In my mind a portfolio has been 15-20 images. Maybe 30 at max. If you're someone who either doesn't blog, or doesn't blog often, I can understand why you might have a large slideshow or similar. But for me a portfolio is concise. Of course, what I think or what someone else does isn't really important to what you want to do.
I would not have more than 30 images in a portfolio--not even in a slideshow. A three-minute slideshow would allow me about 25 images, giving each about 5 seconds with a few seconds for dance-on and dance-off. I would run a slideshow longer than about 3 minutes.
I have market-focused portfolios, and at five of them for each market: Website, hardcopy, laptop, phablet, and Facebook.
sboerup wrote:
Why 50 images? Why not more or less? It all depends on presentation. Single slideshow vs grid of images, or blog post with scrolling, etc.
So Spencer, what do you see as an ideal portfolio size? I recall a conversation about this on FM and most commenters said their portfolio was in the 50-60 range.
I have a gallery for each genre I shoot. Wedding, engagements, glamour/boudoir, newborns, family, seniors, band, and pets. I still have to make an event gallery.
I dont have usual galleries, I have mini story boards.
Jon-Mark wrote:
So Spencer, what do you see as an ideal portfolio size? I recall a conversation about this on FM and most commenters said their portfolio was in the 50-60 range.
I can't image anyone sitting through that many images--and certainly not giving them any real appreciation if they do sit there politely. Or do they mean they have 50 or 60 images for their portfolios, but not necessarily in them at any one time.
RDKirk wrote:
I can't image anyone sitting through that many images
You don't think a prospective client would want to see at least that many images before deciding to hire someone for their wedding?!? Make a decision based on only seeing 20 or 30 pics?
