Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Peter Lik sells photo for $6.5 million

 
gmm213
I know some really nice clowns
Avatar
783 posts
Likes: 169
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Portsmouth Va
     
Dec 11, 2014 07:46 |  #16

pixelbasher wrote in post #17326019 (external link)
It's a nice image, but to be brutally honest, when I first saw a thumbnail of this story on petapixel, I thought it was an x-ray of something caught in some unfortunates cavity!! :lol:

When I saw it on the news it was a very bad image of it and I thought the same thing.:-P


500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
Mayhem # 3789333 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,278 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 412
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Dec 11, 2014 07:57 |  #17

Jonathan Jones in the Guardian UK reamed him a new... well, you know.

http://www.theguardian​.com …-ever-hackneyed-tasteless (external link)


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,634 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5694
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 11, 2014 08:49 |  #18

it's his finest shot. Easily more visually pleasing than most fine art.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 397
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 11, 2014 09:05 |  #19

Charlie wrote in post #17326265 (external link)
it's his finest shot. Easily more visually pleasing than most fine art.

I'd hardly call it his best shot - even some of his other Antelope Canyon shots are better. A good shot, but not his best.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,025 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3216
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Dec 11, 2014 09:11 |  #20

joedlh wrote in post #17326179 (external link)
Jonathan Jones in the Guardian UK reamed him a new... well, you know.

This guy is a douchebag that likes to hear himself talk. An art critic that writes a column in the Photography section declaring that photography is not art. smh


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NASS ­ Photo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,784 posts
Likes: 282
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Westmoreland Co., PA
     
Dec 11, 2014 13:25 as a reply to  @ FarmerTed1971's post |  #21

IMO, this is not his best. However, if someone wants to pay that price, let him.


NickS

Canon 5DMIII; Canon EF35mm, f/1.4L; EF85mm, f/1.8; EF135mm, f/2.0L; EF200mm, f/2.8L.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
Goldmember
Avatar
3,972 posts
Gallery: 367 photos
Likes: 1574
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Virginia
     
Dec 11, 2014 16:24 |  #22

joedlh wrote in post #17326179 (external link)
Jonathan Jones in the Guardian UK reamed him a new... well, you know.

http://www.theguardian​.com …-ever-hackneyed-tasteless (external link)

Beauty is still in the eye of the beholder, even better if they have money..:-)


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
Mark ­ II
Goldmember
Avatar
2,153 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Texas
     
Jan 03, 2015 00:49 |  #23

Amazing ... even more amazed at all of the haters. Some need a life because each & every one of them would take more than what any crappy they shot would be worth..


1DX7D - 40D IR converted Sony RX100,
Canon 85 L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 24-105L, 16-35mm f/2.8 II L, 100L & 60mm Macro , Fisheye EF 15mm f2.8, Tokina 10-17

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aki78
Senior Member
Avatar
961 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 33
Joined Jun 2006
Location: New Hampshire USA
     
Jan 11, 2015 09:53 |  #24

Mark II wrote in post #17363399 (external link)
Amazing ... even more amazed at all of the haters. Some need a life because each & every one of them would take more than what any crappy they shot would be worth..

No kidding. Though if I sold a photo for that much I'd have every right to laugh at someone hating me and post a selfie from B&H picking up every L-lens they offer  :p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DGStinner
Goldmember
Avatar
1,027 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 191
Joined Jan 2014
Location: Middlesex, New Jersey
     
Jan 11, 2015 10:06 |  #25

I agree with others that it's a very nice image, just not worth 6.5 million IMO.

I'd expect that kind of money for a rare photo that can't be recreated (i.e. something from the Titanic, the photo of Billy the Kid, etc)


Dave Stinner
Gripped 7DII | 6DII
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM | EF 24-105mm f/4L | EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM | EF 50mm f/1.8 STM | EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM | Rokinon 8mm | Sigma 150-600
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drumsfield
Goldmember
Avatar
1,596 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bethesda Md
Post edited over 4 years ago by drumsfield. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 22, 2015 14:42 |  #26

Peter Lik : Master of self promotion, good photographer. So who was the person who paid $6.5 million? Unless the canvas that the print is mounted on has $6.5 million in gold it would have been a very poor investment. The more likely scenario is that Lik or some of his investor friends "conjured" up this so called sale to drum up publicity and sell more of his books and "less pricey" works for a premium and get his name out print (once again). It is a genius way to create demand for someone with modest talent.


Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L MKII | 20mm 1.7
Feedback and Full gear list
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Jan 22, 2015 16:23 |  #27

pixelbasher wrote in post #17326019 (external link)
Pick any half decent and relatively famous photographer, let the world know you just sold an image of a bent light pole for say 3.9 million (lets not get too greedy first up and go for record price!) but you haven't actually sold it at all....... A few years later when it becomes the norm for you to "sell" multi million $ images to anonymous people, it goes to auction, time for your pay day.....your real pay day.

Of course, that can go horribly wrong when the taxman sees that publicity and notices that you only paid tax on a tiny fraction of that amount for the whole year, so pops round to audit your books. They will probably take some convincing that it is all a publicity stunt, when there is no sign of such a sale in your accounts. If you can't convince them that the sale was fake you could get a very hefty tax bill, and if you CAN convince them that it was all a con, then they have a pretty good idea of your level of honesty and integrity and will view your accounting with that in mind. The last thing you want is a tax inspector who thinks you are happy to screw around with figures to your advantage.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drumsfield
Goldmember
Avatar
1,596 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bethesda Md
     
Jan 23, 2015 12:29 |  #28

sandpiper wrote in post #17395169 (external link)
Of course, that can go horribly wrong when the taxman sees that publicity and notices that you only paid tax on a tiny fraction of that amount for the whole year, so pops round to audit your books. They will probably take some convincing that it is all a publicity stunt, when there is no sign of such a sale in your accounts. If you can't convince them that the sale was fake you could get a very hefty tax bill, and if you CAN convince them that it was all a con, then they have a pretty good idea of your level of honesty and integrity and will view your accounting with that in mind. The last thing you want is a tax inspector who thinks you are happy to screw around with figures to your advantage.

Of course he sold it and of course he's going to pay taxes on it. He sold it to himself. So the he's basically only paying the tax amount for the free publicity. The publicity is priceless. Just look at this thread. People are still talking about it. He's a genius, just not that great of a photographer.


Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L MKII | 20mm 1.7
Feedback and Full gear list
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DetlevCM
Goldmember
Avatar
3,431 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Europe
     
Jan 25, 2015 05:14 |  #29

sandpiper wrote in post #17395169 (external link)
Of course, that can go horribly wrong when the taxman sees that publicity and notices that you only paid tax on a tiny fraction of that amount for the whole year, so pops round to audit your books. They will probably take some convincing that it is all a publicity stunt, when there is no sign of such a sale in your accounts. If you can't convince them that the sale was fake you could get a very hefty tax bill, and if you CAN convince them that it was all a con, then they have a pretty good idea of your level of honesty and integrity and will view your accounting with that in mind. The last thing you want is a tax inspector who thinks you are happy to screw around with figures to your advantage.

Not really... People can state whatever they like (outside from inciting hatred, insults, advocating crime and similar.)
If there is no evidence of any transaction, they cannot tax you for it. At least assuming the legal system is worth anything...
-> They may ask to see your accounts, fine. They may even investigate if they have a good reason to do so, BUT if there is nothing in your accounts and you state it was a publicity stunt, the authorities would have to prove that a sale took place.

Otherwise the "innocent until proven guilty" would not mean a thing - and in that case it isn't a country I'd want to live in.


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
DetlevCM
Goldmember
Avatar
3,431 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Europe
     
Jan 25, 2015 05:16 |  #30


Makes you wonder which millionaire or company had to reduce their tax load by writing some money off as expenses...
A century old painting is at least unique - and even if a painter painted 50, they age differently, decay, some are lost... but a photograph from "today" which can be reproduced as often as you like?
(I'd exclude historic photographs because negatives are lost and prints decay/age.)


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

22,532 views & 27 likes for this thread
Peter Lik sells photo for $6.5 million
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is voodoochile30
1142 guests, 331 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.