$4.3 Million photo
Nov 11, 2011 12:56:31 #
Sotheby's just auctioned a photo for $4.3 mil. A very simple picture of the Rhine river. I can't post it here but
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
Nov 11, 2011 13:13:46 #
Nov 11, 2011 14:30:06 #
Yes. But it is quite large. 81 inches by 151 inches...........and old ...twelve years old........
Nov 11, 2011 14:34:39 #
modest genius wrote:
Yes. But it is quite large. 81 inches by 151 inches...........and old ...twelve years old........
Your point being? It's not even that great of a photograph. My eyes wonder all over the darn thing looking for something interesting... I've taken better photographs then that...
Nov 11, 2011 15:01:46 #
roadapplemax wrote:
Sotheby's just auctioned a photo for $4.3 mil. A very simple picture of the Rhine river. I can't post it here but
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
I agree........ no doubt it would be torn apart. :-D
At least his horizon is level. :shock:
Nov 12, 2011 06:24:38 #
Andreas Gursky is a well known architect and photographer in Europe, I would say in the class that Frank Lloyd Wright was here. According to Wiki, he does not do any post-processing, instead using what the camera provides.
I think the art is in the photograph's simplicity, but that is just my humble opinion.
It would appear we have three options available to have high dollar photos...become fabulously famous, shoot something so compelling (like that photo of the migrant woman in "Life Magazine" during the Depression), it's hard to ignore, or pass on. Van Gogh was not in demand until after he was gone.
I think the art is in the photograph's simplicity, but that is just my humble opinion.
It would appear we have three options available to have high dollar photos...become fabulously famous, shoot something so compelling (like that photo of the migrant woman in "Life Magazine" during the Depression), it's hard to ignore, or pass on. Van Gogh was not in demand until after he was gone.
Nov 12, 2011 06:28:28 #
Nov 12, 2011 07:28:13 #
Nov 12, 2011 09:52:04 #
Nov 12, 2011 11:56:02 #
roadapplemax wrote:
Sotheby's just auctioned a photo for $4.3 mil. A very simple picture of the Rhine river. I can't post it here but
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
Hey ... I have a 81"X151" and 15 yrs old for say 1.2 mil.
Nov 12, 2011 11:56:51 #
roadapplemax wrote:
Sotheby's just auctioned a photo for $4.3 mil. A very simple picture of the Rhine river. I can't post it here but
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
you can Google it. I think if someone here posted it the
critique would be "You need to a bit more imaginative"
oops no post
Nov 12, 2011 13:09:11 #
Nov 12, 2011 15:24:18 #
BBNC wrote:
Andreas Gursky is a well known architect and photo... (show quote)
Hi BBNC,
I reread the Wikipedia for Mr. Gursky and found this under his career:
Career and style
Before the 1990s, Gursky did not digitally manipulate his images.[3] In the years since, Gursky has been frank about his reliance on computers to edit and enhance his pictures, creating an art of spaces larger than the subjects photographed.
Perhaps I wasn't reading the same article as you??
Nov 12, 2011 15:59:32 #
speaking of which, what do you all think of the following?
groom sues photog for...
"A photo of the the couple from their wedding day. They likely look similar now, only he's probably frowning and she's in another country.
"The wedding photography industry isn't an easy one. Demanding clients, exhausting schedules, and lots of overhead make it tough for many just to stay in business. But, even most veteran pros haven't had to deal with something as ridiculous as the lawsuit currently happening in New York.
"The story almost sounds like a joke. Todd J. Remis is unhappy with the photos and video shot at his wedding. The day occurred way back in 2003 and he claims the photography isn't up to snuff. He has since divorced his wife and she has moved out of the country, but is now demanding that Bronx-based photographer, Curt Fried refund the $4,100 fee and pay roughly $48,000 to have all of the original guests back to recreate the entire wedding.
"According to The New York Times, Remis is claiming that the three-photographer team covering the event was remiss, failing to capture the last 15-minutes of the celebration as well as the bouquet toss. He also seems to be generally unhappy with the overall quality of the photos. Sadly, there aren't examples to really evaluate the situation.
"While the demands being made by the groom certainly seem ridiculous, the judge has already thrown out some parts of the case, including the bit about the allegedly shoddy work causing pain and suffering. The current lawsuit seems mostly to be about whether or not the terms of the original contract were violated, which seems like a legitimate pursuit. This also acts as a nice reminder for any shooter making money from their work to make sure their contracts are in order and cover as many possible scenarios to prevent this kind of thing.
"What do you think? Even if Remis's demands are out of hand, what would be proper compensation in this case?"
PROPER COMPENSATION LIMITS ONE'S LIABILITY TO THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY LOST (i've seen one picture, and the judge will probably throw them out of the court)
groom sues photog for...
"A photo of the the couple from their wedding day. They likely look similar now, only he's probably frowning and she's in another country.
"The wedding photography industry isn't an easy one. Demanding clients, exhausting schedules, and lots of overhead make it tough for many just to stay in business. But, even most veteran pros haven't had to deal with something as ridiculous as the lawsuit currently happening in New York.
"The story almost sounds like a joke. Todd J. Remis is unhappy with the photos and video shot at his wedding. The day occurred way back in 2003 and he claims the photography isn't up to snuff. He has since divorced his wife and she has moved out of the country, but is now demanding that Bronx-based photographer, Curt Fried refund the $4,100 fee and pay roughly $48,000 to have all of the original guests back to recreate the entire wedding.
"According to The New York Times, Remis is claiming that the three-photographer team covering the event was remiss, failing to capture the last 15-minutes of the celebration as well as the bouquet toss. He also seems to be generally unhappy with the overall quality of the photos. Sadly, there aren't examples to really evaluate the situation.
"While the demands being made by the groom certainly seem ridiculous, the judge has already thrown out some parts of the case, including the bit about the allegedly shoddy work causing pain and suffering. The current lawsuit seems mostly to be about whether or not the terms of the original contract were violated, which seems like a legitimate pursuit. This also acts as a nice reminder for any shooter making money from their work to make sure their contracts are in order and cover as many possible scenarios to prevent this kind of thing.
"What do you think? Even if Remis's demands are out of hand, what would be proper compensation in this case?"
PROPER COMPENSATION LIMITS ONE'S LIABILITY TO THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY LOST (i've seen one picture, and the judge will probably throw them out of the court)
Nov 12, 2011 16:34:28 #
It has taken the guy eight years to discover he didn't like the photographers work? I don't quite get it not being a lawyer, but isn't there a statute of limitations or something to cover something like this. I can see it if he didn't get the pictures and video, then there might be a case, but eight years, really.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.