The End of the Print Portfolio?

[Blue]

Originally Posted by FHPhotographer

I'm new to the "taking" the image but spent several years in the "buying" end of the business, and had to evaluate transparencies for print publication. I learned there was/is a world of difference between a print and a backlit image. And I now know there is a world of difference between the reflective light of a print and the transmissive light of an LCD when I see how one of my "good" shots onscreen doesn't come out as well in print. The digital portfolio might work for digital output, but what I can't understand is why anyone buying for print would accept a digital portfolio,
Brian

That is a very good point.

[filmamigo]

The topic came up this weekend at a workshop on the business side of fine art/gallery work.

The consensus (including from the gallery owner) was that digital was fine for a first look at a fine art potfolio -- necessary, even. But before hanging the work, a print portfolio review was still needed. Blurb books seemed to be a popular option for a portfolio. I agree it's cheaper up front, but seems expensive/wasteful when you want to update only a small portion of your book

[MJB DIGITAL]

When someone inquires to me about assisting, I tell them to just shoot me a link to their digital gallery, and that if they don't have a print portfolio, they're going to have to make one-even if it is just a couple of their best.

IMO Photograph=Print, and Digital Image = File on a Computer

[GeneralBenson]

as far as I'm concerned, digital portfolios are for webpages and for dealing with people over the web/phone. Print portfolios are for dealing with people face to face. I think it's pretty unprofessional to show up to a meeting with a photo editor and whip out your laptop. I would email an editor my web portfolio, but if they wantedto get together for a meeting, I would be bring books with printed images.