Image short list for gallery submission - help pick which ones

1

2 (15.4%)

2

1 (7.7%)

3

0 (0%)

4

0 (0%)

5

2 (15.4%)

6

1 (7.7%)

7

1 (7.7%)

8

3 (23.1%)

9

0 (0%)

10

0 (0%)

11

1 (7.7%)

12

0 (0%)

13

0 (0%)

14

2 (15.4%)

15

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 2

Voting closed: April 21, 2012, 01:15:30 pm

[feppe]

I recently visited Las Vegas, and did the rounds of the fine art landscape photography galleries. I talked about photography technique and photography in general with one of the Art Consultants who, perhaps not surprisingly, turned out to be "in" in the US fine art circles. He's been involved in an exhibition of a big name in 20th century fine art photographer, among others.

We shared contact info, and later when I walked by the same gallery he stopped me, said he googled me, and liked my pinup work. I was flattered to say the least. He requested me to send some photos to be included on a website he has set up for collectors. It's hopefully the first step in opening up a whole new retirement career for me (I'm 37...)!

I'm starting a project on modern pinup photography, so the below images are not representative of that - but give an idea of the direction and visual style I'm going towards.

Although I've done my research and read the books, I'm new to all this, and would really appreciate if you could help me decide which image(s) to consider for a submission to a fine art gallery, via the poll or in the comments. Max five picks out of fifteen, poll results aren't visible until it ends in two days.

Thank you!

[RSL]

None of the above.

[popnfresh]

Seeing as this is for a project involving pinups it's of course a lot racier stuff than we're used to seeing around here. But taken for what they are, I like numbers 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 best. #11 is a nice portrait and my favorite overall just as a photograph. But it's not a pinup, really. In the pinup category, I'd go with #12 for being the most tasteful.

[alban]

None of the above.

Ditto

[louoates]

I chose 5,6 and 8 because those were the only pin-up styles to me. The clad ones were too stock-photo-ish and the unclad ones were too risque for that market IMHO. No. 8 is the direction I'm thinking you are going with the gallery. I like that one a lot.

[WalterEG]

Another vote for none I'm afraid.

W

[Rob C]

Sorry, feppe, not my bag at all.

But if a gallery is interested, why listen to anyone else?

Rob C

[feppe]

I don't come here anymore since this has turned into a gear and pixel peeper forum - or maybe it always was? But "none at all" is not helpful at all. It does motivate me, though.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... "none at all" is not helpful at all. It does motivate me, though.

How?

[Rob C]

I don't come here anymore since this has turned into a gear and pixel peeper forum - or maybe it always was? But "none at all" is not helpful at all. It does motivate me, though.

Feppe, what can anyone say that makes any real difference?

If you've got somebody interested, then go for it; that's all you need to know. As I wrote above, why listen to anyone else? That's always been my position on 'critique' and over the years I've seen no reason to think otherwise. Photography is so subjective; that's what makes it tick, provides the nuances that differentiate one shooter from the next.

Don't think I agree with your definition of LuLa either; sounds more like pique than considered judgement, but I'm probably mistaken.

;-)

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I recently visited Las Vegas...

What happens in Vegas, should stay in Vegas

[feppe]

How?

People have always told me "you can't do that" or "that's too hard" or something along those lines. Nothing beats proving them wrong.

[feppe]

If you've got somebody interested, then go for it; that's all you need to know. As I wrote above, why listen to anyone else? That's always been my position on 'critique' and over the years I've seen no reason to think otherwise. Photography is so subjective; that's what makes it tick, provides the nuances that differentiate one shooter from the next.

Fully agreed.

As for critique, I stopped listening to it years ago - result of that are above so you be the judge Unless it's some basic technical non-deliberate errors, coming from someone who's where you want to be and/or you respect, or is a paying customer or a gatekeeper, who cares?

Let's see how that's received

In any case, I wasn't really looking for critique, but advise on gallery submission from some who have experience with it. Perhaps I'm asking in the wrong place. But "none at all" sounds like an appealing option no matter how it was meant, as I don't have scanned and retouched pinups ready just yet.

[bill t.]

Vegas?  4 and 5.  Add a little pink to the background.  Diasec.  40 x 60, at least.  Lots of spotlights.  Over the bed.  $11,000.00, minimum.  Will ship anywhere.

Your reception here is most promising for a successful Vegas run!  We so want you to fail!     Except for me.

Just make sure there is no exhibitor's fee.

Did you talk to the guys with the 35,000 square foot gallery at Caesar's Palace?  Some serious moxie there!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

People have always told me "you can't do that" or "that's too hard" or something along those lines. Nothing beats proving them wrong.

I do not think anyone here doubts that you, or someone else for that matter, could pull it off... it is not a dare. What some people are saying is that their criteria of what constitutes gallery-worthy differs from those of your gallery friend in Vegas. After all, none of us has seen what kind of material is displayed in that gallery.

Success in the photography business is 10% photography and 90% business. And I know you know business.

[RSL]

Come on, Harri, you were in Vegas and some guy in a "gallery" who called himself an "art consultant" convinced you ("not surprisingly") that he was "'in' in the US fine art circles. Then he told you that he's been involved in an exhibition of a "big name" (but didn't disclose the "big name") ("among others") in "20th century 'fine art' photography." Oh, and he wanted you to send him pictures for a website he had set up for "collectors."

You just can't make up stuff like this. Did he say his name was Scott Fitzgerald? "Music man?" Did he offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge?

If I were you I'd put my shoes back on and run like hell. The kind of pictures you posted don't hang in "art galleries," but at least nowadays that "visual syle you're going towards" won't land you in jail.

[feppe]

Come on, Harri, you were in Vegas and some guy in a "gallery" who called himself an "art consultant" convinced you ("not surprisingly") that he was "'in' in the US fine art circles. Then he told you that he's been involved in an exhibition of a "big name" (but didn't disclose the "big name") ("among others") in "20th century 'fine art' photography." Oh, and he wanted you to send him pictures for a website he had set up for "collectors."

You just can't make up stuff like this. Did he say his name was Scott Fitzgerald? "Music man?" Did he offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge?

Hehe. Art Consultant was the title the gallery had put on his business card, so that's what I called him in the OP. He did drop the name "Mapplethorpe" which might be familiar to some, and the name of the exhibition which escapes me. We talked at some length about the fine art circles in the US, especially censorship which is something dear to him (fighting it): we've had a case here in the Netherlands which is something I followed closely. His credentials check out, at least online.

I'm aware there's no such thing as free lunch and all that - as Slobodan said, I'm not exactly green when it comes to the business side of things. Don't worry, I have not resigned from my day job just yet.

Bill, if you're referring to Martin Lawrence gallery which was huge, yes, it was very impressive. There were many absolutely stunning bronze figurines by Erté on display there, I must have spent an hour admiring them. So there's my taste for all y'all.

[popnfresh]

If I were you I'd put my shoes back on and run like hell. The kind of pictures you posted don't hang in "art galleries," but at least nowadays that "visual syle you're going towards" won't land you in jail.

+1
It smells pretty fishy to me.

[EduPerez]

I'd love to be wrong, but as others have already said, it smells fishy; this looks more like someone trying to get free images for his softcore porn website than anything related to an art gallery. Besides, shouldn't someone already in the business know what are the preferences of his customers? I would probably present him all images and decide together which ones to choose.

Just my two cents.

[LoisWakeman]

I voted - don't know if female views will be very representative though for this market? I thought some were lovely - but #4 sticks out as a rather crass visual pun.

I hope all the doomsayers are wrong and this is a success for you.