3

I want to show a dozen of my digital art pieces in a physical portfolio. These works are in large image files - 8000x10000 pixels, for example. They can be printed on 11x17 paper and come out looking fine, showing plenty of fine-scale detail.

But for a portfolio I'll carry around to show galleries, potential clients and who knows where, would it be inconvenient to use that size, or is it more important that it shows all the fine details in the art? I imagine big colorful images will impress viewers more, but then bulkiness would have the opposite effect.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    I've carried around my physical 13x19 portfolio, that was still manageable. If you can sit down with them, then that size shouldn't bother anyone. If they have to stand and look at it, it may be more inconvenient. If you can do 11x17, I'd say, do it.
    – Hanna
    Mar 14, 2011 at 3:10
  • 5
    You have it easy - as a pre-digital architecture student, I hauled an A0 portfolio around - about 35 x 48.
    – e100
    Mar 14, 2011 at 8:53

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

As portfolios go, 11x17" prints are not particularly large. When showing them, they would not normally be too big to handle. As to whether the size bothersome to carry about, well, that depends on how you feel about it. A smaller size will not be as effective for many purposes, but can work just to communicate the look of individual pieces for selection purposes. If convenience is an issue, you could have a second set of smaller (e.g. 8.5x11) prints to carry around all the time.

Improve this answer
0

It really depends on the type of job you are applying for, but I would think that getting the highest quality print is more important than the size.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.