<p>In my opinion, Slide Portfolios are to Digital Portfolios what horse and buggys are to automobiles. Just finding slide film is increasingly difficult, never mind getting it processed successfully. High resolution digital work is every bit as "readable" as the best quality slides, so <em>WHY</em> does RISD insist on slides and most other school still prefer slides, while reluctantly accepting digital portfolios?</p>
<p>I heard that Nikon is going to quit making SLR cameras altogether in the very near future.</p>
<p>I can't get over the irony that the schools that are most renowned for teaching cutting edge technology won't even accept use of that technology in the admissions process.</p>
<p>And the prices for converting digital to slides? OFF THE CHARTS!</p>
<p>RISD seems to hang onto to certain traditions more than other places. I think it's just a matter of time -- like maybe now! -- before all these submissions will turn digital. Has anybody asked them for an exception recently?</p>
<p>I don't have an answer for your question, but here is a link to an article an how to use a digital camera to produce slides. You need to use a place that specializes in slides or it will be very expensive. When my daughter needed slides duplicated (her high school took photographs of the art students work and provided them with one set), I found a wide variety of prices from $1.50 per slide to $12.00 per slide. We ended up paying about $1.65 per slide, but with a little better planning we could have sent them away and saved a bit of money.</p>
<p>On second thought, more of a musing than an answer, but most art schools have a long standing commitment to the analog cataloguing of art work. The costs of converting over to digital collections are probably more that most art schools can afford even those with a significant commitment to new technologies. Student portfolios may simply be caught in that net.</p>
<p>Why not simply shoot the work with slide film? All you need is a good copy stand? Most H.S. libraries have one. But digital submissions are most appropriate for computer-based mediums. If a student submits a web site design what does RISD want from the student, slides?. </p>
<p>I don't think schools catalog or archive portfolio submissions. If they have a no return policy it is simply because of the cost of return postage. They simply would not have the space for storage of the submissions; nor could they use the images for promotional purposes. Most schools retain reproduction rights of work produced by students at that institution, but there would be no need to keep or catalog applicant portfolios.</p>
<p>We accept work from prospective graduate students in any form; it seems difficult (if not impossible), however, to "screw up slides". Very, very, very frequently there are problems with digital portfolios: the images are corrupt, the CD is scratched, the files are saved in some strange format that is incompatible, etc.</p>
<p>To be safe, I recommend candidates apply with both slides and digital.</p>
<p>I don't think that schools catalogue portfolio submissions as much as they are simply more "invested' in infrastructure which supports viewing slides as opposed to digital submissions. However, I completely defer to jkolko's take on the reasons to submit slides.</p>
<p>are two logical reasons why digital portfolios might be dicier than slide portfolios, but these can be checked fairly easily by opening the CD on any other computer.</p>
<p>Rainingagain, in answer to the question "why not just use slide film?", well obviously that is the most economical alternative, but unless you are already in a major metro area, or hooked up with a well stocked camera and film store, it is becoming more and more of a wild goose chase.</p>
<p>JKolko, it is certainly not impossible, nor particularly hard, to screw up slides, at least from the standpoint of lighting, composition and focus. Digital shots can be tidied up in any number of ways, if not previewed and re-shot in the first place.</p>
<p>In 5 years, I would be shocked if any school refuses to accept a digital portfolio. Since things are inexorably moving in that direction, why not get with the program NOW?</p>
<p>"JKolko, it is certainly not impossible, nor particularly hard, to screw up slides, at least from the standpoint of lighting, composition and focus. Digital shots can be tidied up in any number of ways, if not previewed and re-shot in the first place."</p>
<p>I was referring to the mechanics of the technology, not the art of technique. Taking a picture with a digital camera is as error prone as taking a picture with a SLR; once the image is produced, however, the "use" of the portfolio becomes dramatically different. Compare:</p>
<p>Method A:
1. Insert CD into drive, assuming one has a CD drive (my Thinkpad doesn't)
2. Locate material on CD
3. Open material, assuming one has the proper software applications
4. Hope material has not become corrupt after being exposed to all of the various magnetic infrastructure surrounding shipping and mailing
5. View material</p>
<p>Method B:
1. Place slides on light table (or, hold up to a window)
2. View slides</p>
<p>"In 5 years, I would be shocked if any school refuses to accept a digital portfolio. Since things are inexorably moving in that direction, why not get with the program NOW?"</p>
<p>Not sure who this is directed at, but I thought I was fairly clear: SCAD accepts graduate portfolios in various formats, including digital. I <em>personally</em> recommend that people include slides or prints with their digital versions.</p>
<p>Re Nikon. It's almost true (as just announced last week). Nikon will still make a couple of their film SLR models, but by and large will concentrate on their digital models. Of course their SLR lenses can work on either type.</p>
<p>"In 5 years, I would be shocked if any school refuses to accept a digital portfolio. Since things are inexorably moving in that direction, why not get with the program NOW?"</p>
<p>Not sure who this is directed at, but I thought I was fairly clear: SCAD accepts graduate portfolios in various formats, including digital. I <em>personally</em> recommend that people include slides or prints with their digital versions.</p>
<p>~~~~~~~</p>
<p>JKolko,</p>
<p>My comment certainly wasn't directed at you or any poster, but rather those schools (specifically RISD) that require a slide portfolio. Even "preferring" a slide portfolio has the essential effect of requiring a slide portfolio for an applicant who wants to avoid anything unpreferrable...... and many schools are clear about their preference for slides (including RIT, CMU, Purchase, and MICA). SCAD seemed the most flexible of the schools my son applied to regarding portfolio presentation, even considering students without a portfolio, as noted on another thread.</p>
<p>Your recommendation that slides AND digital be combined in a portfolio presentation is good. Since my son had to compile and upload a file of images to be converted into slides anyway, burning a CD and sending it along with the package is the least of his concerns.</p>
<p>RIT & Syracuse accepted my d without a slide portfolio. She was sick and didn't have time to make one so she did her portfolio reviews in person (I think in Jan). Wasn't a problem.</p>
<p>Agree with OP about slides. They are a PITA. Time consuming, expensive, lack easy editing and cropping capabilities. If you are shooting slide film, better give yourself plenty of lead time. My D shot slides for NFAA and a whole roll came back with bad color. Almost missed the deadline.</p>
<p>Don't fully understand the resistance to digital by some schools. Wonder if it is part of a weeding out process, to show your dedication. Suffering for your art and all...</p>
<p>Agree they will not be a requirement within five years, if you can still buy slide film then.</p>
<p>slides are a nightmare, I'm about to shoot slides for RISD on monday and the camera store around here that developed slides closed 3 days ago... this should be interesting</p>