Author Topic: Businessman pays £50,000 for photo (Read 6136 times)

dk · « **on:** April 19, 2012, 12:26 »

A businessman has forked out £50,000 for a photo of a dilapidated beach hut - when the real thing costs less than a quarter of the price.

London-based Simon Lance Burgess coughed up the huge sum after falling in love with the image of a crumbling beach hut in Thorpe Bay, Essex, entitled 'Neglected...but not beyond repair'.

Amazingly, the actual beach hut would have set him back just £12,000.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132057/Businessman-pays-50-000-PHOTO-dilapidated-beach-hut-real-thing-costs-12-000.html#ixzz1sVZUbqXP

helix7 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 19, 2012, 13:17 »

This is such a stupid article. It's like saying that a Cézanne isn't worth thousands of dollars because the bowl of fruit in the painting would have only cost a few bucks.

steheap · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2012, 13:18 »

Wow - so how much would he pay for this one? I must get in touch with him!

Steve
http://www.backyardimage.com/Europe/England/15640593_NXvKjp#!i=1802647501&k=R8GVNFW

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** April 19, 2012, 13:32 »

Strange article but I'm used to that with the Daily Mail. It's being used in an advertising campaign, so the price isn't that amazing. It does show that if you have something reasonably unique and someone wants it, they might pay a lot for it. It seems a bit like winning the lottery though, so I don't expect it to happen to me. I'm uploading lots to alamy as RM and they sometimes get big payments but I haven't seen any over $250 yet.

The art side of photography interests me but it's hard to find time to do that and stock. This is more stock than art, because it's going to be used commercially.

lagereek · « **Reply #4 on:** April 19, 2012, 13:41 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 19, 2012, 13:17

This is such a stupid article. It's like saying that a Cézanne isn't worth thousands of dollars because the bowl of fruit in the painting would have only cost a few bucks.

I agree! its like saying Andy Warhols Campbell soup can, costed just a few cents.

Pixart · « **Reply #5 on:** April 19, 2012, 15:55 »

Where I come from that would be a chicken coop - what exactly do you do in a beach hut anyway? Vacation with the fam? 12,000? Wow. Funny that I don't find the price of that crap photo shocking though.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** April 19, 2012, 17:03 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 19, 2012, 15:55

Where I come from that would be a chicken coop - what exactly do you do in a beach hut anyway?

You keep your bucket, spade and deckchair in it and can sit inside with a nice cup of soup when it is cold or raining, which happens quite a lot in Thorpe Bay (I know, I'm from Southend).

BTW, a full-page advert in the Daily Mail would set you back about £33,000, so you can deduct that from the price of the picture. As he also managed to plant it in The Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4267828/Shed-snap-is-sold-to-firm-for-50k-38k-more-than-the-shed.html I think it is fair to say that he is already showing a profit.

What's more, when he sticks the pic on billboards advertising his services people will stop and say "hey, look, that's the picture the birk paid 50 grand for", thereby maximising the impact of the posters.

Yup, I'd say he's made a pretty shrewd deal on this one.

click_click · « **Reply #7 on:** April 19, 2012, 17:33 »

Does anyone know which agency licensed it?

The photographer unfortunately is not walking away with 50,000 pounds anyway...

Pixart · « **Reply #8 on:** April 19, 2012, 17:40 »

I heard he was s a bronze at Istock and got 7500.

(You know I'm kidding right?)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** April 19, 2012, 17:42 »

Quote from: click_click on April 19, 2012, 17:33

Does anyone know which agency licensed it?

The photographer unfortunately is not walking away with 50,000 pounds anyway...

It might be a private sale
http://www.andrewareoff.com/
he's selling one-off prints for £2,000, which suggests he can't have been licensing it elsewhere.

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2012, 17:49 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2012, 17:42

Quote from: click_click on April 19, 2012, 17:33
Does anyone know which agency licensed it?

The photographer unfortunately is not walking away with 50,000 pounds anyway...

It might be a private sale
http://www.andrewareoff.com/
he's selling one-off prints for £2,000, which suggests he can't have been licensing it elsewhere.

Good for him then. I wonder how much he was sweating while he negotiated those licensing fees...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2012, 20:41 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 19, 2012, 13:17

This is such a stupid article. It's like saying that a Cézanne isn't worth thousands of dollars because the bowl of fruit in the painting would have only cost a few bucks.

It all depends, did Cezanne get to eat the fruit after he painted it? LOL

How's this and yes I did eat the charcoal broiled, bacon wrapped steak afterwards.

Articles like this are just to attract attention. It's like some modern art, for example hanging a toilet on the wall and calling it something. Please give me a break! The bar down on the corner has two works of art, just like that and they have running water in them!

Yes, plain stupid, you covered it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** April 20, 2012, 02:24 »

He has some nice photos on his site. It's the arty words that go with them that I struggle with. I prefer a photo to speak for itself but the words do seem to work with some people. They just make me cringe a bit but if that's what people want, I suppose it has to be done. I'm also so fixated with stock, it's hard to switch to a different approach.

OM · « **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2012, 07:06 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2012, 17:03

Quote from: Pixart on April 19, 2012, 15:55
Where I come from that would be a chicken coop - what exactly do you do in a beach hut anyway?

You keep your bucket, spade and deckchair in it and can sit inside with a nice cup of soup when it is cold or raining, which happens quite a lot in Thorpe Bay (I know, I'm from Southend).

BTW, a full-page advert in the Daily Mail would set you back about £33,000, so you can deduct that from the price of the picture. As he also managed to plant it in The Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4267828/Shed-snap-is-sold-to-firm-for-50k-38k-more-than-the-shed.html I think it is fair to say that he is already showing a profit.

What's more, when he sticks the pic on billboards advertising his services people will stop and say "hey, look, that's the picture the birk paid 50 grand for", thereby maximising the impact of the posters.

Yup, I'd say he's made a pretty shrewd deal on this one.

Exactly as it was intended to work! Wonder if photographer actually has the payment on his account yet and the percentage of 50K that he actually gets?

Edit: I trust that the examples on that site are deliberately 'distressed' to prevent theft because I cannot detect anything sharp in #2 and there appears to be severe chromatic aberration in, at least, one of the others.

niserin · « **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2012, 07:51 »

Maybe I don't understand this high-end art, but come on his pictures are very very avarage. It's not jelousy, it is just a disbelief.
Easy formula: -
1. take an avarage picture on the nearest beach
2. add contrast, vignete and again contrast
3. write some lofty airy-fairy words about general concepts

And now the most important:
4. Set your price to £ xxx or even £ xxxx and do not forget to mention the small limit of prints to be released!

Form over content.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** April 21, 2012, 15:27 »

He says that they are all shot on colour slides so as his maximum ISO is probably 400 and may be as low as 50, the chances of having anything sharp in a sunset taken over the sea as late as that one was are pretty minimal. There is virtually nothing in the frame that is solid and unmoving. It doesn't matter, though: all that matters is whether someone likes it enough to buy it, it doesn't have to undergo a microstock inspection.

I agree there is nothing startling in his gallery but if his marketing skills are allowing him to make a living from it, then well done him.

I shouldn't think there's anything much that is particularly stunning in my port, either.

Quote from: niserin on April 21, 2012, 07:51

Maybe I don't understand this high-end art, but come on his pictures are very very avarage. It's not jelousy, it is just a disbelief.
Easy formula: -
1. take an avarage picture on the nearest beach
2. add contrast, vignete and again contrast
3. write some lofty airy-fairy words about general concepts

And now the most important:
4. Set your price to £ xxx or even £ xxxx and do not forget to mention the small limit of prints to be released!

Form over content.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #16 on:** April 22, 2012, 10:40 »

I wonder why I didn't get $100 billion for an aerial view of downtown Vancouver?

niserin · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2012, 10:52 »

Quote from: Zeus on April 22, 2012, 10:40

I wonder why I didn't get $100 billion for an aerial view of downtown Vancouver?

And that's a good analogy

RacePhoto · « **Reply #18 on:** April 24, 2012, 12:01 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2012, 17:03

Quote from: Pixart on April 19, 2012, 15:55
Where I come from that would be a chicken coop - what exactly do you do in a beach hut anyway?

You keep your bucket, spade and deckchair in it and can sit inside with a nice cup of soup when it is cold or raining, which happens quite a lot in Thorpe Bay (I know, I'm from Southend).

BTW, a full-page advert in the Daily Mail would set you back about £33,000, so you can deduct that from the price of the picture. As he also managed to plant it in The Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4267828/Shed-snap-is-sold-to-firm-for-50k-38k-more-than-the-shed.html I think it is fair to say that he is already showing a profit.

What's more, when he sticks the pic on billboards advertising his services people will stop and say "hey, look, that's the picture the birk paid 50 grand for", thereby maximising the impact of the posters.

Yup, I'd say he's made a pretty shrewd deal on this one.

After following the link and reading who bought it and what for (advertising) it makes more sense, than bought as wall art.

I'd say you have it right. The free advertising from the Sun is valuable too.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Businessman pays £50,000 for photo (Read 6136 times)

dk

helix7

steheap

sharpshot

lagereek

Pixart

BaldricksTrousers

click_click

Pixart

BaldricksTrousers

click_click

RacePhoto

sharpshot

OM

niserin

BaldricksTrousers

PeterChigmaroff

niserin

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors