Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News
Thread started 10 Dec 2014 (Wednesday) 18:06
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Peter Lik sells photo for $6.5 million

 
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Feb 14, 2015 12:13 |  #61

DetlevCM wrote in post #17431428external link
NOTHING justified or justifies the price paid for that image.

There are only two people that can answer that and you are not one of them.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
daverator
My title stinks!
Joined Sep 2014
NE Montana
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by daverator.
Feb 14, 2015 13:34 |  #62

I could honestly say I would definitelty take the money. If the man paying me had too firm a grip on the money he would be in danger of losing his arm! With that much money I could buy the 7dm2 AND a 5dm3. Wait! How many zeros is that? :lol: :lol:


Dave
7D gripped l T3i gripped | EFS-IS 18-55mm | EFS-IS II 55-250mm | EF 50mm 1.8 II l Tamron 150-600mm | Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 vc

LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
Feb 14, 2015 13:46 |  #63

DetlevCM wrote in post #17431428external link
Well, nobody amongst my colleagues or friends or family would pay for a photo - or could afford to.
(Aside from production costs.)

As to going to places: Yes it costs - but even then cost is limited.
A wasteful (but sometimes only) way of taking a photo would be by helicopter - even those only come in at a few thousand per hour.

Some scientific photos may cost more to take - BUT they don't tend to be the primary aim of the "mission" - e.g. deep sea diving operations and similar that aim to obtain samples or map a section.

As to "getting very far" - it depends how you live: The stupid who throw money after every fad won't get very far, those who are more prudent will. A quick google reveals the average income in the UK is 26.500 pounds per year, BUT this is heavily skewed by the "top" being paid ridiculous amounts of money for non-work while the majority suffer from earning significantly LESS than the average (zero hour contracts for example...). (Heck, newly qualified teachers are offered pay of 19000 or so... shows how little education is valid in this country...)

But stick to the average: 26500 -> about 2200 per month. At a few hundred per image that isn't hard to achieve, or IF your work is worth that even 1000 or 2000 per image. (+ production costs)

NOTHING justified or justifies the price paid for that image.

In your opinion.. And I think you severely underestimate the cost of travel for images. You ASSUME one will get the images one seeks on the first trip. I see you haven't done much travel photography. One gentleman spent 10 years going back before he finally got the image he wanted. What do you think that costs...couple of hundred pounds....Oh, and he sold it for 7 figures...but after spending that much time getting it, I would say it was worth it. Probably not to you, but you are not the sort to spend money on art anyway..so..


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DetlevCM
Goldmember
DetlevCM's Avatar
Joined Apr 2010
Europe
Feb 14, 2015 14:10 |  #64

digirebelva wrote in post #17431733external link
In your opinion.. And I think you severely underestimate the cost of travel for images. You ASSUME one will get the images one seeks on the first trip. I see you haven't done much travel photography. One gentleman spent 10 years going back before he finally got the image he wanted. What do you think that costs...couple of hundred pounds....Oh, and he sold it for 7 figures...but after spending that much time getting it, I would say it was worth it. Probably not to you, but you are not the sort to spend money on art anyway..so..

And again, how does that justify millions?

If someone travels to the same spot all the time excessively just because there is a tiny possibility they get the right photo, they should stop doing so and seek some professional help and stop wasting natural resources (I am making the assumption that the travel is crude oil powered).
If they enjoy the travel and it has become a ritual of their travel to stop by the same spot the justification of charging extra is gone.

Definition of excessively in this case: Anything in the 10+ range I'd consider excessive without knowing the circumstances. (i.e. if it is the field 100m from your house then it may not be)

I was also thinking a little while ago:
IF you went to Leonardo da Vinci when he was alive and asked him to paint a second copy of La Gioconda, how much would he charge? A couple of thousands (today's equivalent) at most, to cover expenses and compensate his time with a premium for skill.
Anybody who would be "well off" could afford to have a painting painted - heck, why do we have so many (boring?) paintings of "aristocrats" and other people with money.... because as a vanity expense they paid someone to do it.

What does the original cost now? Well, for some reason or other we consider it important and value it in the millions - NOT because it is worth that sum in itself, but because of its history - and the role it plays in history today. (From the speculation about who the person in the image is, to its theft by an Italian patriot, to its "hyping" by the museum.)
The same is true for all other paintings - you can get a pretty much perfect copy made for a price in the thousands - which covers expenses and expertise - and that is ALL it is worth - and that is the price any painting now in the millions would have had when it was made.

Add to that, painting is far more difficult to do well than taking a photograph... - the latter can be learnt by most people (with today's equipment).


And that is the reality:

Add to that, the fact that someone is stupid enough to waste such excessive amounts of (where from obtained?) money on an average photograph by no means justifies it. (Heck, there are countless photographs of the same spot of equal quality - and even then there isn't anything special about it.... because barring anything like a meteorite impact, that scene will continue to exist for years.) It just shows how morally degenerate society or at least "the rich" have become.
As I said before - 65 photographers could have been paid 100.000 each - still a very large sum, or science funded, art schools etc.


5D MK II AF Satisfaction Poll | Reduced Kit List
A Basic Guide to Photographyexternal link | Websiteexternal link
Flickrexternal link | Artflakesexternal link | Blurbexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
daverator
My title stinks!
Joined Sep 2014
NE Montana
Feb 14, 2015 15:23 as a reply to DetlevCM's post |  #65

Wow, I made a funny before, but this isn't really funny. Numerous times you have called a man you dont know anything about a criminal or alluded to it in a rant that serves no purpose at all. Lots of people have made lots of money at one thing or another. You're probably using something made by Microsoft of Apple right now. Both of those owners give many millions away to charities and programs and indeed, have their own foundations to help various people. As has been pointed out they also provide well paying jobs to huge amounts of people who otherwise might be sitting in front of their computer accusing other people of being criminals. Some opinions should be kept private.


Dave
7D gripped l T3i gripped | EFS-IS 18-55mm | EFS-IS II 55-250mm | EF 50mm 1.8 II l Tamron 150-600mm | Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 vc

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,289 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Feb 14, 2015 16:53 |  #66

DetlevCM wrote in post #17431762external link
Add to that, the fact that someone is stupid enough to waste such excessive amounts of (where from obtained?) money on an average photograph by no means justifies it.

Setting aside the question whether the photograph truly is average, I don't see that its purchase warrants the application of a moral argument as suggested by the term "justifies." The purchaser doesn't have to justify the way he spends his money (or she or they--I don't know who it is). Sometimes we can say that a purchase is morally wrong. It violates an obligation. You shouldn't spend your last dollar on beer if you have kids to feed. If you operate a business as a partnership, you shouldn't raid the business's bank account against your partner's wishes. I also happen to believe that profiteering in a natural disaster is despicable; this can be argued. What aspect of a high price for a photo brings up the idea of judging it on a "right vs. wrong" scale? Does it harm someone?


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Feb 14, 2015 19:25 |  #67

DetlevCM wrote in post #17431762external link
And again, how does that justify millions?

The same way a baseball card costs millions. Or Beany Babie. Or Comic book. Or car. Or anything else that is viewed to be unique or rare. That is when you get astronomical costs unrelated to the cost to make the product.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
samsen's Avatar
7,468 posts
Joined Apr 2006
LA
Feb 14, 2015 19:45 |  #68

benji25 wrote in post #17431617external link
There are only two people that can answer that and you are not one of them.

Absolutely wrong and rude statement. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and can make a comment regarding what his interpretation is, in either way.

There might be only two people stupid enough and then you are right, DetlevCM is not one of them.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,289 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by OhLook.
Feb 14, 2015 20:12 |  #69

samsen wrote in post #17432095external link
benji25 wrote in post #17431617external link
There are only two people that can answer that and you are not one of them.

Absolutely wrong and rude statement. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and can make a comment regarding what his interpretation is, in either way.

There might be only two people stupid enough and then you are right, DetlevCM is not one of them.

Everyone is also entitled to his or her own definition of "the right price" for any good or service. One idea is that whatever amount a seller and buyer agree to, barring external constraints and market manipulation, is the right price. I venture to say that benji alluded to this way of establishing a price. You may not endorse that definition, but you can't dispose of it by calling it wrong. The alternatives have their own difficulties.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Feb 14, 2015 20:45 |  #70

samsen wrote in post #17432095external link
Absolutely wrong and rude statement. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and can make a comment regarding what his interpretation is, in either way.

There might be only two people stupid enough and then you are right, DetlevCM is not one of them.

Statements is not wrong. He said nothing justifies it. Clearly something did because the two parties transacted at that cost. So something justified. Therefor his statement is false.

Value is only determined by the parties involved in the transaction. Sure people may think its dumb but you can't say "there is no reason" because clearly there is.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
J_TULLAR
Goldmember
J_TULLAR's Avatar
3,010 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Honolulu, Hawaii
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by J_TULLAR. 3 edits done in total.
Feb 14, 2015 22:44 as a reply to DetlevCM's post |  #71

LMAO your rant is epic! I learned one thing about you however, you are not a photographer (gwc) nor are you interested in the art of photography.... That or you are just extremely jealous of Peter Liks success.


Model Mayhem (external link)
Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
daverator
My title stinks!
Joined Sep 2014
NE Montana
Feb 14, 2015 22:45 as a reply to J_TULLAR's post |  #72

+1 :lol:


Dave
7D gripped l T3i gripped | EFS-IS 18-55mm | EFS-IS II 55-250mm | EF 50mm 1.8 II l Tamron 150-600mm | Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 vc

LOG IN TO REPLY
DetlevCM
Goldmember
DetlevCM's Avatar
Joined Apr 2010
Europe
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by DetlevCM.
Feb 15, 2015 05:55 |  #73

daverator wrote in post #17431822external link
Wow, I made a funny before, but this isn't really funny. Numerous times you have called a man you dont know anything about a criminal or alluded to it in a rant that serves no purpose at all. Lots of people have made lots of money at one thing or another. You're probably using something made by Microsoft of Apple right now. Both of those owners give many millions away to charities and programs and indeed, have their own foundations to help various people. As has been pointed out they also provide well paying jobs to huge amounts of people who otherwise might be sitting in front of their computer accusing other people of being criminals. Some opinions should be kept private.

I do use Microsoft products - still.
However IF you look at those companies in detail you find a less than glamorous past.
Anti competitive behaviour from Microsoft that they have been fined for. Money parked outside of the US because it allows the company to avoid the tax that would be due if the money were brought into the US.
And apple was the company that perfected tax avoidance (theft from the peoples) by exploiting a loophole in US and Irish law which meant they paid zero tax. Look it up. The company was registered in Ireland where companies pay tax where the board of directors reside while the board resided in a US state that mandated tax is paid where the company is registered.

Rather than loudly proclaim how much money they donate, it would be better if these people paid their taxes in the first place and instead of lobbying for an even greater distortion of politics lobbied to make it fairer.

Also consider, they can quite possibly use their donations for tax deductions. In the UK it can be done - which then withholds money from public funds for things like schools or health care.
Also, if you spend your donation on say building a village hall you can suddenly reclaim VAT which means that instead of paying tax you are taking away from the peoples....
If anything that is THEFT from the peoples.


5D MK II AF Satisfaction Poll | Reduced Kit List
A Basic Guide to Photographyexternal link | Websiteexternal link
Flickrexternal link | Artflakesexternal link | Blurbexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Joined Mar 2012
Feb 15, 2015 16:50 |  #74

digirebelva wrote in post #17431733external link
In your opinion.. And I think you severely underestimate the cost of travel for images. You ASSUME one will get the images one seeks on the first trip. I see you haven't done much travel photography. One gentleman spent 10 years going back before he finally got the image he wanted. What do you think that costs...couple of hundred pounds....Oh, and he sold it for 7 figures...but after spending that much time getting it, I would say it was worth it. Probably not to you, but you are not the sort to spend money on art anyway..so..

I was in Yukon / Alaska last fall for 3 weeks and in prime location for Northern Lights and many nights had category 5 solar storms going on. Guess what - it was completely overcast to a point where we drove 45+ miles late at night after full day of shooting and night after night were denied even a glimpse of color. Our last night in Yukon was clear weather and was supposed to be C3, we skipped sunset to eat our last dinner, drove out of the city to avoid light pollution near a chosen lake. We waited until 1am with not even a spec of color in the sky and got back to the hotel at 2am. Our flight out of Whitehorse to Anchorage was at 5:55am.

It is safe to say that I will be coming back to the same place in my attempts to get the shots that I want.


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

LOG IN TO REPLY
kenwood33
Goldmember
2,547 posts
Joined Jul 2005
Feb 18, 2015 13:59 |  #75

There are better ways to spend 6.5million such as help out those in need and less fortunate...


Gearlist

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

19,906 views & 27 likes for this thread
Peter Lik sells photo for $6.5 million
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0026 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.12s
Latest registered member is xeunskate
878 guests, 430 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017