Going against the grain
In Module 1, while satisfied with my portfolio of images, I spent a good deal of time pondering the submission options:
- This should be submitted as either an online portfolio or a PDF, not exceeding 20MB. (Other file formats will not be accepted.)
In the absence of appropriate knowledge of online galleries or portfolios, that allow unhindered zoom capabilities, enabling the images to be appropriately inspected, I opted for a high resolution PDF, setting each page at A3, with 300dpi images. Knowing that most stained glass windows are portrait in orientation, with some being very tall and thin, the choice of a PDF made good sense: it would be viewed on screen very easily, with the user able to zoom in and out of each image at their leisure. Additionally, I have no desire to upload to the Internet full resolution (or very high resolution) versions of my images.
The feedback on that Work in Progress Portfolio stated:
Perhaps it is worth exploring online presentation of these images in order to make the most of creative possibilities (as well as the backlight of the screen) that a PDF can limit.
This make sense – I appreciate the importance of the Internet for commerce and know that this is the sensible way forward where marketing of images is concerned. Always happy to oblige, so now working on the presentation of Module 2’s portfolio.
After three days of exploring online gallery and portfolio options, I am yet to find one that allows anything close to sensible zoom options or presents the images crisply on screen. More significantly, I remain very unhappy about the idea of uploading all of my images to an unknown host. I have also experiment with many different options, including the use of a bespoke package; creating a gallery myself using a web design package, and also simple use of HTML code. For the purpose of grading works of art and following the evaluation I have done on the two options, I do not believe that an online gallery is the correct solution for an assessed Work in Progress Portfolio.
I work at a 34″ 4K screen and have just looked at the difference between best gallery solution I have found and an A3 PDF of the same image: The PDF looks sharper and is a clearer image (probably because I have tailored the image specifically to a known output, rather than allow a web-based program to apply an generic algorithm to my images). Additionally, with the PDF, I am free to zoom in and out at my leisure to explore the finer detail of the images.
Sadly time has the better of me and I have been unable to submit something that I would consider to be a representative online portfolio. I will include a link in the Assignment Submission notes area (but deliberately not in the URL submission filed). I apologise that the navigation is poor and the rendering of the images is atrocious. Once again I will submit my work in PDF.
Clearly my Work in Progress Portfolio remains work in progress.
Today afforded me a moment to call in on the Chapel of St. Nicholas in order to compare my rendering of 