New highest priced photograph (Page 2): Obviously, Mr Jones did nor have $6.51 million to spare...

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

anotherview wrote:

Yes "over-saturated." He obviously found this effect sells.

I also note some photographers know how to promote themselves well.

Finally, some people have money to burn, and fancy themselves collectors.

So be it.

This photog contents himself with doing photography for its own sake, and to fulfill himself, minus the influence of any economic bias from money-seeking.

Obviously, Mr Jones did nor have $6.51 million to spare

Skellum0

you beat me to it

show1971 Loc: Southern California

TheDman wrote:

I agree completely. Find most of Lik's stuff to be... (show quote)

...Or worth 6.5 mil, for that matter...

show1971 Loc: Southern California

Man. If this pic is worth 6.5 mil, then I need to get busy! Art world just hold on cause you ain't seen nuthin' yet! (LOL)

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

If you don't like his photos, don't look at them!

greymule Loc: Colorado

TheDman wrote:

Agree completely. It's kind of shocking that the guy has sold $500 million in photos, while other, far more talented shooters are scraping by.

Same can be said of John Fielder IMHO. "Colorado's Photographer" - the guy who is supposed to have lit up an old cabin in winter with photoshop and sold it as real; or who is supposed to have destroyed some natural features after HE shot his photograph. People buy his images and calendars at inflated prices just for the "name". Plus, his reputation is that of an a-hole.

TheDman Loc: USA

greymule wrote:

Same can be said of John Fielder IMHO. "Colorado's Photographer" - the guy who is supposed to have lit up an old cabin in winter with photoshop and sold it as real; or who is supposed to have destroyed some natural features after HE shot his photograph. People buy his images and calendars at inflated prices just for the "name". Plus, his reputation is that of an a-hole.

Wow, never heard of him. Just checked out his site. All I can say is, I hope the prints look a lot better. :)

IR Jim Loc: St. Louis

I'll say it again but be more verbose this time. Just because this is a photograph taken at Antelope Canyon does not make it clichéd. The subject is NOT Antelope Canyon, it is the HUGE freaking humanoid phantom in the sun beam. That is what sets his photo apart from the rest.

TheDman Loc: USA

IR Jim wrote:

I'll say it again but be more verbose this time. Just because this is a photograph taken at Antelope Canyon does not make it clichéd. The subject is NOT Antelope Canyon, it is the HUGE freaking humanoid phantom in the sun beam. That is what sets his photo apart from the rest.

Yes, that is the interesting part. However one cannot argue that the location is clichéd.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

greymule wrote:

Same can be said of John Fielder IMHO. "Colorado's Photographer" - the guy who is supposed to have lit up an old cabin in winter with photoshop and sold it as real; or who is supposed to have destroyed some natural features after HE shot his photograph. People buy his images and calendars at inflated prices just for the "name". Plus, his reputation is that of an a-hole.

Frieder renders the foilage in his landscapes so neon candy-green, it hurts my eyes just looking at it!

High Society in the past was mostly made up of aristocrats; cultured individuals well educated and who have grown up surrounded by great art. But High Society today -the ones spending these tremendous sums on photographs- are usually self-made millionaires who have rather shallow and unsophisticated tastes in art, frequently falling for the absurdly flashy and sparkly display rather than art with deeper meaning, understated sublimity, and true originality.

anotherview Loc: California

Maybe so, yet does this lighting effect alone raise this photograph to a market price of millions of dollars? Other variables likely played a part in making this transaction happen.

A citizen could subtract his further attention to this thread by noting an oft-quoted saying: The price of an item is whatever others will pay for it.

Of course, this price may have little if anything to do with inherent value.

Have a good day.

IR Jim wrote:

I'll say it again but be more verbose this time. Just because this is a photograph taken at Antelope Canyon does not make it clichéd. The subject is NOT Antelope Canyon, it is the HUGE freaking humanoid phantom in the sun beam. That is what sets his photo apart from the rest.

IR Jim Loc: St. Louis

TheDman wrote:

Yes, that is the interesting part. However one cannot argue that the location is clichéd.

By that logic of looking at a photograph by the outermost shell and not what is in it; every state park, major natural formations, beautiful cities, bridges, sunsets/rises, moon shots, flowers, wildlife, water, etc. could be considered clichéd since those subjects are a dime a dozen. Doesn't leave much room for originality aside from maybe abstract.
Take Mount McKinley for example, I would guess millions of photos have been taken of that. Ansel Adams famous photo could be considered clichéd if it were put up next to other photos of the same mountain. But if you say "that one was taken by Ansel Adams" it changes everything and would no longer be written off as a cliché.
Don't take what I just said as a knock against Ansel Adams, my point is a name does make a difference and we also value those who did it first more than those who've done it later, even if the later photo is superior.
Doesn't leave much hope for us photographers living today if people look at the most basic part of a photo and not what is inside of it.

IR Jim Loc: St. Louis

As far as the $6.5m price, which is just nuts, people with money are going to find expensive things to buy. That's just how they roll. I wouldn't say that Lik's photo is 10,000x better than a similar one that sells for $650. People with money tend to want expensive things for satus, ego, whatever, even if they are not really that much better.

I came to this conclusion while walking through a store called Hermes. I didn't bring my suit with me on that trip and thought, heck, I might get a nice suit since I'll be here a while. The first thing I looked at was a pair of slacks for $800.
Eight hundred freaking dollars!
Nothing fancy either, no Bluetooth, lasers, or climate control. Just a plain ol' pair of brown slacks.
Needless to say I did not buy a suit that day.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Sometimes art is showing the familiar in a new way.

TheDman Loc: USA

IR Jim wrote:

By that logic of looking at a photograph by the ou... (show quote)

Not at all. There are limitless photos in a park, for instance, and most have never been shot. There are limitless angles from which to shoot Mt McKinley. There are limitless angles from which to shoot Moraine Lake in Canada, however everyone takes the same one because there is clearly a best side. There are limitless spins to put on the same subject matter. The milky way has been shot by practically everyone, but never with this particular tree in front of it. That's original. This particular sunbeam in Antelope Canyon, shot from this particular angle? It's been shot a million times.