What purpose could this style of image be applied to? I'm never certain how to seque this into a portfolio of people images. Travel? Lifestyle? Editorial?... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 06, 2000

Answers

Fizzyology.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), March 06, 2000.

Me and Frank... no commercial potential... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 06, 2000.

Well it can't work for Travel because it suggests traveling to light and most companies would object to that. Lifestyle- posible; "we are what we eat". Editorial can work; also Forensic is another viable alternative. Fashion-Particularly makeup as "less is More" Glamour-You can't possibly wear less than this.

-- Artie (Artie@artiephotography.com), March 07, 2000.

Shame on you Tom. This is not the sort of trash we want to see on our screens. Not only is that skeleton clearly underage and Nekkid but, unforgiveably, there are no catchlights.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), March 07, 2000.

Hey Tom, just saw this one on photo.net also ;-) I like it, though I can't exactly say what makes this such a nice photo. But where to put it in your portfolio isn't really easy indeed. How and why did you take it? Maybe that could be a clue: were you travelling trough a dodgy neighborhood, when this terifying creature came jumping at you? Or did you politely ask your, lets say, brother's son to pose and hold the skeleton? I guess I'd file this under CHILDREN/PORTTRAIT in my office (an international photographic press agency), but I guess that isn't much help here... Best, Rolf

-- Rolf Rosing (rcrosing@dds.nl), March 07, 2000.

I have absolutely no idea what to say about this, except that I can't take it off my screen. Don't get mad but it reminds me of HCB for some reason, or war photography. Or something that's really, really good for absolutely no discernable reason (the best kinda good in my eyes). This is one of my favourite images from our forums so far. It's transcendant. Qualify this as unqualifiable in your port; don't pigeon-hole it...shawn

sorry 'bout all the superlatives...

i don't even care about the tech. details...don't wanna know actually.

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 07, 2000.

Don't look Shawn...

The camera is an old (folding) Polaroid 180, 114mm Tominon lens. This is a kid who lives in a warehouse complex in n.w. Atlanta that has been converted to artists studios.

At the time I was into lugging a tub of sodium sulfite solution around in my car and a little tupperware container for the negs. I'd return to the car to soup the negs and then go out again. The tether is distracting though.

This kid's mom showed up and I gave her the polaroid prints and she bought a couple of 8x10's from me (priced at my cost, this was not a commercial venture). I have another of his dog, scruffy little white guy in AKC profile pose that is very... uh... cute?. I guess I'll just lump this in with 5 other misc people pics and see what happens. The portrait from my previous post here ("is this guy naked?) is also in the mix. I'll put up the other 4 finalists when I figure out why my 'puter can't find my scanner... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 07, 2000.

how do you group you portfolio, tom? I would put the neked guy as a 'creative' portrait. & I think, upon Time (the biggest 'T' in the business), I would put this under "mis.", which is a far-underrated category...s...ome guy not livin in a box yet but somewhere heated n countin his lucky stars.

ps this photo also makes me hate people who are too hormonal to be truly in love and who have kids just cuz they were horny...this has nothing to do with the photo but my bizarre perception which i dont apologize for, but hope someone out there understands: BE, but THINK. public service, over...blah blah blah

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 07, 2000.

uh, the Dr. is not in right now, so....

I've got a portfolio that has three seperate sections, 1)people, 2) things, and 3)color people/things . It's a small box with three folders in it that hold 6 images (4x5 inches) each. Each image is printed on a 4x5 sheet oriented horizontally so the book doesn't have to be turned, which means some of the images are only 3 inches tall (1/2" borders). I selected a book that is formatted this way because my work (and my brain) seems to organise itself that way and it's this size because its easy to look at and cheap to ship. Even if you spread out all three "books" open on a desk they are under 16x20 total. The b&w images are printed on different types of paper and toned differently and of various tonal intensities. The color stuff are c-prints and one inkjet.

I'm only putting in images that show what I like to do, and that I think I do well. Then I'll find someone who will pay me to do that. Well, that's the plan... t (stay tuned)

what does that first paragraph mean, Shawn? "s...ome guy not livin in a box yet but somewhere heated n countin his lucky stars." ... huh? Yer cat on the keyboard again?

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 08, 2000.

Well, you're doing it well so keep doin it the way you do it now till someone gives you lotsa money...

what does that first paragraph mean, Shawn? "s...ome guy not livin in a box yet but somewhere heated n countin his lucky stars." ... huh? Yer cat on the keyboard again?

nutin really, just that i'm spending like crazy for something that i enjoy immensely but which is yet to be granted any kind of 'practical' returns, i.e., photography...sometimes i take the simplest thing and convolute it to psychoanalytical levels without even knowing it...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000.

Yep, got it, now....there's no better time to do what you're doin than when it's just you and the cat and no credit card debt (careful Shawn, I read that post about the softbox).

I'm grateful you made the leap from this image to your personal take on parenting and sexual responsibility. It's that sort of response that I hope for in all my photographs, that something in the veiwer's life that is closely held will be brought to the surface by the stimuli of my photograph and that positive reinforcement of a moral position will be aided in someway by that connection. I am gratified. I could never have imagined that leap. This is the risk everyone assumes when they exhibit a photograph unexplained by any associated info. Thanks for saying and feeling what you do... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 08, 2000.

I love this image! Very telling of this young boys life I think.

However, if youre ready for the ramblings of a lunatic read on.

As to your portfolio, my thought would be to either not include this image until you have more along this vein, or organize the entire portfolio into a giant, flowing form that is NOT divided into "groups." I have fought this battle before, and ultimately sat on what I considered "great" images until I had enough to complete the statement. I feel that if you include every image that you think is good, but they are not thematically linked in some manner [and that can be a fairy broad/thin connection] you are watering down your vision/statement. When I find myself in the same situation, I set out to specifically add new personal work that is slanted towards my needs to complete a "genre specific book."

I now have three separate "people" books [fashion, twisted, and B/W] plus a general book that contains a few of each. But the general book does not have enough "oomph" to close the deal. It shows my range, and hopefully triggers other possibilities for assignments from the prospects.

Each portfolio contains 18~20 images, with my strongest 4~5 up front, and 2~3 "gems" at the end. The stuff in the middle is used to sell my depth, and grasp of the subject, as well as to illustrate specific problem solving situations. I have found that people [AD's, Art Buyers, etc.] will have you "pegged" on the 3rd or 4th shot, so make it compelling up front. Then seal the deal at the end with a couple of images that SCREAM, "I'm good, and know what I'm doing. Hire me!"

I have found that my commercial clients do not want to wade through non-specific images, and appreciate my understanding their needs/wants. So, when I go on a book review, I show my range through the general book, but show my ability with the mission specific book. I play it by ear as to which book I show first [specific or general]. This largely depends on what clues I can pick up along the way [what they have on the walls, magazines, etc. in their office, how busy they seem to be]. And if I get the impression that things are going South, I punch out A.S.A.P., and dont waste either of our times by showing the second book.

I spend a lot of time setting up my books, and edit ruthlessly. If I can not establish a thematic connection between images, then I get rid of the problem shot, and set out to produce more work along it's lines to beef up the statement. I set up my portfolios to flow like a good movie, you know youre watching a good movie when at the end all of your questions have been answered, but you still want more.

In short, if it's worth saying, its worth saying whole-heartedly!

BTW, I'm now fully in the House-of-blood, thanks!!

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), March 08, 2000.

Thanks, Robert. Those are the lines along which I am going. There is a stylistic and subject oriented thrust to each of the little books. I will read your advice again at the time of the final edit. This sort of real world experience is extremely valuable to hear, especially that about knowing when to fold'em and not drag on through the brutal tedium of selling the impossible dream. I have put a ton of time into this and expect it to become a constantly evolving pastime. It's one reason I bought this type of portfolio, 6 images is enough to make a statement and since they're small I can afford to make dozens for all the different markets that my multiple personality approach requires and then select for the impending target.

Congrats (I suppose... or my sympathies) on making the sveedish commitment, let me know if you run across any good deals that you don't take... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindsprinng.com), March 08, 2000.

Tom, I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you truly were happy, or if you were actually offended because of my personal jump. If I offended you, I am really sorry. I always have a hard time trying to figure what the artist means/meant with any medium, and I am so caught up in my own journey as a result (i mean i gave up on trying to figure out the 'objective' world because i am so bad at it, as my many lighting posts will attest to...!). I usually do my best to avoid 'saying' my personal interpretation because i usually suppose it is irrelavent, but this image affected me a lot and so i figured, for better or worse, i'd share the only way i know how. I hope, however, you took my comments in a good light as, on the surface, it appears...Thanks Tom. shawn

i guess working in an office all day is starting to show, all this sugar coating and sorry-to-offend stuff...which in an office is pathetic but with art i think is called for since it "is" personal in the first place...

anyways im babbling...

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000.

Truly happy...

In fact, you've got me rereading my post in proof reading mode to find the ambiguity that might lead you to think I was anything but truly happy. Too terse? not enough little smiley faces? :',)+#!->]!... how's that?

Really, I assumed the usual risk (of the unexplained image, exhibited) and was, this time, positively rewarded. Thanks for getting something, good out of it.

As for "what the artist meant/means", I had no interpretation other than the joy of a simple toy in the hands of a boy (heehee...it rhymes!). I recognized the potential for symbolism and was/am hopeful that good things might come of exhibiting this picture (in the mind of any viewer), but I have attached no specific interpretation to this image. It is a sufficiently open ended image that on different days, it makes me consider different things.... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), March 08, 2000.

Too terse? not enough little smiley faces?

neither, just a bad day spilling over into my free time :-) :-) :-)

shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000.