I don't get it (Page 2): A well-known and successful mineral dealer told me the difference between a $2000 crystal and a $20,000 crystal is "knowing someone who will pay that much".

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

jerryc41 wrote:

I saw that article a couple of days ago. I guess if you can afford to spend $6.5 mill on a photo, money isn't a big worry in your life. The buyer is probably hoping to sell it for more in the future.

A well-known and successful mineral dealer told me the difference between a $2000 crystal and a $20,000 crystal is "knowing someone who will pay that much".

TheDman Loc: USA

rook2c4 wrote:

Are you sure the photograph sold was in black and white and not colour? Although the article you linked to illustrates the photo in black and white, as far as I can tell, no article mentions specifically that it was a black and white photograph that was sold.

"a stunning, black & white depiction of a ghostlike figure". Maybe he only made one B&W version... only way I can think anyone would find this remotely valuable, since it started life as a color photo of which there are 950.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

This photo is called Rhein II and it was taken by Andreas Gursky in 1999 and sold for over $4.3 million. Not surprised that Peter Lik's photo sold for $6.5 million

(Download)

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

OddJobber wrote:

A well-known and successful mineral dealer told me the difference between a $2000 crystal and a $20,000 crystal is "knowing someone who will pay that much".

A very astute observation.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

johnske wrote:

A few years ago I saw a colour photo of Antelope C... (show quote)

I don't get it either, BUT if you look at the smoke/haze their is what appears to be a figure of a man! who that figure is ???????
if people will buy a piece of toast with a likeness off jesus, I would bet you could sale anything,, remember the "pet rock"?
marketing seems to be a subject only a few can grasp!!!!

to "morning star" I just went back and read all the posts, I see you mentioned the image in the photo.. did not mean to "parrot" you!!

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I think it's great that he made this much money on his photo!! cudos to Peter Lik, I am going to praise him instead of criticizing his work and his accomplishment....I just don't understand all the bitterness with this. <shrugs>

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Racmanaz wrote:

I think it's great that he made this much money on his photo!! cudos to Peter Lik, I am going to praise him instead of criticizing his work and his accomplishment....I just don't understand all the bitterness with this. <shrugs>

Some people's approach to becoming successful is to try and put everybody around them down. Others praise success and strive to achieve even more. It's pretty simple....

TheDman Loc: USA

Peterff wrote:

Some people's approach to becoming successful is to try and put everybody around them down. Others praise success and strive to achieve even more. It's pretty simple....

Lying isn't being successful. My problem with him isn't this photo or the sale of it, it's the fact that he clearly lies about other photos and how he produces them.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

TheDman wrote:

Lying isn't being successful. My problem with him isn't this photo or the sale of it, it's the fact that he clearly lies about other photos and how he produces them.

I think that is a different observation about a different comment....

TheDman Loc: USA

Peterff wrote:

I think that is a different observation about a different comment....

It's the same issue though. Being dishonest with people isn't how you get them to like you, so when you later make an announcement such as this (without providing any details or proof), people rightly are skeptical.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

TheDman wrote:

It's the same issue though. Being dishonest with people isn't how you get them to like you, so when you later make an announcement such as this (without providing any details or proof), people rightly are skeptical.

That may be true, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying or are referring to...

Perhaps I'm just missing something....

msmith44

SharpShooter wrote:

Because they can?? :lol
SS

Peter Lik is an established brand in the world of fine art photography. While "Sharpshooter" is a well known designation in the world of of firearms, I regret it is as yet not well known in the world of fine art photography. :) Perhaps UHH can help make Sharpshooter a better known brand. :-D

TheDman Loc: USA

Peterff wrote:

That may be true, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying or are referring to...

Perhaps I'm just missing something....

My previous post in this thread about this shot, and his comments about how he "captured" it.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

TheDman wrote:

My previous post in this thread about this shot, and his comments about how he "captured" it.

OK, thanks. Our comments were not related, but I now understand what you are saying. I don't have an opinion on your point of view from the earlier post, but I can clearly see why you expressed it and it certainly raised my skepticism hackles when I read the description about capturing the shot.

Thanks

johnske Loc: Townsville

TheDman wrote:

Lying isn't being successful. My problem with him isn't this photo or the sale of it, it's the fact that he clearly lies about other photos and how he produces them.

Yes, he (or at least his sales staff do) lie. For instance, we are told that all his works are basically 'straight out of camera' and photoshop is not used at all, but in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0spacaJi3fs if you listen carefully he says that he does use photoshop - however, in his defense I take the statement 'not photoshopped' to actually mean 'not photochopped' (a distinction that most fail to recognize).

The $6.5M B/W "phantom" http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless is a derivative of the lesser priced coloured "ghost" photo http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/27/5937543-natures-best-photography-antelope-canyon-ariz ... (ghost, phantom - hmmm). Don't believe it's the same photo? View them side by side and it soon becomes obvious, also, consider what he has said elsewhere ... that the reason for the 'ghostly' image is that his Navajo guide threw a handful of dust into the light beam - the chance that the exact same image in the light beam could be reproduced by throwing more handfuls of dust is infinitesimally small (i.e. it's impossible).

So why is a black and white version of a colour photo worth so much more? I take it that he's simply trying to appear "artsy" by invoking the nostalgia of black and white imagery a la Ansell Adams et al. Not really art or 'fine art', but it just goes to prove the old adage that a fool and his money are soon parted.

The "uniqueness" spiel he gives with most of his photos is basically that he captured a unique image from a moment in time that will never ever be exactly repeated in the lifetime of the universe ... well duhhh - every photo ever taken by anyone meets that exact same uniqueness criteria. That's a major reason why we all take photos