this will divide opinion!

Cheers,

Sid.
 
Sid, I can see his point. But then it depends on the person who's paying for the work, say for instance 'Pet Portraits' or a garden centre requiring some blooms etc. I've not even thought of giving models on railway tracks a go :p

Homeless people, now that one can be good or bad, depends on the type of photo as you need to show some emotion by adding a slight colour over cast, bit of grain to get the viewer to feel a mood for that shot (generally I would use B&W and it would have to be an absolutely poorly treated homeless person, not the average 'special brew' drinker!)
 
I'd like to add sunsets to that list please.
 
Sidney said:
Here is Scott Kelby's list of things not to have in your portfolio:

1. Cats

2. Pictures of Homeless People

3. Tree Stumps / Dead Trees

4. Models on Railway Tracks (and Railway Tracks in general)

5. Flowers

He reasons this by saying that 'anyone can access these' and that they have 'the same effect on a viewer as Comic Sans and Bradley Hand does on a reader'.

I wondered what your views on this were. I think this will divide opinion!

Cheers,

Sid.
Click to expand...

I have no views :|
 
Who is Scott Kelby?
 
ah...ty

He is a photoshop teacher
 
I'd argue that a good picture of a cat is a good picture. It just happens to be of a cat.

A good photographer will/should/might be able to take a photo of flowers in an uncommon and interesting way.

I've also seen a couple of decent pictures involving railway tracks. They tend to be out in the expanses of middle America though, and not some embankment just outside Rotherham that's covered in moss and old Coke cans.
 
They are perhaps all pretty bad for portrait or wedding photographer :lol:, particularly HDRed wideangle tramps :gag:

If they are done properly I can't see anything wrong with any subject
 
The first post is missing a little gravitas at the start so I'll add it here. :)

"Hear me now, for I am Scott Kelby and I have set forth my 5 commandments. Failure to adhere to my commandments shall render thy portfolio to bogroll and thy photoshop to be uninstalled"

A good photo is a good photo, regardless of the subject matter.
 
I feel a bit at odds now, as I don't have any of those. I don't think I've even got "non-keepers" lying around that I can spruce up and use.

I've got the odd picture of the cat, but they're just grab shots because she's tied herself up in the beaded curtain again.

Maybe I could put the cat on the railway tracks. With some flowers.
 
I would add selective colouring to the top of that list :)

I've never been keen on the generic model on train tracks, so I do agree with him there. I guess I'm also prejudiced to the concept as I've seen too many people that have been hit by trains. To me it just adds a negative feel and closes me off to appreciating any finer points. But usually it's just a girl stood there with no reason for having the tracks in the background.
I will agree it depends who you are marketing to, and a good photographer will (hopefully) approach the subject differently to others.
 
HMansfield said:
I'd argue that a good picture of a cat is a good picture. It just happens to be of a cat.

A good photographer will/should/might be able to take a photo of flowers in an uncommon and interesting way.
Click to expand...

Indeed, beyond of course a portfolio covering subjects similar to the work you hope to gain from it it seems likely to me that a prospective employer/client is going to be interested in your ability to "make the ordinary extraordinary".
 
I wonder how long it takes these people to think up such drivel. You should shoot whatever you're interested in and even more if you can make a living at it. Why no cats but dogs, sheep, cows and any other animal not included. Why no flowers but doesn't say anything about macro (I've got lots of insects on flowers etc).

I think they come out with this stuff just to get a few more hits on Google etc and to get people to think of the name. He'll probably be bringing a new book out or something and wants to improve his marketing potential.
 
modchild said:
I think they come out with this stuff just to get a few more hits on Google etc and to get people to think of the name. He'll probably be bringing a new book out or something and wants to improve his marketing potential.
Click to expand...

Nail, head. :thumbs:
 
What about a homeless man sitting on a tree stump next to a railway stroking his cat who happens to have a flower in his mouth?
 
Jill Greenberg has cats in her portfolio. Tom Hoops has homeless people. Ansel Adams has tree stumps. Joey Lawrence has a model on some train tracks. All photographers far more accomplished than Scott is as a photographer.

Scott Kelby is the human embodiment of an amateur photography magazine. Rigidly applying principles that have been invented purely for the purposes of content-generation, with absolutely no basis in personal belief one way or another.

Ask him what not to have in your portfolio in a month and he won't even be able to remember what he wrote.
 
modchild said:
I wonder how long it takes these people to think up such drivel. You should shoot whatever you're interested in and even more if you can make a living at it. Why no cats but dogs, sheep, cows and any other animal not included. Why no flowers but doesn't say anything about macro (I've got lots of insects on flowers etc).

I think they come out with this stuff just to get a few more hits on Google etc and to get people to think of the name. He'll probably be bringing a new book out or something and wants to improve his marketing potential.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Every portfolio should have a picture of Scott Kelby, tied to some tracks, with a homeless man going through his pockets. :D
 
Or who is Richard Bradley more like, which I had to look up as I am not a graphic designer although I know who Mr Comic Sans is
 
Last edited:
Sidney said:
Here is Scott Kelby's list of things not to have in your portfolio:

1. Cats --- etc --- He reasons this by saying that 'anyone can access these'
Click to expand...


That's silly. Supposing you're a freelance photographer and you want to take photos of cats for a pet magazine or flowers for a gardening magazine as an example? If you follow that advice, then how is the editor going to decide to hire you if the editor haven't seen what your photos of cats (or flowers) looks like? You would need to show the editor your skills in taking photos of cats, so your portfolio will need photos of cats anyway.

Whatever the subject you shoot, you got to show your skills by having the subject in your portfolio.

No point in going to Airfix, tell them: "I take photos of model kits, i would like to apply for work, taking photos for your magazine" and show them your portfolio which don't contents any photos of model kits (let alone model trains on railway tracks) but do contents some nice landscape photography here and there, few still life photos, and a good number of Page 3 models!!
 
Imagine a job interview:

Interviewer - ''Let's have a look at your portfolio, oh, Oh, oh no, short haired tabby great scott! oh, russian blue, OMG there's a Bengal? I've seen enough, I'm sorry but the job's not yours as the other guy took a nice photo of an Airbus A380''

8654529271_17017ea09e_c.jpg
[/url] IMG_0388 by FlightPhoto, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
I can totally see where Scott is coming from on this one, and predictably there is outrage from people at his viewpoint either by taking it literally or finding a very specific situation in which having a photograph of a cat is essential.

Firstly Scott Kelby does do Photoshop tuition, but he also is a photographer, runs web-based TV shows on photography and is great friends with many exceptional photographers - including Joe McNally who might be a more recognisable name for some people what with 30 years at Time Magazine and National Geographic. He might well be doing this to stir debate, and drive people to his site & services - but I also think he makes a great and valid point.

1) He isn't saying that specialist pet photographers, garden photographers, or even high school senior photographers (see person on railway track) shouldn't have relevant galleries of images to show in their portfolio.

2) Certainly if you were making a targeted approach to Airfix you would want some relevant model aircraft and/or small toy products to show (although I'm not sure what the market is for Airfix photography ;-) )

Scott's point is that with the vast number of full-time professional, part-time professional, and prospective professionals all looking for customers, and all competing with an even larger number of very-happy-as we-are-enthusiastic/advanced-amateurs (who by the way produce increasingly excellent work) that it is very very hard to get noticed. Very hard to differentiate yourself from the mass-market magazine reading hobbyists, and they will probably have seen 20-30 similar sets of images that week.

Create a gallery of a photo of a flower with a bee, a sunset, a railway track, a racing car, a mobile phone, and wedding group image taken from the side, a photo of one of your kids and then try to market yourself via a click-pic/Weebly website or Facebook page and you'll disappear into the mass of mediocrity because everyone else with a camera can do exactly the same thing. Even if you took technically correct and compositionally well thought out versions of them.

Build a documentary / photo-journalism website to showcase your skills as a news photographer with a series of images of the homeless in a particular area telling a comprehensive story and you might hook the attention of a charity or a magazine/paper. Because a single snap of a homeless guy on the street as you walk past them is "easy" to achieve - spending the time doing that story well over 20-40 different images isn't at all.
 
Last edited:
Pmc2011 said:
What about a homeless man sitting on a tree stump next to a railway stroking his cat who happens to have a flower in his mouth?
Click to expand...


At sunset? :)
 
meonshore said:
I can totally see where Scott is coming from on this one, and predictably there is outrage from people at his viewpoint either by taking it literally or finding a very specific situation in which having a photograph of a cat is essential.

Firstly Scott Kelby does do Photoshop tuition, but he also is a photographer, runs web-based TV shows on photography and is great friends with many exceptional photographers - including Joe McNally who might be a more recognisable name for some people what with 30 years at Time Magazine and National Geographic. He might well be doing this to stir debate, and drive people to his site & services - but I also think he makes a great and valid point.

1) He isn't saying that specialist pet photographers, garden photographers, or even high school senior photographers (see person on railway track) shouldn't have relevant galleries of images to show in their portfolio.

2) Certainly if you were making a targeted approach to Airfix you would want some relevant model aircraft and/or small toy products to show (although I'm not sure what the market is for Airfix photography ;-) )

Scott's point is that with the vast number of full-time professional, part-time professional, and prospective professionals all looking for customers, and all competing with an even larger number of very-happy-as we-are-enthusiastic/advanced-amateurs (who by the way produce increasingly excellent work) that it is very very hard to get noticed. Very hard to differentiate yourself from the mass-market magazine reading hobbyists, and they will probably have seen 20-30 similar sets of images that week.

Create a gallery of a photo of a flower with a bee, a sunset, a railway track, a racing car, a mobile phone, and wedding group image taken from the side, a photo of one of your kids and then try to market yourself via a click-pic/Weebly website or Facebook page and you'll disappear into the mass of mediocrity because everyone else with a camera can do exactly the same thing. Even if you took technically correct and compositionally well thought out versions of them.

Build a documentary / photo-journalism website to showcase your skills as a news photographer with a series of images of the homeless in a particular area telling a comprehensive story and you might hook the attention of a charity or a magazine/paper. Because a single snap of a homeless guy on the street as you walk past them is "easy" to achieve - spending the time doing that story well over 20-40 different images isn't at all.
Click to expand...


Whilst I agree with your points, I don't think there is any outrage being shown in this thread, just humour and amusement, although I haven't looked at the article to see if there are outraged repsonses there ;)
 
I am outraged at being accused of being outraged....its outrageous.
 
have you thought about writing a letter to someone about it?
 
All letters of outrage surely require a red pen? SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES BIG LETTERS TOO :suspect:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top