Online portfolio review session, October 17

Professional
,
22

And that’s a wrap! Would love to hear from participants about how we can make this work even better in the future:

  • what’s a good amount of time for a given review?
  • are people learning from the reviews of others’ portfolios?
  • any feedback on the feedback itself?
  • what else can we do to make it smoother and more accessible?

Bonus Q:

  • Should we do a live one at GDC?
23

I unfortunately don’t think I have too constructive of a feedback to give. on my part, the critique I’ve gotten was useful, though I’m sure if needed I could have got a lot of the same value during a shorter time frame.

Maybe in the future it would make sense to segment the reviews into disciplines/industries? Currently the net you cast is quite wide.

Lastly, I unfortunately missed the name of the reviewer who did not use his real name as a username in the google meets call, I’d love to know who it is!

Thank you again for the initiative! it’s been lovely:)

24
  • I think the amount of time that we had 10-15mins was good and I was able to get some actionable feedback in that timeframe
  • I learned a lot from seeing other portfolios, it was definitely motivating
  • I think having some good examples to showcase, or to emphasize a point is helpful. For example one of the reviewers showed a good example of a GitHub he saw and that helped get his point across
  • I heard about the event through LinkedIn, so I think doing some more promotion there would be helpful for more outreach
  • I’m not going to GDC this year, but I think it would be great for the students that are attending!
25

Overall, for the European time zone, the meeting went well! One thing we may do next time to help the juniors is to show some mid/senior-level portfolios, so they have a point of reference. I think 15 minutes is good. Feel free to add me as a reviewer if needed next time egain, I’m more focused on Environment work and generally on Houdini-related stuff.

1 Like
26

Alright, time for another post-mortem :slight_smile:

The review was nice, and helped me in general but especially on the formatting blindspots that i had on the reel. In a company that is low on rigging teammates it also felt somehow comforting to show the work to peers and have an opinion from them.
I have to agree though that just as a feeling i got, the disciplines are very wide spread (as techart is in general) and a vet in the vfx/movie industry might have been missing.

this is just a feeling though because i came late, so i am not sure if this is correct since i felt it would be super awkward and honestly rude as hell to ask. maybe a meet the reviewers page would be a nice thing to have? so people can even decide that EUR / NA is worth staying awake longer or making space in the day to choose the review team that suits them in experience.
it would also work simultaniously to shout out all the reviewers by name who made time to help others and are part of this project :smiley: since i think all the people that made time to help others should get all the credit we as a community can give out of this too.

i dont know if google meets is the right vessel or if i just f*ed up big time, but i tried to join 3 minutes late (which yes agreed, is a big mistake on my side) but was able to join around 20 minutes later.
Part of me goes, who comes late has given away all the rights because its hell of rude and unprofessional, but the other side is, we should have a system where trying to get the microphone running is not a hinderance to the project :face_in_clouds:

As in how i see how it was structured, there was 3 pillars discussed:

  • the where is it presented and if the format makes sense
  • the how and in which order are the works presented
  • and the content of the things shown

looking back and for anyone stumbeling on this thread these are the areas you can segment and tackle the issues individually.

10-15 minutes seem to be the right amount of time for how it is done at the moment, but if it gets bigger i think 5 minutes with other reviewees would be interesting to have.
As in a time that is explicitly given for other reviewees to weigh in, ask questions and offer critique as well, because first it gives chances for questions that slipped under the radar and secondly enforces a culture of giving and receiving reviews in a nice way that takes the pressure out of it.

i think the type of feedback is very suiting for a student/junior for sure, the masochistic impostersyndrom having part of me would have loved more tear down, but i am also aware that the type of portfolio i brought might not be super great to tear into on a technical level since it was comped final shots since breakdowns did not make it through legal.

I would say to me and all the others coming in the future, try to bring breakdowns, its easier to discuss.

Also, as a reviewee, i should have written down what i wanted out of this session beforehand, i had thought about it and had a gameplan, some questions got lost in my nervousity though, if i had written it down it would have certainly helped.

As closing remarks, its super sick that something like this is happening here, thanks to all the people that invested their time into this project, its highly appreciated.

27

Quick Q for the group – no right answer, just trying to gauge sentiments

  • I like having reviewers from a variety of disciplines (rigging, pipeline, tools, graphics, etc)
  • I’d get more value if the review was specific to one discipline
0 voters
28

i would say, optimally have the mix, but the chance to have one bang on to the focus represented? Just because its good when the wide range and changability of the field is represented and helpful, but to have one person that fits bang on in one of the both groups may help to see things that are specific to the field that may go under the radar elsewise :slight_smile:

not sure though :slight_smile: