My life as an invisible photographer.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I was just jiving, Fred, but, who knows? That just might be it. I do appreciate your sustained and insightful comments on the matter, though. I don't mean to sound so flippant. I just sometimes tire of art speak, especially when spoken by non-artists.</p>

<p>Not that I know the first thing about art. . .</p>

<p>This has been a good thread, rk ny. Thanks. I hope that it goes a bit longer before people drift away to other threads.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[lisa_bree]

<p>I'll echo what other said - that Tumblr page is not good. Just make a normal website, wordpress.org or somesuch. Get someone to help you do it if needed. A p/t freelance designer doesn't have to be that expensive.</p>

<p>Another thing - unlike most here, I'm an amateur, and barely that. I just like taking pictures of nature. I enjoy looking at them later. From the pics I did manage to see on that page, I don't know what you LOVE.</p>

<p> </p>

[ross_allen1]

<p>Well the world is full of invisable artists. Some folks just know how to get noticed and some folks get lucky and some folks stay invisable. If I did not cover all the possibilities then toss those in there also. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Well the world is full of invisable artists. . . . If I did not cover all the possibilities then toss those in there also."</em></p>

<p>Good observation. And I will. There are also artists who are visible but to a smaller circle or community. Not every artist becomes world renowned or even wants to, and yet many are as significant in their own way as those who do. There are many different kinds and levels of artistic reach and success.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...the world is full of invisable artists."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup! One of my many projects is to photograph tags and graffiti in my neighborhood. Some of it is damned good. It tends to be covered up in less than a week so snagging photos is like hunting for mushrooms. Most of these were gone within days.</p>

<hr />

<p><a href="/photo/17485190"><img title="Many Slave" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17485190-sm.jpg" alt="Many Slave" width="200" height="200" border="0" /></a><a href="/photo/17485191"><img title="ASO cryptoglyphs" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17485191-sm.jpg" alt="ASO cryptoglyphs" width="200" height="200" border="0" /></a><a href="/photo/17485192"><img title="ASO cryptoglyphs" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17485192-sm.jpg" alt="ASO cryptoglyphs" width="200" height="200" border="0" /></a><a href="/photo/15973881"><img title="Urban cliches - tags" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15973881-sm.jpg" alt="Urban cliches - tags" width="150" height="200" border="0" /></a></p>

 

[clark_yerrington1]

<p>I like what you're doing but agree with what somebody else said, that you seem to have reached a theoretical limit and are unwilling to progress beyond a certain point. Makes me think you should leave your comfort zone -- maybe a two month cross-country trip or some other way to broaden your perspective -- then bring that experience to bear on your everyday tasks.</p>

[stemked]

One of the truisms of photography (and similar popular fields). They are populated already with people who have done

this thing for years, they have the inside track to the 'big jobs.' A friend of mine is a fashion photographer, he used to

do many of the popular female magazines, like Cosmo, etc. This is back in the film days and he had more work than he

could handle. He got out of the field in the digital era and is happy with his new direction in life.

 

I do feel for you. There is nothing more frustrating than being highly skilled and unappreciated. It's, frankly more often

being at the right place, at the right time, with right skills. You can't beat dumb luck in a field where there are lots of

others with the same interest. I am not a marine biologist for the same reason, but I am happy with my job. I deal with

lots of students who want to go to Med school, I tell them only 1 in 10 who applies from undergrad actually gets in. Yet

they still try. I get to play marine biologist when I visit the sea, just not at work and that's okay. I try and tell my

students the same thing. I hope if you never reach that plateau at least you can be happy on your journey in life; that's

what it's all about.

[Alex_Es]

<p>Ry ny, I've noticed one thing. You are a good writer. Ever published anything? You ought to if you haven't. You ought to be writing about photography. After being read you might get seen.<br>

For those of us who hate dealing with the guardians of the front door there are always back doors. For me, they has consisted of notices on bulletin boards and friends. That's how I all my jobs in academia. As I writer I have one golden rule: publish. Anywhere and at any time. That has been my rule for photography as well, which for the sake of my sanity has to remain a secondary and somewhat underground art.</p>

<p>Ever thought of teaching photography? You can make connections that way. They good thing about academia is that your art does not have to translate into money for someone to be appreciated. The university or art school gallery can lead to something.</p>

<p>You might consider going back to New Haven. It seems you were doing good work there and you might have done your best work in that place. New York has been done and done again. New Haven not so.</p>

<p>Do you have a mentor? Finding one might help.</p>

[terrypittman]

Agree with Alex S you are a good writer, I am the worst.

 

Was it Adams or Weston who said "it takes 30 years". I just hit 30 years and you are at 25. Go digital.

I shot film for 25 years and had a darkroom. I have been digital for the last five and love it.So much faster. I have a cheap 300 dollar camera that is wonderful. I use a free photo editor http://ipiccy.com/ as good as PS and images done in 5 minutes. I use a free site Twitter https://twitter.com/dylanisgenius. Why I love PN is you can separate into galleries. I currently have 2600 images. Mine is personal for family and whomever. Good-luck.

[rk_ny]

<p>To Alex,</p>

<p>Thanks. I have considered writing about something, not sure it's photography. Teaching has crossed my mind as well. I actually have a friend who has offered me a guest spot teaching Photoshop to his photography class at a New England prep school. That might lead to interesting things...</p>

<p>If anyone is curious, my new site is now live. I hope the moderators will let this link survive...</p>

<p>50f2.com</p>

<p>Thanks again to everyone who suggested a new format for the images. It's a work in progress.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Good stuff, Rob, and much better organized. I really like your people pix. Good eye and timing.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Wish I could cull through your gallery, Rob, and get rid of a lot of distracting contrived psuedo-sophisticated compositions that I've seen done as far back as the '70's when I was an art director flipping through volumes of Communication Arts mags.</p>

<p>That way the REALLY compelling and iconic ones you have standout more. That one with the busted tempered glass needs extra sharpening to contrast against the reflections of the people. That's an image I've not seen before among quite a few others you have. Damn good stuff.</p>

<p>Good luck with your endeavors. I faced the same invisibility as a famous cartoonist/illustrator wanna' be starting back when I was a production assistant on "Tank McNamara" comic strip in '81. That job was like winning the lottery. I was so lucky back then. Now my luck at 53 has pretty much been pissed away.</p>

<p>Hang on to that retoucher job. That's just like winning the lottery.</p>

[rk_ny]

@Tim,

 

So funny, because I've always been on the fence about that broken glass image...I think it's one of the more contrived

images I have. And I'm not sure what people you see. I see maaaybe one on the left but I can't make out any others. To

me it was all about the cracks.

 

I'd love to hear about which images you feel are contrived and which are iconic. The trouble with editors is that if you run

a body of work by 5 of them, there will often be no body of work left. One man's contrived is another's iconic and vice

versa.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>So funny, because I've always been on the fence about that broken glass image...I think it's one of the more contrived images I have. And I'm not sure what people you see. I see maaaybe one on the left but I can't make out any others. To me it was all about the cracks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then either your display isn't properly calibrated or you must have poor vision because I can make out blurred reflections of people through the cracks which makes the image even more compelling and interesting. It's just the cracks look too soft and need to be made more pronounced to add more contrast to bring out these blurred figures.</p>

<p>The fact you couldn't see or appreciate this aspect of the image suggest you might need a fresh eye from someone you trust and respect as being a high end "Tastemaker", the kind of folks who really are the gatekeepers that decide whether you're in or out.</p>

<p>The people who have the good sense and taste to pay good money for fine art photography aren't stupid investors with mediocre tastes. Looking at your gallery from the perspective of an agent I wouldn't trust your judgement on what you think is good which is what you're telegraphing by not showing your best and weeding out the rest.</p>

<p>These are the people you should be appealing to and if you can't get in contact with them then I'ld suggest you hire an agent who can. You need to be around money people who have a track record of buying wisely and can articulate clearly why they don't want your work. Don't take no for an answer. </p>

<p>I'ld say a lot of your shots of silhouetted tree branches against broad white sky is pretty contrived including some of your skyscraper shots, but those B&W shots of the snowy park have some interesting compositions that deceptively give off a simplistic greeting card feel but whose graceful placing of negative and positive elements within a tastefully designed composition indicate otherwise. At least you got a feel of those as keepers.</p>

<p>I went through your entire website gallery and was saying this to myself flipping through it...</p>

<p>"Seen that. Seen that. Seen that...What's this about? Toss it!...Seen that done before. Seen that...Whoah! What's this? DAMN! That's a keeper!...Seen that...Seen that done before." etc., etc. I do this a lot to quite a few galleries online by supposed professionals. There certainly are a ton of images to compete against, aren't there?</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The trouble with editors is that if you run a body of work by 5 of them, there will often be no body of work left. One man's contrived is another's iconic and vice versa.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly you know better, just not enough to figure out why you're invisible as a photographer.</p>

 

 

 

 

[Gup]

<p>Well, Mr. Kearney, clearly you are much more visible here now than before you started this thread. I would wager there are dozens of members reading this thread who haven't contributed to this point who have visited your new website and perused your work. You now have 593 visits to your P.net homepage (not sure what the count was before you posted). <br>

I would say you are a better networker than you let on;) <br>

Good Luck with your pursuits.</p>

[rk_ny]

<p>Tim Lookingbill wronte: <strong><em>"Then either your display isn't properly calibrated or you must have poor vision because I can make out blurred reflections of people through the cracks which makes the image even more compelling and interesting."</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

Other than the guy walking behind me on the left, I think the "people" you're seeing are my hands holding the camera. </p>

<p><img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/479247/P1030974.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That photo looked fine to me in the original version. I prefer the ambiguity of the darker, less well defined version. Were they blurred faces? Hands? Something else entirely? Who knows. I don't necessarily need to know or even want to know, based on someone else's opinion about whether an image - or story - is "clear enough". Sometimes one person's clarification is another person's tiresome explication.</p>

<p>And there's the rub...</p>

<p>I don't disagree with Tim's opinions in theory. But in practice, who the heck knows *what* a prospective agent, gallery owner, museum curator, critic, client or anyone else will like? Sometimes they don't even know that they'll appreciate something until it comes along and hits them just the right way at just the right time. And in arts and pop culture, often timing is crucial.</p>

<p>I believe you have to go with your own instincts and maybe with a little nudge from someone who understands what you're hoping to accomplish and is more interested in what you're aiming for rather than trying to mold you and your work into their own concepts.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Other than the guy walking behind me on the left, I think the "people" you're seeing are my hands holding the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter what is being reflected in the image. It's the suggestion that there's something there but is obscured in the texture of the broken glass that entices the viewer to wonder and inject their own interpretation of what it is. It's one of the ways you grab eyeballs with a still image. It's also quite a different POV and approach from the rest of your other less noticeable images, the ones I suggested you eliminate that distract from the good ones.</p>

<p>You're trying to convey a unique vision no one else possesses and you don't want to distract from that by pointless clutter. It was the same advice given to me when I was a 20 something illustrator by leading art directors who worked for major ad agencies like McCann Erickson when I attended the design schools back in the early '80's. You are the art director for what you want to communicate to the buyer of your work. Don't make it difficult for them to see it among the million other skillfully honed portfolios you're competing against.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But in practice, who the heck knows *what* a prospective agent, gallery owner, museum curator, critic, client or anyone else will like?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They'll like what you make them see. If they don't see it, then you have to ask questions of said buyer/curator what it is they do and how they see in the ones they have on display they've clearly made a committed choice on. If they can't explain it then move on to others because more than likely you don't want to hitch your wagon with folks who don't know how to communicate in an industry that relies on that skill to survive.</p>

<p>There's no mystery in how to do this and no hard and true rules to follow but if the images are showing something that hasn't been seen before and are truly compelling by comparison to others as well convey a like mindedness going by the potential buyer's other choices, the really smart ones will pick up on it and see it as an investment not just monetarily but culturally.</p>

<p>Good grief, it's not rocket science. Just look at the success of Thomas Kinkade paintings. Just on first glance you know immediately the OP's work would not be appreciated by these non-like minded folks.</p>

[rk_ny]

<p><em><strong>"Then either your display isn't properly calibrated or you must have poor vision..."</strong></em><br /> <br /> <em><strong>"It doesn't matter what is being reflected in the image."</strong></em><br /> <br /> Ah, but of course it doesn't matter when someone points out that you are mistaken. Good day, sir.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Rob, I see now those aren't faces in your cracked glass image. It's your hands holding the camera. I didn't see that when I first saw the image in your gallery. Maybe you ought to reshoot it so it shows faces.</p>

<p>Besides you're missing my point in the value of the concept behind such a shot and nit picking over how I saw/interpreted it. Good grief, I can't even pay you a compliment on your own work without you arguing. I can't imagine how much you must irritate potential buyers showing your portfolio.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned you can remain invisible for all I care. Good day to you, Sir!</p>

[terrypittman]

<p>Lot of nice people shots my favorite is the guy with the Polaroid SX-70.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm looking for a place to document the short story of my life as an unknown photographer, in the hopes that some might be able to put their finger on why I remain unknown</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey, Bro! There are a lot of us out here. Some of us, such as I, don't have a clue as to why we are so mediocre.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that you are. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>