# **NSWF**  Is this photo too 'spring break-ish / girls gone wild' for pro use?



## Ilovemycam

Is this photo too 'spring break-ish / girls gone wild' for inclusion in a professional portfolio?

ArtSlant - 'Princess of Ross County...in the Style of Cartier-Bresson's Rue Mouffetard Paris 1954'



In my professional life I deal with 2 main types of audiences. Museum curators-directors and special collection rare book librarians. 

The libraries never complain about a thing and are grateful for anything I give them. On the whole they are a pleasure to deal with.

The curators and museums on the other hand are a closed, sometimes snooty and a very difficult and unpleasant area to deal with.

I happen to love my play on Cartier-Bressons Rue Mouffetard Paris 1954. But I wonder if this pix is a little too 'spring breakish - girls gone wild' for the curators / museums.

What do you think? 

Is it anything to be ashamed of for inclusion in my professional portfolio?

Bear in mind I am not a commercial / studio / set up photographer, I am a street and documentary photographer, so judge it in that light. (I also may work on the clouds / overall photo, this is a rough draft.) If you are not familiar with my work, the nudity is not out of line with my other photos. They are just in a different style than this photo. 

Thank for your feedback


----------



## 480sparky

Looks more _Sturgis _than _Spring Break_..... women are too old and lots of hairy old men in the background.


----------



## Ilovemycam

480sparky said:


> Looks more _Sturgis _than _Spring Break_..... women are too old and lots of hairy old men in the background.



Not Sturgis...but you got the idea.  I love the guy on the right in front of the RV.


----------



## amolitor

I have to say that I am a little baffled by your reference to Rue Mouffetard. The points of similarity are fairly superficial, and your photograph simply isn't very interesting. There is no story beyond the obvious, there is no sense of ambiguity, there is nothing left for the viewer to fill in from his or her own mind. It's a cheap snap of an attention whore, with some effects plopped onto it to make it look like it might be something.

I've told you this before, but I will repeat myself. Museum curators are not in the business of breaking new artists. That's not how it works. Museums collect and preserve what has been already deemed Important by the powers that be, which these days are largely operated by an informal collective of galleries and collectors. The museum curators are involved to some extent, they go to the same parties and so on, but the museum is simply not going to buy, or even take for free, or _even take when accompanied by a large bundle of cash_ work that's not already considered important and worth collecting and preserving.

Your work has not been deemed important and worth preserving by the powers that be, therefore your ability to place that work in museums is going to be very very limited.

As to why your work has not been deemed important and worth preserving, well, that's because in the first place you're not talking to the right people at all, and in the second place your work isn't very good. If it's anything, it's "vernacular photography" which has its own set of processes and so forth. Interestingly, it's often not made by the artists, it's collected and organized by the artist.


----------



## limr

amolitor said:


> I have to say that I am a little baffled by your reference to Rue Mouffetard.



I had the same thought.


----------



## Ilovemycam

amolitor said:


> I have to say that I am a little baffled by your reference to Rue Mouffetard. The points of similarity are fairly superficial, and your photograph simply isn't very interesting. There is no story beyond the obvious, there is no sense of ambiguity, there is nothing left for the viewer to fill in from his or her own mind. It's a cheap snap of an attention whore, with some effects plopped onto it to make it look like it might be something.
> 
> I've told you this before, but I will repeat myself. Museum curators are not in the business of breaking new artists. That's not how it works. Museums collect and preserve what has been already deemed Important by the powers that be, which these days are largely operated by an informal collective of galleries and collectors. The museum curators are involved to some extent, they go to the same parties and so on, but the museum is simply not going to buy, or even take for free, or _even take when accompanied by a large bundle of cash_ work that's not already considered important and worth collecting and preserving.
> 
> Your work has not been deemed important and worth preserving by the powers that be, therefore your ability to place that work in museums is going to be very very limited.
> 
> As to why your work has not been deemed important and worth preserving, well, that's because in the first place you're not talking to the right people at all, and in the second place your work isn't very good. If it's anything, it's "vernacular photography" which has its own set of processes and so forth. Interestingly, it's often not made by the artists, it's collected and organized by the artist.




Thanks for the rundown. As you know so much about museums, you must know that it is near impossible to talk to the 'right' people until you and I have already made our mistakes. That was what I am trying to determine with this photo...if it should be included or not. You are correct that the TPTB have not taken me under their wing. Irrespective of that fact, I have still managed to get into a number of permanent collections around the world. I continue to promote my work and will do so. 

But getting back to my photo, Do you think the curators would look at this photo as just 1 out of 20 and dismiss it if they did not like it? Or would 1 rotten apple spoil the barrel?


----------



## Ilovemycam

limr said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that I am a little baffled by your reference to Rue Mouffetard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had the same thought.
Click to expand...


Baffled by your reference to Rue Mouffetard? 

I'm baffled you are all baffled? Very clear if you compare the shots. Of course different subjects and times, but same theme. (Also look at Helen Levitt's girl carrying milk bottles.)

What do you think about the question I posed. In or out of the portfolio?

(BTW, your 365 project is impressive. I could never stick with such a regiment.)


----------



## tirediron

OP: As this image violates TPF guidelines for posting in the regular galleries, I have removed the link. If you like to become a supporting member (a mere $25/year cost) then you will have access to the NSFW gallery in which your image can be posted.

*EDIT: After some discussion with the rest of the moderating team, it appears that I was mis-remembering a discussion from some months ago. The OPs link has been replaced. Apologies to the OP and happy viewing everyone!*


----------



## Ilovemycam

tirediron said:


> OP: As this image violates TPF guidelines for posting in the regular galleries, I have removed the link. If you like to become a supporting member (a mere $25/year cost) then you will have access to the NSFW gallery in which your image can be posted.




OK, maybe the members that have seen the photo in question can add their comments to my OP question. Sorry for the problem.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Vernacular photography?

To be accused of being a vernacular photographer is a pretty low blow. Vernacular photography = snapshot photo. My photos are not snapshots. 

Even then, the Wiki says..._some curators have begun to exhibit vernacular photography. _


----------



## jwbryson1

tirediron said:


> OP:  As this image violates TPF guidelines for posting in the regular galleries, I have removed the link.  If you like to become a supporting member (a mere $25/year cost) then you will have access to the NSFW gallery in which your image can be posted.




Crap.  :smileys:


----------



## amolitor

Vernacular Photography isn't just snapshots. It's snapshots viewed in a particular, and somewhat interesting, way. It's snapshots as a window into society, or something like that. One picture is never "vernacular photography" a collection of them might be, if it's well curated.

Your pictures have the potential to be such things, but they'd need to be collected and organized as a portfolio. Individually, to the best of my ability to discern, your pictures say nothing and mean nothing. That's just one guy's opinion, but I do try to pay attention. As a grouping, they might conceivably comment on something, or document something, or say something, or be something. I cannot judge, since you only show us the same handful of pictures over and over, and I am not feeling any particularly strong meaning in them.

They strike me as the snapshots of a guy who likes tits, over-processed in a ham-fisted way to make them look "arty".

With more breadth to the collection, and some organizing principles, there might be some social commentary possible. I'm not seeing any clear ways down any of the other roads to acquiring meaning. You haven't got a shred of ambiguity or narrative beyond the obvious in any of these things. Nothing, almost literally, is left for the viewer to do with one of your individual pictures. That makes them boring. Apart from the tits.

ETA: Anyways, to answer your question directly: It's too spring-breakish, but not because of the tits. Art is all about tits. It's too spring-breakish because it's shallow and trivial.


----------



## Ilovemycam

amolitor said:


> Vernacular Photography isn't just snapshots. It's snapshots viewed in a particular, and somewhat interesting, way. It's snapshots as a window into society, or something like that. One picture is never "vernacular photography" a collection of them might be, if it's well curated.
> 
> Your pictures have the potential to be such things, but they'd need to be collected and organized as a portfolio. Individually, to the best of my ability to discern, your pictures say nothing and mean nothing. That's just one guy's opinion, but I do try to pay attention. As a grouping, they might conceivably comment on something, or document something, or say something, or be something. I cannot judge, since you only show us the same handful of pictures over and over, and I am not feeling any particularly strong meaning in them.
> 
> They strike me as the snapshots of a guy who likes tits, over-processed in a ham-fisted way to make them look "arty".
> 
> With more breadth to the collection, and some organizing principles, there might be some social commentary possible. I'm not seeing any clear ways down any of the other roads to acquiring meaning. You haven't got a shred of ambiguity or narrative beyond the obvious in any of these things. Nothing, almost literally, is left for the viewer to do with one of your individual pictures. That makes them boring. Apart from the tits.
> 
> ETA: Anyways, to answer your question directly: It's too spring-breakish, but not because of the tits. Art is all about tits. It's too spring-breakish because it's shallow and trivial.



OK, fair enough. I appreciate your comments. I can see your a deep thinker. So we may view photos very differently. I can see this from your comment_...there is no sense of ambiguity, there is nothing left for the viewer to fill in from his or her own mind.

_I don't do that much thinking about why I like a shot or not. It either hits me or not. It is overall a great shot or not. Sure we can look at all the components, subject, lighting, focus, effects, color, contrast, desat, nostalgia value. But once the photo has to be dissected it ruins it for me. It would be like having sex and at the same time having to run down and dissect all the physical components that make up the sexual pleasure. Only an over thinker would do that. 

Maybe that is why your not a street shooter and you favor still life. You think way too much to shoot on the fly. 

Going back to my pix that was deleted. There was a photog next to me trying to get the shot. Before he even got the cam up to his face she shut the door. She was just a tease. I got the photo, but he didn't. I put some pride in that, so that is why the photo has some extra value to me over the tit value.


----------



## limr

I'm baffled because I don't see the connection between a drunken girl showing her breasts and a little kid carrying bottles of wine. Is it because they're both 'naughty'? I just feel like if I have to work that hard at trying to find a connection, then it's perhaps not as strong an homage as you might have thought.

Regardless, I wouldn't include it for the museum folks. If you hadn't got the nipples, I might have thought differently. The viewers' imagination would be more engaged because they'd have to imagine what happens next. This surely would be obvious but everyone would get to think of it on their own in their own way. I feel this would have provided more of a commentary on the scene, letting us not only think of whatever image would come to our heads but maybe it would also lead us to wondering about what happened _before_ or what prompted this girl to start opening her shirt?  But leaving nothing to the imagination leaves me with just the thought that you got a picture of someone's breasts. 

It kind of reminds me of Coco Chanel's directive, "Less is more." I understand your pride in the shot because it represents your skill and timing in getting such a fleeting moment. I personally just wish you'd captured it half a second earlier. Not because I'm a prude and have anything against seeing breasts, but because I think it would have been a stronger image if it implied rather than showed all. Maybe then the HCB reference would be clearer (to me, anyway.)

(And thanks! I gave myself that 365 challenge to help me be consistent in other things in my life, to help stay disciplined. It's been a lot of fun.)


----------



## Tailgunner

Missed another picture...


----------



## Shipman

Didnt miss much, google fat chick flashing at trailer park. Im sure youll find it.


----------



## Ilovemycam

limr said:


> I'm baffled because I don't see the connection between a drunken girl showing her breasts and a little kid carrying bottles of wine. Is it because they're both 'naughty'? I just feel like if I have to work that hard at trying to find a connection, then it's perhaps not as strong an homage as you might have thought.
> 
> Regardless, I wouldn't include it for the museum folks. If you hadn't got the nipples, I might have thought differently. The viewers' imagination would be more engaged because they'd have to imagine what happens next. This surely would be obvious but everyone would get to think of it on their own in their own way. I feel this would have provided more of a commentary on the scene, letting us not only think of whatever image would come to our heads but maybe it would also lead us to wondering about what happened _before_ or what prompted this girl to start opening her shirt? But leaving nothing to the imagination leaves me with just the thought that you got a picture of someone's breasts.
> 
> It kind of reminds me of Coco Chanel's directive, "Less is more." I understand your pride in the shot because it represents your skill and timing in getting such a fleeting moment. I personally just wish you'd captured it half a second earlier. Not because I'm a prude and have anything against seeing breasts, but because I think it would have been a stronger image if it implied rather than showed all. Maybe then the HCB reference would be clearer (to me, anyway.)
> 
> (And thanks! I gave myself that 365 challenge to help me be consistent in other things in my life, to help stay disciplined. It's been a lot of fun.)




From what I could tell, the girl was not drunk. So there must be some 'inkling _of ambiguity, left for the viewer to fill in' _about my pix Amolitor.

OK, let me spell it out, I don't want you to fret over it too much...*cut off foot syndrome!

*


----------



## jwbryson1

:addpics::addpics::addpics:


----------



## Scatterbrained

Ilovemycam said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm baffled because I don't see the connection between a drunken girl showing her breasts and a little kid carrying bottles of wine. Is it because they're both 'naughty'? I just feel like if I have to work that hard at trying to find a connection, then it's perhaps not as strong an homage as you might have thought.
> 
> Regardless, I wouldn't include it for the museum folks. If you hadn't got the nipples, I might have thought differently. The viewers' imagination would be more engaged because they'd have to imagine what happens next. This surely would be obvious but everyone would get to think of it on their own in their own way. I feel this would have provided more of a commentary on the scene, letting us not only think of whatever image would come to our heads but maybe it would also lead us to wondering about what happened _before_ or what prompted this girl to start opening her shirt? But leaving nothing to the imagination leaves me with just the thought that you got a picture of someone's breasts.
> 
> It kind of reminds me of Coco Chanel's directive, "Less is more." I understand your pride in the shot because it represents your skill and timing in getting such a fleeting moment. I personally just wish you'd captured it half a second earlier. Not because I'm a prude and have anything against seeing breasts, but because I think it would have been a stronger image if it implied rather than showed all. Maybe then the HCB reference would be clearer (to me, anyway.)
> 
> (And thanks! I gave myself that 365 challenge to help me be consistent in other things in my life, to help stay disciplined. It's been a lot of fun.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I could tell, the girl was not drunk. So there must be some 'inkling _of ambiguity, left for the viewer to fill in' _about my pix Amolitor.
> 
> OK, let me spell it out, I don't want you to fret over it too much...*cut off foot syndrome!
> 
> *
Click to expand...

So, the cut off feat is supposed to be the connection?


----------



## Dominantly

I would not include that in a portfolio.


----------



## tirediron

Just so that everyone's clear, the link to the image is back!


----------



## Ilovemycam

Dominantly said:


> I would not include that in a portfolio.




OK, thanks.  I see many of you shoot in a different style and subject matter than I do. So judge the Princess on how it relates to the body of my work. Do you think it fits well within my work or not? Maybe that is a better to answer question. 

 When you are at Artslant you should see on the right side a spot to click to view my profile. It will show you a portfolio of some of my work and you can decide.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Scatterbrained said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm baffled because I don't see the connection between a drunken girl showing her breasts and a little kid carrying bottles of wine. Is it because they're both 'naughty'? I just feel like if I have to work that hard at trying to find a connection, then it's perhaps not as strong an homage as you might have thought.
> 
> Regardless, I wouldn't include it for the museum folks. If you hadn't got the nipples, I might have thought differently. The viewers' imagination would be more engaged because they'd have to imagine what happens next. This surely would be obvious but everyone would get to think of it on their own in their own way. I feel this would have provided more of a commentary on the scene, letting us not only think of whatever image would come to our heads but maybe it would also lead us to wondering about what happened _before_ or what prompted this girl to start opening her shirt? But leaving nothing to the imagination leaves me with just the thought that you got a picture of someone's breasts.
> 
> It kind of reminds me of Coco Chanel's directive, "Less is more." I understand your pride in the shot because it represents your skill and timing in getting such a fleeting moment. I personally just wish you'd captured it half a second earlier. Not because I'm a prude and have anything against seeing breasts, but because I think it would have been a stronger image if it implied rather than showed all. Maybe then the HCB reference would be clearer (to me, anyway.)
> 
> (And thanks! I gave myself that 365 challenge to help me be consistent in other things in my life, to help stay disciplined. It's been a lot of fun.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I could tell, the girl was not drunk. So there must be some 'inkling _of ambiguity, left for the viewer to fill in' _about my pix Amolitor.
> 
> OK, let me spell it out, I don't want you to fret over it too much...*cut off foot syndrome!
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the cut off feat is supposed to be the connection?
Click to expand...


Yes, that is it. But the pix was not selected and used just for the name. I picked the name out by chance. Originally it was just called 'Princess of Ross County.'

I always like HCB, so I added the connection to his cut off foot beauty he shot in '54.


----------



## Scatterbrained

The thing is, it's not the cut off feet that make that image significant, so telling us we should see the relationship between the images through the cut off feet is quite an ask.  The boy in the image has an exuberant expression and posture that exude happiness and self confidence,  a mood that is significant as the shot itself was done in France right after the war; it both captures a decisive moment while also portraying in it the mood of the country at the time.


----------



## Tee

HCB is rolling in his grave right now.


----------



## Derrel

I'm familiar with your other work, so it seems like this shot is sort of a continuation of that same kind of street ethos. It "fits" with a lot of your other stuff. The HDR-type processing or "look" differs from your earliest stuff, but then, the 1970's were an entirely different era, and life, and clothing, and people, and culture, were ALL very different back then. For example, the 4-wheeler the two gals are riding on; that vehicle itself denotes a general time period. In the 1970's or 1980's, you'd NEVER see that kind of 4-wheeler being used in that manner.

As to the HCB connection...I think that's a bit of a stretch, although I do understand what you were referencing. I went and looked at his shot today, and looked at yours, and I see the people looking toward the subject thing, and the cut-off feet, but again, I think the comparison and the "in the style of" references are both misguided.

I can see it as part of your portfolio...it seems like it fits in with the _alternative lifestyle_ kind of crowd that you've been exploring for so long.


----------



## weepete

I actually quite like it. Its a pretty well composed shot and the technical aspects of exposure etc seem good to me. On the thinkers side it illustrates a moment of where we are in society just now. It says a lot about our attitudes towards sex an in particular the "ladette" culture. It also tells a story about the exibisionism of our modern world and the fact that nowadays you can be photographed  doing anything anywhere and someone may post it somewhere online which may or may not have been in the subjects mind at the time. The discussion that's going on about it now alludes to the attitude of men towards women, particularly online and can rehash a load of old feminist arguments about objectification and how women in images are viewed.

There could be a lot more said about this image however it is a good illustration of what happens all over the world at parties all the time. Is that not more what this genre of photography is about? Showing us every day scenes which we ignore but show how we live and how social attitudes are.


----------



## amolitor

What makes HCB's shot work is precisely that we don't understand the boy's expression and manner. We are free to imagine a world of possibilities, we can write our own narrative to surround and support the picture.

This is not true of the picture shown here. The surrounding narrative is obvious, to the point of crystal clarity. We know pretty much exactly what is in everyone's minds in the shot. And this is, precisely, why it doesn't work. There's no there, there. Yes, it's a moment, captured. So what? I just had a moment, ooops, there went another, and another. Why do I care about *that* moment? What is interesting about *that* moment, as opposed to the one before it and after it? We've heard what makes it special, quite precisely -- the girl's tits are not visible in those other moments.

That's not enough to sell a picture to a museum, or to me.


----------



## The_Traveler

Cover up her boobs ans what is there that makes it interesting?


----------



## weepete

But the social commentry is, there have been tons of artists who have explored the attitude towards women in society and I'd argure that this could well sit along side them while also providing a bit of commentry on where we are nowadays. There are still questions about this photo that run along the vein that you are suggesting: Is it symtomatic of a society that places so much emphasis on appearance and conforming to the beauty clique that she needs to go further to feel attractive? Does the prevalence of this kind of party image change attitudes towards women given that we're so keen to dismiss this as some other lass with her tits out? There is a lot more that could be discussed about this image.

I'll give you that it's not in the same class as HB's work, however as a shot it still has merit. If Van Gough or others only painted the stuff that people wanted or museums wanted to show at the time we wouldn't have half the valued art we do now. I'd suggest that any work, if it can get us to examine what we as a society are doing now is more valuable than what has been done in the past.


----------



## bogeyguy

Holy nipples!


----------



## Scatterbrained

WeePete, I think the issue here is that you're putting more thought into this than I've seen from the OP so far.  Beyond that, curators and collectors usually want something _new_ that challenges convention.   All you have to do is Google search "4 wheeler" and "boobs" and you'll be bombarded with images of girls, 4 wheelers, and boobs.  Or you could just watch a "Girls Gone Wild" video.   My point being that the material is out there.  Is it done as well as the OP's shot?  I don't know, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time searching for boobs on the internet to find out, being married and all. . . . . . . . .  I think that the point is, the OP tried to draw a correlation between his work and that of Bresson that many feel just isn't there.   That doesn't mean that the image isn't good, but I just can't see a curator or collector buying it.


----------



## weepete

Scatterbrained - I agree mate, however that gets us into another debate about intension and whither a piece of art could be interpreted in a way that the artists doesn't mean. I'm also having a debate with along similar lines with one of my friends in "real life" which means I need to verbalize my opinions and solidify my reasoning. So this kind of thing helps me think these things out.

I just think that there may be more to this photo than first impressions and I think it has been dismissed a bit to easily after I saw it.


----------



## Scatterbrained

weepete said:


> Scatterbrained - I agree mate, however that gets us into another debate about intension and whither a piece of art could be interpreted in a way that the artists doesn't mean. I'm also having a debate with along similar lines with one of my friends in "real life" which means I need to verbalize my opinions and solidify my reasoning. So this kind of thing helps me think these things out.
> 
> I just think that there may be more to this photo than first impressions and I think it has been dismissed a bit to easily after I saw it.



Either way, as an artist, if you want your work to be taken seriously by the taste makers in the art world you have to do more than just take the pictures.  You have to ascribe a layer of metaphysical pretense to the work.  Even if they don't get it, they won't admit they don't get it; instead they'll buy it to look like they get it.


----------



## weepete

I'd add that if you Google boobs and 4 wheeler none on the first few pages also have the context that is in this shot. In fact I'd say that this image is not about boobs, or the quad. Its about how women are seen in our lives. And that's us that shape and define that, to suggest that there is not a story behind this pic is like saying that HB's pic is just another kid in the street. The real question is does it get people's back up because of the reference to HB (and you can't compare your photos with the recognised masters), or because its about a story we don't want to talk about.


----------



## weepete

Mate, sorry I wrote that last post before you wrote that last one. And you've got it. Its all about the sell! You can read just about anything in any artwork, how you present it and justify it is key


----------



## Ilovemycam

Scatterbrained said:


> The thing is, it's not the cut off feet that make that image significant, so telling us we should see the relationship between the images through the cut off feet is quite an ask. The boy in the image has an exuberant expression and posture that exude happiness and self confidence, a mood that is significant as the shot itself was done in France right after the war; it both captures a decisive moment while also portraying in it the mood of the country at the time.




The exact same could be said for my shot.

But the HCB shot came to my attention during a lecture. It was distinguished for cut off foot syndrome at the presentation. But my photo must rest on more than a name. It is just a sidenote I added for those that can appreciate it. 

I didn't mean it to be a puzzle at all. Maybe the lecture ruined my looking at it the name issue objectively. I will have to do a poll with some people I meet asking them if they get the name relationship. In any case, I wont change the name. It would just help clarify the name question for me.


----------



## Ilovemycam

amolitor said:


> What makes HCB's shot work is precisely that we don't understand the boy's expression and manner. We are free to imagine a world of possibilities, we can write our own narrative to surround and support the picture.
> 
> This is not true of the picture shown here. The surrounding narrative is obvious, to the point of crystal clarity. We know pretty much exactly what is in everyone's minds in the shot. And this is, precisely, why it doesn't work. There's no there, there. Yes, it's a moment, captured. So what? I just had a moment, ooops, there went another, and another. Why do I care about *that* moment? What is interesting about *that* moment, as opposed to the one before it and after it? We've heard what makes it special, quite precisely -- the girl's tits are not visible in those other moments.
> 
> That's not enough to sell a picture to a museum, or to me.



No you don't know everything about the photo. We can see that from the wrong comments about the photos that were stated in this thread. Your ego is in control and destroys your ability to look at anything in an objective light AM. 

I am not trying to sell you anything. If a person does not like my photo, no problem. But I asked a question if this photo fits my portfolio.


----------



## Ilovemycam

The_Traveler said:


> Cover up her boobs ans what is there that makes it interesting?



What is wrong with the boobs out?


----------



## Ilovemycam

weepete said:


> But the social commentry is, there have been tons of artists who have explored the attitude towards women in society and I'd argure that this could well sit along side them while also providing a bit of commentry on where we are nowadays. There are still questions about this photo that run along the vein that you are suggesting: Is it symtomatic of a society that places so much emphasis on appearance and conforming to the beauty clique that she needs to go further to feel attractive? Does the prevalence of this kind of party image change attitudes towards women given that we're so keen to dismiss this as some other lass with her tits out? There is a lot more that could be discussed about this image.
> 
> I'll give you that it's not in the same class as HB's work, however as a shot it still has merit. If Van Gough or others only painted the stuff that people wanted or museums wanted to show at the time we wouldn't have half the valued art we do now. I'd suggest that any work, if it can get us to examine what we as a society are doing now is more valuable than what has been done in the past.



My early 1970's work may have some historical value. When you add time value to a photo a nothing photo can become a good one sometimes. Back in the early 70's few people in my photo had tats or piercings. That is what stood out to me when I look at them.


----------



## Ilovemycam

bogeyguy said:


> Holy nipples!



Yea, that gal has some beautiful nipples. But I have to keep this on a professional level. It is just a 'bonus' to the shot.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Scatterbrained said:


> WeePete, I think the issue here is that you're putting more thought into this than I've seen from the OP so far. Beyond that, curators and collectors usually want something _new_ that challenges convention. All you have to do is Google search "4 wheeler" and "boobs" and you'll be bombarded with images of girls, 4 wheelers, and boobs. Or you could just watch a "Girls Gone Wild" video. My point being that the material is out there. Is it done as well as the OP's shot? I don't know, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time searching for boobs on the internet to find out, being married and all. . . . . . . . . I think that the point is, the OP tried to draw a correlation between his work and that of Bresson that many feel just isn't there. That doesn't mean that the image isn't good, but I just can't see a curator or collector buying it.




As I said, the nipples are a bonus. But they help make the photo as well. If the gal was just smiling with her top on I would not have brought up this thread. But nudity alone is not why I opened up the discussion. I was just wondering about the overall look of the photo and how it fit my body of work. 

And if I was just about nipples, my portfolio would reflect that point. We can look at the photogs body of work to get an insight into their mind and 'way of looking' at the world. Kinda like the art therapy they use with kids to get them to draw or paint their issues. 

I am not trying to sell this or any of my work - I am just try to place it Selling photos to a museum is very hard. (Impossible for me) Just placing them as a gift is hard enough. I don't actively work to sell to collectors, I only work with museums and rare book libraries. 

Collectors want a big name photog. I don't have a big name. I only started to promote my work 7 months ago. If I started to promote 43 years ago I may have more of a name. Prior to 7 months ago I never cared to promote myself. I loved freezing time and not promotion. Promotion ruins photography for me, it is very time consuming. 

But it sunk in as I am getting older I needed to archive some of my work. My family wont do it for me, they will do the opposite with it when I die. I hope to be done with promotion by year end. At least with the majority of the 'hard' promotion job. It takes a lot of time to settle placements with museums. Many people and egos involved.


----------



## weepete

That may be an interesting idea for a series mate. You could mibbies try putting similar shots of similar people together, a sort of then and now comparison.


----------



## Ilovemycam

weepete said:


> I'd add that if you Google boobs and 4 wheeler none on the first few pages also have the context that is in this shot. In fact I'd say that this image is not about boobs, or the quad. Its about how women are seen in our lives. And that's us that shape and define that, to suggest that there is not a story behind this pic is like saying that HB's pic is just another kid in the street. The real question is does it get people's back up because of the reference to HB (and you can't compare your photos with the recognised masters), or because its about a story we don't want to talk about.



Sure, anyone can compare anything to anything. Don't limit yourself. 

In my case, I am only saying it is _'in the style of'_ HCB. It is also a homage to HCB and every street shooter that cuts off part of the picture. With street shooting, even if you only get 75% to 85% of the shot you can sometimes still be a success. If HCB saw the photo he may hate it. Maybe he hates nudes? Maybe something else. Does not matter, we can't run out lives on what others like. I don't place any limits on a photo. Either it is good or not. The only photos I hate are boring ones.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Scatterbrained said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scatterbrained - I agree mate, however that gets us into another debate about intension and whither a piece of art could be interpreted in a way that the artists doesn't mean. I'm also having a debate with along similar lines with one of my friends in "real life" which means I need to verbalize my opinions and solidify my reasoning. So this kind of thing helps me think these things out.
> 
> I just think that there may be more to this photo than first impressions and I think it has been dismissed a bit to easily after I saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, as an artist, if you want your work to be taken seriously by the taste makers in the art world you have to do more than just take the pictures. You have to ascribe a layer of metaphysical pretense to the work. Even if they don't get it, they won't admit they don't get it; instead they'll buy it to look like they get it.
Click to expand...



I am very simple. I am not about metaphysical pretense. It is not me. Maybe I would get into it if it was a natural part of my makeup...but it is not. I always have to laugh at all the high-brows that read things into art, almost working overtime to create fantasies out of it. Maybe that is the fascination with art? Maybe it is part of the overthinkers syndrome? I don't know.

I am working with the UK right now. About 195 museums to review to contact. When I look at the list I can see the vast majority are little town museums that I wont bother with. Seems everyone needs to have an 'art escape' of one sort or another. Art must serve some sort of important purpose with us humans.


----------



## Ilovemycam

weepete said:


> Scatterbrained - I agree mate, however that gets us into another debate about intension and whither a piece of art could be interpreted in a way that the artists doesn't mean. I'm also having a debate with along similar lines with one of my friends in "real life" which means I need to verbalize my opinions and solidify my reasoning. So this kind of thing helps me think these things out.
> 
> I just think that there may be more to this photo than first impressions and I think it has been dismissed a bit to easily after I saw it.



I've never been one to try and sell myself on a photo. For me if I have to work overtime to like a photo it is not for me. I prefer love at first sight. My photo was done in 2 or 3 blinks of the eye. So not much time trying to inject anything special I wanted to say into it. It is just a moment in time, in Ohio, frozen.


----------



## manaheim

So here's what I see...

I see a picture that sort of flips off society in a few ways.  Heavy woman, breasts exposed, motorcycles, lots of (presumably) bikers in the background, stormy skies, RVs, etc. There's no subtlety to any of that, however. You don't HAVE to be subtle in your images, but in my experience the subtle ones are those that keep the viewer looking and thinking.  As Amolitor said... this is pretty much all out there. Yup, we got it. Not a lot to ponder.

I see a picture that has some more extreme processing. In my experience extreme processing is used most often when the image doesn't have enough to stand on and needs something else to give it an edge.  This picture falls into that category, IMO, so the extreme processing just seems to fit the profile.

I see a picture with a title that credits someone else's style "_'Princess of Ross County...in the Style of Cartier-Bresson's Rue Mouffetard Paris 1954'_".  So right in the title you're saying that you're trying to copy someone else.  I suppose it's fine to copy what someone else has done but it always strikes me as very thin artistically, and a lot of times people don't have nearly the success of implementation.

Finally, I see someone arguing with people's opinion on their work.  You asked for an opinion.  You got some.  I don't think many were complimentary.  If you're inclined to disagree with people, then I've found generally that good artists keep their disagreements to themselves.  Artists on weak footings are the ones that argue.


----------



## manaheim

BTW, I looked through some of your other stuff. 

My overall reaction was "sideshow".  Not saying that's bad, necessarily.  Some of them are pretty interesting. I don't think this one is among your better ones. Not even close.


----------



## Ilovemycam

weepete said:


> I'd add that if you Google boobs and 4 wheeler none on the first few pages also have the context that is in this shot. In fact I'd say that this image is not about boobs, or the quad. Its about how women are seen in our lives. And that's us that shape and define that, to suggest that there is not a story behind this pic is like saying that HB's pic is just another kid in the street. The real question is does it get people's back up because of the reference to HB (and you can't compare your photos with the recognised masters), or because its about a story we don't want to talk about.



What I also like about the photo is the surpirse that the mom (I guess) is showing. The girl had to be coaxed to display her treasures. She was not an attention whore. The attention whores were topless (or nude.) The ATV meant nothing to me, just there.


----------



## Ilovemycam

manaheim said:


> BTW, I looked through some of your other stuff.
> 
> My overall reaction was "sideshow". Not saying that's bad, necessarily. Some of them are pretty interesting. I don't think this one is among your better ones. Not even close.



Ok, thanks for the feedback. I wish more would reply like this.


----------



## manaheim

Ilovemycam said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I looked through some of your other stuff.
> 
> My overall reaction was "sideshow". Not saying that's bad, necessarily. Some of them are pretty interesting. I don't think this one is among your better ones. Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks for the feedback. I wish more would reply like this.
Click to expand...


Did you see my other reply?


----------



## amolitor

There's a hint of Arbus here, if anything.


----------



## Ilovemycam

manaheim said:


> So here's what I see...
> 
> I see a picture that sort of flips off society in a few ways. Heavy woman, breasts exposed, motorcycles, lots of (presumably) bikers in the background, stormy skies, RVs, etc. There's no subtlety to any of that, however. You don't HAVE to be subtle in your images, but in my experience the subtle ones are those that keep the viewer looking and thinking. As Amolitor said... this is pretty much all out there. Yup, we got it. Not a lot to ponder.
> 
> I see a picture that has some more extreme processing. In my experience extreme processing is used most often when the image doesn't have enough to stand on and needs something else to give it an edge. This picture falls into that category, IMO, so the extreme processing just seems to fit the profile.
> 
> I see a picture with a title that credits someone else's style "_'Princess of Ross County...in the Style of Cartier-Bresson's Rue Mouffetard Paris 1954'_". So right in the title you're saying that you're trying to copy someone else. I suppose it's fine to copy what someone else has done but it always strikes me as very thin artistically, and a lot of times people don't have nearly the success of implementation.
> 
> Finally, I see someone arguing with people's opinion on their work. You asked for an opinion. You got some. I don't think many were complimentary. If you're inclined to disagree with people, then I've found generally that good artists keep their disagreements to themselves. Artists on weak footings are the ones that argue.



Thanks for the detailed rundown. I really appreciate it.

I didn't shoot it to copy anyone. That was just how it came out. I would have preferred to get her feet in. But maybe it works better with the feet cut. I don't know until seeing it. So the HCB homage was just an afterthought and not preplanned. Just a nod to the old master...just 2012 style...and in my style. 

But copying / borrowing from other artists has a long, long tradition. from the old days up to POP art and even 2013. So I am not concerned with that area even if I was copying. Many of the greats copied their admired predecessors work. 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ptua5BEAt...-homage-to-munkacsi-guys-jumping-umbrella.jpg

http://partnouveau.com/wp-content/u...he-puddle-jumper-1934-lady-with-umbrella.jpeg

We all copy one another to some extent, but we hope to inject our own style to the picture. Look at all the 'star trails' and 'fog and mist' shots the heavy ND filter devotees put their pride in. Very few remarkable or iconic shots come out of it. But they still do it. They got to shoot something...so why not that.

As far as arguing? If you read my replies, I wont sell anyone on my work. If they don't like it fine. You know the saying about trying to please everyone and all the time...impossible. The name question was a big eye opener to me. I thought it would be obvious, but it was not. If someone has the wrong idea I will give them some more info to help them decide.


----------



## The_Traveler

What startles me, OP, is that you believe that museums would want your work.
Some libraries take virtually anything that it doesn't cost them too much to acquisition - but museums?


----------



## Ilovemycam

The_Traveler said:


> What startles me, OP, is that you believe that museums would want your work.
> Some libraries take virtually anything that it doesn't cost them too much to acquisition - but museums?



If the photographer themselves does not believe their work is good, they need to be doing something different. You are welcome to your opinion, we just differ on the subject. You can't argue taste. 

My work is as good as any work the museums contain. I'm an not claiming my work is best, just that some of it is museum worthy. If you don't believe that to be the case...fine. As I said, it is not my job to sell you a thing. And the the photo in question is not representative of all my work. It is just one out of many. 

As far as libraries, not so. The rare book library special collections are not that easy to get into. I've had a 80% to 85% failure rate with them. But it is much easier getting into a rare book library than a big museum.


----------



## runnah

I don't see anything special about this image to be honest. I think it would tarnish a portfolio.


----------



## The_Traveler

Ilovemycam said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What startles me, OP, is that you believe that museums would want your work.
> Some libraries take virtually anything that it doesn't cost them too much to acquisition - but museums?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My work is as good as any work the museums contain*.
> I'm an not claiming my work is best, just that some of it is museum worthy.
> 
> As far as libraries, not so. The rare book library special collections are not that easy to get into. I've had a 80% to 85% failure rate with them. But it is much easier getting into a rare book library than a big museum.
Click to expand...



It is the bolded statement above that gives me pause. 

Beyond a book being 'rare', a rare book library wants to know that it is taking up its time, space and treatment with a book that is also worth preserving. 

And actually, we can argue taste, Latin proverb notwithstanding.


----------



## manaheim

Ilovemycam said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's what I see...
> 
> I see a picture that sort of flips off society in a few ways. Heavy woman, breasts exposed, motorcycles, lots of (presumably) bikers in the background, stormy skies, RVs, etc. There's no subtlety to any of that, however. You don't HAVE to be subtle in your images, but in my experience the subtle ones are those that keep the viewer looking and thinking. As Amolitor said... this is pretty much all out there. Yup, we got it. Not a lot to ponder.
> 
> I see a picture that has some more extreme processing. In my experience extreme processing is used most often when the image doesn't have enough to stand on and needs something else to give it an edge. This picture falls into that category, IMO, so the extreme processing just seems to fit the profile.
> 
> I see a picture with a title that credits someone else's style "_'Princess of Ross County...in the Style of Cartier-Bresson's Rue Mouffetard Paris 1954'_". So right in the title you're saying that you're trying to copy someone else. I suppose it's fine to copy what someone else has done but it always strikes me as very thin artistically, and a lot of times people don't have nearly the success of implementation.
> 
> Finally, I see someone arguing with people's opinion on their work. You asked for an opinion. You got some. I don't think many were complimentary. If you're inclined to disagree with people, then I've found generally that good artists keep their disagreements to themselves. Artists on weak footings are the ones that argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the detailed rundown. I really appreciate it.
> 
> I didn't shoot it to copy anyone. That was just how it came out. I would have preferred to get her feet in. But maybe it works better with the feet cut. I don't know until seeing it. So the HCB homage was just an afterthought and not preplanned. Just a nod to the old master...just 2012 style...and in my style.
> 
> But copying / borrowing from other artists has a long, long tradition. from the old days up to POP art and even 2013. So I am not concerned with that area even if I was copying. Many of the greats copied their admired predecessors work.
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ptua5BEAt...-homage-to-munkacsi-guys-jumping-umbrella.jpg
> 
> http://partnouveau.com/wp-content/u...he-puddle-jumper-1934-lady-with-umbrella.jpeg
> 
> We all copy one another to some extent, but we hope to inject our own style to the picture. Look at all the 'star trails' and 'fog and mist' shots the heavy ND filter devotees put their pride in. Very few remarkable or iconic shots come out of it. But they still do it. They got to shoot something...so why not that.
> 
> As far as arguing? If you read my replies, I wont sell anyone on my work. If they don't like it fine. You know the saying about trying to please everyone and all the time...impossible. The name question was a big eye opener to me. I thought it would be obvious, but it was not. If someone has the wrong idea I will give them some more info to help them decide.
Click to expand...


I don't copy anyone to any extent, at least not consciously.  I couldn't name more than maybe one or two other photographers, let alone tell you what their work is like.  It would be naïve to suggest I wasn't influenced by other people's work as just seeing something can have an influence, but my work is as much my own as it can be.

Anyway... I'll get off this ride now because it's going around in circles.  Good luck to you.


----------



## kathyt

Ummmm, photo no good. Photo go to trash bin.


----------



## runnah

kathythorson said:


> Ummmm, photo no good. Photo go to trash bin. Girls go to gym.



Hey nothing wrong with a little extra meat on the bone. 

That being said I worry about her self esteem to be flashing the twins for the approval of strange bikers. Me thinks she probably doesn't have a good relationship with her father.


----------



## SCraig

kathythorson said:


> Ummmm, photo no good. Photo go to trash bin. Girls go to gym.



That was kind of my thinking as well ......


----------



## The_Traveler

I think that disrespecting the subjects is off the track here.

My feeling about this picture and the others I've looked at by the OP is that he has one way of looking at things, everything is perspective distorted and heavily over=processed and many of the pictures involve boobs.  They seem like attempts to be meaningful by making a 'comment' but, again imo, the comment isn't anything either new or insightful and this picture ends up being just technique-y and repetitive.


----------



## limr

Y'know what? The condition of the woman's body has nothing to do with her effectiveness in the picture. My comments wouldn't have changed one bit had the woman been 'in shape'. Isn't it bad enough that most people in this thread insisted on using the words 'tits' or 'boobs' instead of 'breasts'? Did we really have to start judging her for not looking the way Hollywood tells us we're supposed to look like? Weren't we here to judge the _photo_&#8203; and its place in a body of work, not pass judgement on her looks? Who cares if she was overweight? Get over it.

(In response to the previous two posts, not Lew's.)


----------



## Ilovemycam

The_Traveler said:


> I think that disrespecting the subjects is off the track here.
> 
> My feeling about this picture and the others I've looked at by the OP is that he has one way of looking at things, everything is perspective distorted and heavily over=processed and many of the pictures involve boobs. They seem like attempts to be meaningful by making a 'comment' but, again imo, the comment isn't anything either new or insightful and this picture ends up being just technique-y and repetitive.



Sure Traveler we all have our pet likes. But you can't say my portfolio is all about boobs. Nor can you say it is all about transvestites, tramps and Nazi's. They are all just part of the portfolio picture. I shot what I was around at that time. 

I have classic BW, I had classic color (all my color work from the 80's and 90's was lost in a flood in 2001.) And i have hyper real color HDR. So I can cover many areas with my skills. 

As far as over processed? This is a matter of opinion. For me they are perfected, for you over processed. So be it.


----------



## Ilovemycam

limr said:


> Y'know what? The condition of the woman's body has nothing to do with her effectiveness in the picture. My comments wouldn't have changed one bit had the woman been 'in shape'. Isn't it bad enough that most people in this thread insisted on using the words 'tits' or 'boobs' instead of 'breasts'? Did we really have to start judging her for not looking the way Hollywood tells us we're supposed to look like? Weren't we here to judge the _photo_&#8203; and its place in a body of work, not pass judgement on her looks? Who cares if she was overweight? Get over it.
> 
> (In response to the previous two posts, not Lew's.)




That is how it goes with public forums. Just got to sift through the replies to try and find some useful info. You should see what type of replies one would get with poorly moderated forums.


----------



## Derrel

I thought the comment about the woman needing to "go to the gym" was disgusting. Apparently, only super-slim, trim, taut, toned women are allowed to be considered attractive or sexy?

Anyway, I'm surprised there has been NO comment yet about the beads the young woman is wearing....the Mardi Gras style plastic beads that are traded for boob-flashes...isn't that an obvious aspect of the photo? I submit that the trading of "boob flashes" for a cheap strand of plastic beads, is worthy of a photo or two.

A few years back, I saw a documentary film, focusing on the Mardi Gras boobs-for-bead-strings phenomenon--and it was from the point of view of the low-paid Asian factory workers who made those bead strings. They had NO IDEA of what the products were used for in America. I'm not sure how long this beads-for-flashes thing has been going on...decades? Since the 1960's? I dunno...


----------



## Ilovemycam

manaheim said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's what I see...
> 
> I see a picture that sort of flips off society in a few ways. Heavy woman, breasts exposed, motorcycles, lots of (presumably) bikers in the background, stormy skies, RVs, etc. There's no subtlety to any of that, however. You don't HAVE to be subtle in your images, but in my experience the subtle ones are those that keep the viewer looking and thinking. As Amolitor said... this is pretty much all out there. Yup, we got it. Not a lot to ponder.
> 
> I see a picture that has some more extreme processing. In my experience extreme processing is used most often when the image doesn't have enough to stand on and needs something else to give it an edge. This picture falls into that category, IMO, so the extreme processing just seems to fit the profile.
> 
> I see a picture with a title that credits someone else's style "_'Princess of Ross County...in the Style of Cartier-Bresson's Rue Mouffetard Paris 1954'_". So right in the title you're saying that you're trying to copy someone else. I suppose it's fine to copy what someone else has done but it always strikes me as very thin artistically, and a lot of times people don't have nearly the success of implementation.
> 
> Finally, I see someone arguing with people's opinion on their work. You asked for an opinion. You got some. I don't think many were complimentary. If you're inclined to disagree with people, then I've found generally that good artists keep their disagreements to themselves. Artists on weak footings are the ones that argue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the detailed rundown. I really appreciate it.
> 
> I didn't shoot it to copy anyone. That was just how it came out. I would have preferred to get her feet in. But maybe it works better with the feet cut. I don't know until seeing it. So the HCB homage was just an afterthought and not preplanned. Just a nod to the old master...just 2012 style...and in my style.
> 
> But copying / borrowing from other artists has a long, long tradition. from the old days up to POP art and even 2013. So I am not concerned with that area even if I was copying. Many of the greats copied their admired predecessors work.
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ptua5BEAt...-homage-to-munkacsi-guys-jumping-umbrella.jpg
> 
> http://partnouveau.com/wp-content/u...he-puddle-jumper-1934-lady-with-umbrella.jpeg
> 
> We all copy one another to some extent, but we hope to inject our own style to the picture. Look at all the 'star trails' and 'fog and mist' shots the heavy ND filter devotees put their pride in. Very few remarkable or iconic shots come out of it. But they still do it. They got to shoot something...so why not that.
> 
> As far as arguing? If you read my replies, I wont sell anyone on my work. If they don't like it fine. You know the saying about trying to please everyone and all the time...impossible. The name question was a big eye opener to me. I thought it would be obvious, but it was not. If someone has the wrong idea I will give them some more info to help them decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't copy anyone to any extent, at least not consciously. I couldn't name more than maybe one or two other photographers, let alone tell you what their work is like. It would be naïve to suggest I wasn't influenced by other people's work as just seeing something can have an influence, but my work is as much my own as it can be.
> 
> Anyway... I'll get off this ride now because it's going around in circles. Good luck to you.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the well wishes!

You exposed to styles on the forum. We see style everyplace we look nowadays. As I said with this photo, the connection to HCB's wine boy was an after thought and not planned with my taking of the photo. 

I have another photo called 'Homage to Diane Arbus' Same thing, an afterthought, not planned. A homage shot to Daido Moriyama was planned. I was reworking an old neg from 42 years ago and thought I'd give it a go after seeing one of his works. I luv it! But I think the Moriyama homage is it for planned shots in my portfolio.


----------



## Ilovemycam

manaheim said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I looked through some of your other stuff.
> 
> My overall reaction was "sideshow". Not saying that's bad, necessarily. Some of them are pretty interesting. I don't think this one is among your better ones. Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks for the feedback. I wish more would reply like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see my other reply?
Click to expand...



Yes I read it. I didn't really know what you meant as slideshow.  If that was bad or not. Just how Artslant is.


----------



## Ilovemycam

kathythorson said:


> Ummmm, photo no good. Photo go to trash bin. Girls go to gym.



Ni, don't want to be too hasty. I've trashed things before and regretted it. I will let it age a little.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

In my city, I don't think i'd see a picture like that in any Professional Photographer's Portfolio (assuming they're actually making money)..It's a lousy photograph that has no merit to it aside from a girl flashing her tits....which is obviously why you shot it. You'd never see anything like this in any seriously curated show (fisheye flash-grabs at events?), and the only limited edition books you'd see this in would be the few you'd be able to produce on your own.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

And its cringe-inducing that you'd put it in the same light as HCB's work.


----------



## Ilovemycam

The_Traveler said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What startles me, OP, is that you believe that museums would want your work.
> Some libraries take virtually anything that it doesn't cost them too much to acquisition - but museums?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My work is as good as any work the museums contain*.
> I'm an not claiming my work is best, just that some of it is museum worthy.
> 
> As far as libraries, not so. The rare book library special collections are not that easy to get into. I've had a 80% to 85% failure rate with them. But it is much easier getting into a rare book library than a big museum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the bolded statement above that gives me pause.
> 
> Beyond a book being 'rare', a rare book library wants to know that it is taking up its time, space and treatment with a book that is also worth preserving.
> 
> And actually, we can argue taste, Latin proverb notwithstanding.
Click to expand...



I don't understand your reply. Maybe you can rephrase it.

_My work is as good as any work the museums contain._ = I have some work that is museum worthy. That is all I'm saying.

Rare book library was not my choice of words. That is what they call themselves sometimes. Special collections, archives, whatever. It is a special reference dept.  Placing my work in rare book libraries is just part of my work with preservation. Museums is the other main direction. Later on I will work in some other areas of preservation.

My book is a limited edition, hand printed, hand bound book that would sell for $4800 for the reference library edition. I just donate it to the library that may want in in their special collections dept. I only donate it to very large institutions since it is a pain to print and is limited in production.

A while back you were offered a gallery showing of your work Traveler. You balked at doing the show saying you did not want to spend money for frame displays. Did you ever take up the galleries offer for showing your work? A lot of members here would be thrilled for the chance to show their work.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Sw1tchFX said:


> In my city, I don't think i'd see a picture like that in any Professional Photographer's Portfolio (assuming they're actually making money)..It's a lousy photograph that has no merit to it aside from a girl flashing her tits....which is obviously why you shot it. You'd never see anything like this in any seriously curated show (fisheye flash-grabs at events?), and the only limited edition books you'd see this in would be the few you'd be able to produce on your own.




OK, thanks for your feedback.

Edit: When I asked about a pro portfolio, I am referring to a more of a 'fine arts' type of book that is shown to institutions for art placement.  I do not do photography for $. I just do it for the love of it.  I don't consider myself a fine arts photographer either, but that is where I am grouped.


----------



## Ilovemycam

runnah said:


> I don't see anything special about this image to be honest. I think it would tarnish a portfolio.



Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Ilovemycam

amolitor said:


> There's a hint of Arbus here, if anything.



I have always liked Arbus' work. A lot of the areas Arbus shot were shootoffs from her teacher Lisette Model. Model, liked the unusual, Arbus built on her teachers work.


----------



## kathyt

Derrel said:


> I thought the comment about the woman needing to "go to the gym" was disgusting. Apparently, only super-slim, trim, taut, toned women are allowed to be considered attractive or sexy?
> 
> Anyway, I'm surprised there has been NO comment yet about the beads the young woman is wearing....the Mardi Gras style plastic beads that are traded for boob-flashes...isn't that an obvious aspect of the photo? I submit that the trading of "boob flashes" for a cheap strand of plastic beads, is worthy of a photo or two.
> 
> A few years back, I saw a documentary film, focusing on the Mardi Gras boobs-for-bead-strings phenomenon--and it was from the point of view of the low-paid Asian factory workers who made those bead strings. They had NO IDEA of what the products were used for in America. I'm not sure how long this beads-for-flashes thing has been going on...decades? Since the 1960's? I dunno...


I think taking care of yourself and maintaining a healthy lifestyle is sexy if you really want to go there.


----------



## limr

kathythorson said:


> I think taking care of yourself and maintaining a healthy lifestyle is sexy if you really want to go there.



No, you went there with your "girls go to gym" comment. And it's not only possible but incredibly common to take care of yourself and maintain a healthy lifestyle without looking like a Barbie doll.


----------



## manaheim

This is teetering dangerously, folks...


----------



## limr

> This is teetering dangerously, folks...




You're right. I apologize and will heretofore keep my trap shut.


----------



## manaheim

No reason to be quiet, let's just all play nice.  Foam bats for everyone.  No, wait... that won't work.  CRAP.


----------



## Scatterbrained

manaheim said:


> No reason to be quiet, let's just all play nice.  Foam bats for everyone.  No, wait... that won't work.  CRAP.


dsafkjldfs dsaodafsioerw adsfoidvsiuoaerw nsdfoisdf adsioadfsgojiawern /puts down foam bat/  yeah, I don't think that will work.


----------



## amolitor

While I won't say my usage of "tits" over "breasts" was consciously thought out, I stand by it. The connotations of the crasser term are, I think, a better fit to the context.

That said, I realize (now) that the usage is potentially offensive. I apologize for giving offense, where any was taken.


----------



## kathyt

limr said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think taking care of yourself and maintaining a healthy lifestyle is sexy if you really want to go there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you went there with your "girls go to gym" comment. And it's not only possible but incredibly common to take care of yourself and maintain a healthy lifestyle without looking like a Barbie doll.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about a Barbie doll or anything of the sort ja?


----------



## runnah

amolitor said:


> While I won't say my usage of "tits" over "breasts" was consciously thought out, I stand by it. The connotations of the crasser term are, I think, a better fit to the context.
> 
> That said, I realize (now) that the usage is potentially offensive. I apologize for giving offense, where any was taken.



Tits are something you flash, breasts are something that feed babies. 

I think your usage was correct.


----------



## mishele

:heart:


----------

