It wasn't that long ago that it was hard to convince New York galleries that photography was art. It seems to me, the idea that photographs need to be in groups is part of the way old institutions try to compare photographs to paintings and in doing so validating them as art (or high art).

I'd also wager that it's a business decision as well. It's also a lot easier to sell photography as a unit as opposed to an individual image. Galleries want to know how to market the photographer. The 'random genius' thing is hard to sell.

What I do know is that our own premier contemporary photographic gallery in London has been running exhibitions of increasingly mediocre and frankly inexplicable (in almost every sense) work for most of the last 20 years, work that very few photographers I know, professional or amateur, see much merit in at all - although there are a few exceptions. The experts who curate these shows seem obsessed with increasing the opacity of exhibited work; the more dense the work is, the harder it is to divine any narrative or message, the more likely it is to get a show. The format is always the same, a carefully worded (and very wordy) intro, packed full of buzz words (divining, reinterpreting, juxtaposing etc), followed by a series of bland, souless images whose chief selling point will be an archaic process or choice of mounting material (aluminium, linen, hand cured wildebeest intestine) that apparently imbues some deeper meaning to the work that the 'experts' will happily interpret for you. The entire process seems to lay waste to the simple thing that photography excels at, which is to tell a good story in a way accessible to all.

So yes, spare me the gurus and 'experts'. The only experts whose opinion I am interested in are from those who see my published work, those who commission and pay for it, and that of my respected contemporaries.

Photography is subjective to a point, but ultimately we are trying to represent a three dimensional world on a two dimension plane (not to mention within boundaries) and there are ways of achieving this that will be more successful than others. How you lead the viewers eye through the image, creating the illusion of depth, and many things beside all contribute to this.

Also, the end use of the image always must be taken into account. Show an excellent editorial portrait to a beauty photographer and it may not have any impact.

Just my two cents.

I agree upon what the other commentators say: it all depends on the reviewers and their background.

I think the remark also indicates a distinction between amateurs and professionals. To belong to one cathegory or the other is not a matter of labels, it's a matter of quality and most of all consistency.

The web is a flourishing ground for on line galleries of pictures, call it Flickr, JPG magazine or else, there is not much difference they all gather the attention and the work of people that want to share their pictures.

What do you look at when you browse a gallery or a portfolio? I would call CONSISTENCY for help.

I was asked many times to look for a better consistency in my work and little by little I was able to put together "groups" of pictures that would speak the same language.

Naming a Master like Robert Frank is quite interesting, just keep in mind that his work is mainly editing, not only and not simply shooting. I do not agree upon the idea of the value of the single picture, not even if we mention someone like Ansel Adams, otherwise we pretend to associate photography to painting. We are talking about two different techniques that require a different timing and that definitely demand a different level of attention.

Photography is more likely to be associated to POP ART for its repeatability than to Renaissance.

A professional photographer is someone that is able to give consistency to the message, sometimes editors are better than photographers at emphasizing the value of an image or a group of images, by subtle associations and comparisons that arise naturally following the stream of thoughts that the main piece of an exhibit might have suggested.

Think of the famous exhibit "The Family of Man" edited by Steichen, a photographer and painter, playing with the work of others to put together a masterpiece in the cathegory of exhibitions.

And to conclude I would mention a fellow photograèher that once told me: "Fortunately photography is RELATIVE and PERSONAL"

However, I think the difference between worrying about a strong image vs. a strong portfolio is context.

If you're trying to sell a client on your work, they want to understand your style so they can determine if you fit with their needs or not. When you show up with a diverse portfolio and a lot of nice, but unrelated, photos, the client doesn't know what she's going to get on the assignment. They're looking for consistency.

That's why a portfolio review follows the same kind of theme. They're trying to help you shape the message that you send about your work.

There was quite a lively discussion over at The Online Photographer not long ago about the difference between a collection and a motley. The groups you listed need collections. It's apparently how they function. I have no stand on whether they are correct or not, although I myself have different interests, which reflects in what I shoot.