How do we select work? Here is the short version. . .
First, we look at every portfolio we receive and some of them get immediately rejected -- primarily because they are simply not good enough for further consideration. They may be printed poorly (common), a random collection of images that don't hold together as a project (common), or just badly executed (less common).
Of the work that survives the first cut, passing the next hurdle is where most work fails to progress. Quite simply, it is all too common that the work is boring or derivative. We've been doing this so long now, we can often tell whose workshop someone has been to based on the submission we receive. For example, I cannot begin to count the number of submissions we've seen over the years of the Anasazi ruins, the slit canyons, sand dunes, lacy Havasu waterfall, etc.
Next, is there enough? We really struggle with some work, because it's wonderful work, but only, say, 6 images or so. Sometimes there are 8 or 10 great images and then another dozen that are not so good. If there isn't enough to be a full portfolio, we have to reject it even though we really like some of it. (We're working now on an idea that can help with this problem. Stay tuned.)
Next, if it's an abandoned place, we set it aside. We sometimes publish them -- they can be very interesting portfolios. But, in general, it's a rare submission review around LensWorkland that doesn't include at least five or six portfolios of some abandoned factory, abandoned house, abandoned farm, abandoned cemetery, abandoned town, etc. I've come to think of this kind of work as being "easy" in the sense that abandoned places usually don't require permission to enter, are often nostalgic by nature, and no one is going to come up and ask you what you are doing there with a camera. Whatever the reason, we reject far, far more of the these than we could ever publish.
There is usually a small pile we reject because every single blasted image is dead center. Bullet composition. Boring.
So, with what's left, we add them to our "publishing board." This is the roster of candidates that we are interested in publishing. Each time we approach a deadline, we sit down with the publishing board, review all the work that is there and start looking for combinations that we think would make a good issue. We don't -- for example -- want to have two landscape portfolios in the same issue. To preserve the "anthology" nature of LensWork, we mix and match for good combinations of work that seem to complement one another, or at the very least don't compete with one another. We also look back a couple of issues (and forward a bit) to try to select work that is not too similar to something we've recently done. This is often harder than you might guess, because the minute we publish a body of work, it seems to communicate to other photographers that we like that kind of work and we suddenly get a number of similar portfolios all arriving at once. Bad timing.
We move things around on the board until we feel we have a good fit, good timing, and strong work. Eventually, we make a decision what goes in and the rest of the portfolios on the publishing board are carried over to the next issue for re-consideration. If they repeatedly don't get selected, eventually we send them back. That's about it.
The one thing that often shocks people when I describe this may not be obvious until I mention it. We never look at what equipment they use; we don't care how it was printed; your fame or status in the photo world is never a factor in selection or rejection. I can honestly say that in 14 years I am yet to read a single curriculum vitae. Simply not interested in your degrees, experience, exhibition history, publishing success, etc. The work must stand on its own. Period. For some, this might seem ruthless. We think of it as a strict meritocracy.
Hope this gives a bit of insight into our process.
Brooks
