pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Million Dollar Photo  (Read 11904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gbcimages

« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2011, 16:58 »
0
still,no photo no art  is worth a million


« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2011, 17:04 »
0
I'm not very good at talking myself up.  These successful photo artists are great at selling themselves and their photos.  It definitely makes me wonder if I'm in the wrong job when I see this though.  There's really nothing special about most of the photos I have seen selling for small fortunes.  I need to go to BS school :)  I also think it would be hard for a microstocker to sell photos for huge amounts of money but perhaps that could be used as a rags to riches story?  Some artists sell prints for tiny amounts and they sell their originals for big fees, so perhaps it can be done.

Would be interesting to know what's the most a microsotock contributor has made selling an art photography print.

this is my problem too

Peter Lik sees nature through different eyesthose which haven't been distracted by the modern world.  He is often described as the most important landscape photographer alivea distinction the artist sidesteps earnestly, detached from such conventions...  

sidesteps but puts it on his website still :)

another big one in Australia - "Ken Duncan - Australia's Leading Panoramic Photographer" is the title for his website, says it all. I read a while back where he talked of collection limits, that to be serious you have to limit but finding the balance of how many is always difficult.

As Yuri says branding is so important
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 17:13 by Phil »

« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2011, 18:56 »
0
Can you imagine this sceanario:

One sells a $1million image on IS, then IS takes 80% of it, so one would get $200 000, and IS gets $800 000. Then of course, one have to pay tax, so here in Canada (not 100% sure) I guess you would pay 40-50% tax on that. In the end, you'd get $120 000 max on a $1million sale.

Not worth it at all. :P

« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2011, 19:33 »
0
Can you imagine this sceanario:

One sells a $1million image on IS, then IS takes 80% of it, so one would get $200 000, and IS gets $800 000. Then of course, one have to pay tax, so here in Canada (not 100% sure) I guess you would pay 40-50% tax on that. In the end, you'd get $120 000 max on a $1million sale.

Not worth it at all. :P

iStock is taking 85%.. (but for Peter they would have open an exception)

« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2011, 20:42 »
0
after one sale he would be up to 19%

« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2011, 20:49 »
0
after one sale he would be up to 19%

But only for a year?

« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2011, 21:04 »
0
after one sale he would be up to 19%

But only for a year?

Artist "I sold a print for one million dollars, I should get 20 percent now"

IS "yeah, that million dollar sale is nice and all, but what have you done for me lately? besides, money isn't what is going to make you happy"

« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2011, 21:28 »
0
For me it's nothing about this particular photo itself, or the quality of a specific artist's portfolio, be him a photographer, a painter, a sculpturer, whatever. It's just that it is insane to pay that much money for anything of the kind.  I find it insane enough when I read about a Van Gogh or a Picasso reaching also several million of dollars in an auction.  Maybe if it was the only left work of an artist, or one with a very special history behind it, but not in general.

rubyroo

« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2011, 06:24 »
0
I'm not sure it's necessary to understand the mind of the collector.  I have a relative who is very entrenched in the art world, and he says the mentality of collectors is a world apart from most of us and very difficult to relate to when you can't comprehend the sums of money they have at their disposal.  All that matters is that that's their 'thing' and they can easily afford it.   Some people know how to market their work in a way that satisfies that need in the market.  

This guy is marketing himself successfully, has figured out the scarcity/desirability rule that makes a product more valuable to collectors, and has found a printing method that makes his work particularly stand out.

I couldn't do what he does because I wouldn't want to put myself 'out there' in the way that he has.  But still, if he's worked hard, is honest and has succeeded primarily by his own efforts, I can't really fault that.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 06:50 by rubyroo »

lagereek

« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2011, 13:41 »
0
For me it's nothing about this particular photo itself, or the quality of a specific artist's portfolio, be him a photographer, a painter, a sculpturer, whatever. It's just that it is insane to pay that much money for anything of the kind.  I find it insane enough when I read about a Van Gogh or a Picasso reaching also several million of dollars in an auction.  Maybe if it was the only left work of an artist, or one with a very special history behind it, but not in general.


The classic arts/painters like van Gogh, Piccasso, etc, is a totally differant story, their art is looked upon as an investment, like them or not, its something which never, ever loose in value.
This shot by Lik however, must have been bought rather for its appeal then investment.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2011, 13:54 »
0
He is getting his name out there. He is the Weather Channels Nature Photog.

« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2011, 14:25 »
0
For me it's nothing about this particular photo itself, or the quality of a specific artist's portfolio, be him a photographer, a painter, a sculpturer, whatever. It's just that it is insane to pay that much money for anything of the kind.  I find it insane enough when I read about a Van Gogh or a Picasso reaching also several million of dollars in an auction.  Maybe if it was the only left work of an artist, or one with a very special history behind it, but not in general.
Certainly no more insane than paying some dimwit hundreds of thousands of dollars a month because he can throw/hit/dribble a ball.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2011, 14:35 »
0
still,no photo no art  is worth a million

It's worth the highest price a buyer is willing to pay and the lowest price the seller is willing to accept. In this case that median was $1M.

So I guess if someone offered you $1M for one of your photos you would decline and say it's not worth it?

« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2011, 14:39 »
0
Certainly no more insane than paying some dimwit hundreds of thousands of dollars a month because he can throw/hit/dribble a ball.
I would agree, but a good sports player (whatever the sport) brings back revenue in merchandise and advertisement. In this case, it is an investment, even if I agree that the money involved is also absurd.

« Reply #39 on: February 13, 2011, 14:45 »
0
For me it's nothing about this particular photo itself, or the quality of a specific artist's portfolio, be him a photographer, a painter, a sculpturer, whatever. It's just that it is insane to pay that much money for anything of the kind.  I find it insane enough when I read about a Van Gogh or a Picasso reaching also several million of dollars in an auction.  Maybe if it was the only left work of an artist, or one with a very special history behind it, but not in general.


The classic arts/painters like van Gogh, Piccasso, etc, is a totally differant story, their art is looked upon as an investment, like them or not, its something which never, ever loose in value.
This shot by Lik however, must have been bought rather for its appeal then investment.

dont agree, if it was really purchased for a million it will be forever a million, it can only increase.. of course there is always the need to find a person who is willing to pay.. if he has 14 galleries I believe there is an investment in art, not only from himself but other looking to purchase it.. or he is totally insane!

« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2011, 14:59 »
0
Certainly no more insane than paying some dimwit hundreds of thousands of dollars a month because he can throw/hit/dribble a ball.
I would agree, but a good sports player (whatever the sport) brings back revenue in merchandise and advertisement. In this case, it is an investment, even if I agree that the money involved is also absurd.
Art, the kind people deem as must have is by far and away one of the best investments you can make. So this million dollar image may easily become 2, 5 to 10 million while the sports figure heads off to rehab or hires a PR firm to explain his indiscretions. The only reason the sports figure makes that kind of money is because someone fills the stands for, what I believe, is an insane admission fee.

« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2011, 15:23 »
0
The only reason the sports figure makes that kind of money is because someone fills the stands for, what I believe, is an insane admission fee.

Not really __ by far the most revenue from sports is generated through television. Agree that people are willing to pay absurd amounts to attend though. I found it quite bizarre that lots of people paid $200 just to stand in the carpark outside the Superbowl stadium last weekend. That's just weird.

gbcimages

« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2011, 15:41 »
0
still, no sports figure,artist,photographer or whatever is  worth that kind of money

« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2011, 15:57 »
0
still, no sports figure,artist,photographer or whatever is  worth that kind of money

it is your opinion, some might disagree, I do

imagine the taxes that Peter will pay? money moves money
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 15:59 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2011, 15:58 »
0
The only reason the sports figure makes that kind of money is because someone fills the stands for, what I believe, is an insane admission fee.

Not really __ by far the most revenue from sports is generated through television. Agree that people are willing to pay absurd amounts to attend though. I found it quite bizarre that lots of people paid $200 just to stand in the carpark outside the Superbowl stadium last weekend. That's just weird.
Seriously, $200 for that? In that case the image is a steal at one million.

« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2011, 15:59 »
0
still, no sports figure,artist,photographer or whatever is  worth that kind of money

it is your opinion, some might disagree, I do
You're right, artist for sure, but sports figure not a chance.

« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2011, 17:51 »
0
One of the first rules in sales is...don't think out of your own pocket think out of the buyers pocket.  That is to say, just because you are a poor starving artist and buy ramen noodles for dinner doesn't mean that you should project your own poverty on the person buying, you must do some acting and pretend what it would be like to have multiple millions,  do you think it is crazy to spend a million on a house....no you don't because it is an investment you say....when art sells in the higher ranges it is usually done knowing full well that in the past 50 years art has been the best investment one can make...there is not another way to invest that returns more money than popular art.  I purchased a photo for $1000 4 years ago form a very popular photographer, the edition of 40 has now sold out it is currently valued at 10,000 I would say earning 1000% on my money is a lot better than any investment I could have made, and I haven't sold it yet.  I will hang on to the photo and enjoy it until I want to sell it and buy a few other lower priced pieces and then sell those when I don't want them any more and so on and so on all the while feeling good about supporting up and coming artist while making a great investment. It is the best place to put your money as it will never go down in value if it is limited edition form a popular photographer.

« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2011, 20:55 »
0
The photo sold is very nice, but I have seen many similar ones. The photos on his side are also very nice and artistic, but again I have seen many more similar ones. Better photographers have a unique distinctive style, similar to the handwriting, recognizable to the people who are familiar with their work. Even with good microstockers who shoot boring commercial stuff you still see that personal style. Funny I don't see a unique style in Peter Lik's work. It's like the images were taken from something like "How to be creative with your photography" book for beginners....
Don't understand why the image fetched that price (if it's true). I understand about collecting and all but seriously people look around - you can find similar images even on Flickr, if it's an item worth collecting I'd want it to be something really special, something very unique in composition and subject. Which this image is not, IMHO.

RacePhoto

« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2011, 22:46 »
0
I never understood what makes an artwork get so much value.


maybe http://www.peterlik.com/awards

Peter Lik Galleries are a work of art, in and of themselvesas youll see upon entering. Designed and conceived by the artist, all fourteen galleriesfrom New York to Australia exhibit an exquisite attention to detail, and reveal the essence of fine art. Come join us today and experience what makes Peter Lik the most important landscape photographer in the world.


Still, I don't understand why a piece of artwok can be valued so much.


See what Lightscribe wrote it's very well presented. The gallery, the name, the limited edition, there's some status connected with owning a work by this artist (but not you or me?) and the one print, makes it exclusive. It all adds up. There's also the demand. One of us could have a one of a kind, amazing shot, and get $300 for it. Put "famous artists" name on it, which will hang on the wall and impress friends and associates,, the price goes up. It's all fair.

Here's my answer. I'll make one print of this for lets say, 1/10th the price and promise to never take the shot again or print it again. I'm calling it "One River Rock" :D Only $100,000. Wait this month only for Valentines day a special, only 1/100th of the million, $10,000 for a limited edition one print, printed 26 x 20 full size and custom framed... It's a stitched panorama, note the subtle colors of the Fall afternoon, soft cloud covered lighting. Delivery included in the continental US. Real deal! ;)



« Reply #49 on: May 01, 2011, 14:21 »
0
I had never heard of him, so I googled his name. I'm surprised to see what looks to me like pretty standard art-fair type landscape images. I get it when Andreas Gursky sells a print for $1M, but this was a total surprise! I gotta get back in the art market!

Agreed with above comment - the artists who sell the most are definitely the good marketers, not necessarily the good artists. In fact, the quality of the art has almost no bearing on price or sales or getting into galleries - it's all marketing. That is due to the fact that art appreciation is so subjective. If you are good at talking yourself up and selling, you can always find someone who will like your work (or be talked into thinking that they like it).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
150 Replies
40076 Views
Last post May 10, 2014, 00:00
by marthamarks
49 Replies
9555 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 23:25
by leaf
1 Replies
2401 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 20:32
by EmberMike
11 Replies
1876 Views
Last post February 17, 2016, 11:01
by mklrnt
25 Replies
3945 Views
Last post April 30, 2017, 23:59
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results