Hey, everyone, I would appreciate honest critique and criticism on a portfolio I have created after working on graphic design for about two years.
I made this as a junior designer portfolio before I took a break from designing, the focus is brand identities as that was a passion back when I designed, and now that I’m coming back into it, I would like to know if this is worth anything, what do professionals think, and where can I go from here.
Thank you in advance.
The main issue across your portfolio is that it’s too text-heavy and difficult to scan. A portfolio isn’t meant to be read like a document, it should be quick to understand at a glance. Think of it more like a billboard than an essay.
Right now, a lot of the key thinking is getting lost because it’s buried in long blocks of text.
About page in particular is too long and reads more like a personal statement. In most cases, this will only be skimmed for a few seconds, so it needs to be concise and clearly structured. The same applies throughout, shorter sections, clearer headings, and more spacing will make a big difference.
Typography is also an issue. A lot of your body text is very small, condensed, and low contrast (light grey), which makes it physically hard to read. Legibility should always come first if it’s difficult to read, it won’t be read. Giving your text more space, increasing size slightly, and improving contrast will make everything feel more professional.
The way your projects are structured could be improved. At the moment, the explanation often comes after the visuals, but it would be stronger to lead with a short concept or strategy first, then show the work. Also, each project uses more pages than necessary these could be condensed to make the portfolio feel tighter and easier to move through.
Using “Fictional brand brief” makes the work feel less credible than it needs to. A simple change in wording to something like “Self-Initiated Brand Project” or “Brand Identity Case Study” presents it in a more professional way without changing the work itself.
Your colour sections are incomplete from a branding perspective. You’re only showing HEX values, which are for screen use. In real-world design, colours need to work across both digital and print, so including CMYK and Pantone helps show that you understand production and consistency. Without that, the work can come across as conceptual rather than client-ready.
There are also some practical production considerations missing. For example, some elements, like text on the business card, sit very close to the edge and could cause issues when printed and trimmed. It’s important to account for safe margins so designs hold up in real-world use.
In a similar way, some of your logo and colour choices don’t yet reflect production thinking. Presenting multiple colours without considering how they would print can increase complexity and cost. It’s usually best to show a strong single-colour version first, then expand into two or more colours if needed.
There are also small consistency issues, like how colours are described across different pages. Defining your system clearly and applying it consistently will make the work feel more resolved. For example, use of Primary Colour - in some cases you have 2 x Primary Colours.
Abstract logos, it’s always worth considering unintended interpretations. Some shapes can be read in ways you didn’t intend, so it’s useful to sense-check designs to make sure they align clearly with the brand. For me the Patch symbol looks like reproductive organs (upside down).
There’s strong thinking and effort behind the work, but it needs to be presented more clearly. Focusing on reducing text, improving readability, and showing more awareness of real-world application will significantly strengthen the portfolio.
I purposefully put the above paragraph where it is to show how structure matters. Leaving the good stuff to the end often means the person has lost interest/hope before they get to the good stuff.
There’s strong work here, but it’s being held back by how it’s presented. The text is too dense, too small, and difficult to scan.
Think of it like this, your work is the product, and the portfolio is the packaging. Right now, the packaging isn’t doing the product justice. Improving that will make a big difference in how your work is perceived.
Thank you very much, I appreciate this. I’m going to work on improving this. I definitely didn’t do much research on printing and the relationship between digital design and printing, so I’d appreciate if you maybe had some ideas on where to find good resources for that?
Loads of LinkedIn courses on designing for print or going from digital to print.
Do I have any resources… nope because I haven’t looked in about 25 years.
CreativePro are excellent for lots of articles and real life.
Buy some books
Real World series helped me when I started - you can get them for Photoshop and Illustartor Real World InDesign
They might be a bit dated in the software but nothing has changed in practicality.
Any chance of getting a link I don’t have to log in to view?
Yes, I’ll try to send you a Mega one! I tried to edit it into the post but it was already late.
When you posted that you were self-taught and had taken a two-year break, I wasn’t expecting much from your portfolio. The trouble with being self-taught is that the teacher knows no more than the student.
However, I’m surprised. Your work is better than expected and shows talent that could be developed with more experience and direction. There are some nice, colorful, and whimsical elements.
I’m not sure I agree with your choice of typefaces for the portfolio design. They’re industrial-looking, which isn’t necessarily bad, but the condensed face is a bit tiring to read, and that look might not be ideal when paired with the whimsy I mentioned.
There’s also some inconsistency. For example, your margins between text and the surrounding border don’t match and seem uncomfortably tight in spots.
Placing everything in a large, enclosing box creates a claustrophobic feeling rather than the expansive, open personality that might be more inviting.
I’m not a fan of the isometric angles in the images on pages 5 and 14. I’m not at all sure why you chose to create them that way instead of using normal perspectives.
I like your “Flou” work and wish your portfolio design had the same informality and friendliness instead of an industrial aesthetic.
I’m not sure you understand the interactive relationship between positive and negative spaces. Instead, you seem to have focused on the positive elements and treated the negative areas as places to plunk down the positive elements.
I like what’s happening on page 12. It’s fun, inviting, and hints at your natural talent, which I wish I could see more of.
Your “Nature” spread is basic and underdeveloped. You’ve established a grid, but made some unusual decisions on how to use it. For example, using different column widths for the same story doesn’t contribute to the text’s visual unity.
I like the “TECH” poster, but that preference is primarily due to its appearance rather than its functionality. Posters must effectively communicate a message to the target audience. In other words, people would need to stop what they were doing to read and decipher the poster. The chances of someone doing that aren’t great, and even if they’re interested in the event, the poster doesn’t provide an easy way to find out more unless they read the small print. Instead, it leaves an interested viewer hanging with basic unanswered questions, which will probably result in them not attending the advertised talk. In design, function should come first and be supported by the form — not the other way around.
The bottom line is that I think you have obvious talent and would thrive in a more structured and formal design school rather than picking things up in a random way from YouTube videos. I’m assuming that’s probably not an option for you, though, which is too bad. If you’re serious about this, I might encourage you to downplay the YouTube software videos in favor of a more structured, class-like set of online courses that focus on design rather than software. Unfortunately, I don’t have any suggestions on that, as I haven’t looked into it.
Thank you so much for the feedback, I really appreciate it.
That colorful and whimsical side is something I’ve felt most natural making, it was most me, so I’m glad someone else noticed, perhaps it’s a direction or a style I have unknowingly grown towards.
That about the odd views, for the Patch and MZG brand things was pure luck for me to find mockups like that, so I guess I didn’t even pay attention to the perspective.
What do you consider when you say normal perspective?
I’ve definitely skipped over a lot of important design fundamentals in favor of those tutorials and everything, and yeah I don’t know if formal schooling is possible at this time, but I think I’ll definitely go around and research what is the most similar thing I could find that would fit into my current schedule and get me forward in design.
Structure and formality sounds exactly like what I’d need. Again, thank you so much for taking your time for this, I have lots to work on and I’m excited to put together all the criticism, it means a lot.
By normal perspective, I was referring to what one’s eyes normally sees, which includes vanishing points and foreshortening.
Isometric perspective or projection is a type of parallel projection used primarily in technical, engineering, and architectural drawings to show an object’s three dimensions at a consistent scale. There is no foreshortening or vanishing points. Long ago, I worked as a technical illustrator, where all our drawings were created using isometric projection.
Here’s a link to a video that explains it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSURyzz6H9s
Also worth learning about are one-point, two-point, and three-point perspectives. Here’s a video by the same creator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTH6OJmVIM