MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Million Dollar Photo  (Read 11893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 11, 2011, 17:41 »
0
Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237


« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2011, 18:53 »
0
Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237


I never understood what makes an artwork get so much value.

« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2011, 19:08 »
0
Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237


I never understood what makes an artwork get so much value.

It's art and all that stuff. Its usually one very rich individual outbidding another very rich individual. But it's nice to see photography attain such a high value, makes you wonder about the 25 cent downloads for at least a second.

« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2011, 19:28 »
0
That is pretty remarkable.

We contemplated buying a Lik this summer, you have to see them in person to really appreciate them.  They are printed on (escapes me... silver halide or metalic) and affixed to a plexi or something - the way they reflect light is amazing.  The salesman will take you into a private viewing room and show you the photographs in lighting conditions and they truly look like different photographs entirely depending on how they are lit

D*mn micro, the purple fringing in a couple of his treelines drove me mad.  OMG $6000 and there's fringing?  

I ultimately decided that if I wanted a beautiful Antelope Canyon photo I could purchase one of Christophe Testi's and print up on Kodak Endura Metallic.

« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2011, 19:29 »
0
I had one like that rejected for limited commercial value

« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2011, 20:12 »
0
I had one like that rejected for limited commercial value

me too :)

« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2011, 20:12 »
0
Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237


I never understood what makes an artwork get so much value.

It's art and all that stuff. Its usually one very rich individual outbidding another very rich individual. But it's nice to see photography attain such a high value, makes you wonder about the 25 cent downloads for at least a second.


longer than second :)

« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2011, 20:21 »
0
Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237


I never understood what makes an artwork get so much value.


Creating a brand (Mr. Lik) and artificial scarcity (limited edition of one). It's a lovely image and he's very talented, but also lucky to find someone who'd fork out that much. I wonder if he kept the RAW/negative just in case the print got damaged and the buyer wanted to replace it? I wonder if he gave the buyer a JPEG for his/her Facebook page :) ?

« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2011, 20:30 »
0
I had one like that rejected for limited commercial value

They do say of an image "if it looks good enough to hang on a wall then it ain't good stock". Totally different markets and totally different values both aesthetically and financially.

« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2011, 20:41 »
0
Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237


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.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 20:42 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2011, 21:33 »
0
wow just one picture could win the most earning and working hard in the microstock of the year!!

I guess if it could get the rejection by some agency cause of lighting or what??LOL
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 21:37 by sobm »

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2011, 00:48 »
0
I had one like that rejected for limited commercial value

me too :)

I never submitted mine but add me to the Me Too group. :)

« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2011, 06:09 »
0
Mmmm - Probably better value than the  60m Chelsea payed for Fernando Torres last week.

Seriously though, has the world gone totally mad or am I just out of sync with reality?

Oldhand the confused

« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2011, 06:28 »
0
This confirms the old saying: "Everything has no value, until someone is willing to pay that!"

So if someone want to give a credit (your part is 16%) for your pic, that is a value... ;)
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 06:30 by borg »

« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2011, 06:46 »
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.

lagereek

« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2011, 07:12 »
0
The guy is an institution in himself, same as Avedon in fashion and art-woolf in wildlife. Lik is more of a conceptional landscape artist. However a million bucks?? I dont know? but ofcourse, art for arts sake.

« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2011, 07:30 »
0
I don't believe this story, sounds like a hash up to get some free advertising and to drive up the value of the photos he is selling.

Conviently the buyer wants to remain secret.

Maybe its true but I have my doubts.

« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2011, 08:52 »
0
Money laundry?

« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2011, 08:58 »
0
I don't believe this story, sounds like a hash up to get some free advertising and to drive up the value of the photos he is selling.

Conviently the buyer wants to remain secret.

Maybe its true but I have my doubts.

Good point. The stratospheric prices at the very top of any market are built almost entirely on illusion and artificially restricted supply. That's all that's happened here.

A century ago emeralds commanded a far higher price than diamonds; it was only De Beers brilliant marketing strategy, using Hollywood film stars to promote desirability and restricting the supply of diamonds available (they owned over 90% of the world's diamond mines) that created the illusion of 'value' most people just accept today. I've never really understood why people are prepared to spend so much on ... er ... shiny things. As far as I'm concerned a diamond's primary use and value is for industrial cutting devices.

rubyroo

« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2011, 08:59 »
0
Funny thing is, before microstock there was a time when I would spend two weeks waiting for the right light to get the shot I wanted.  If you have the patience (and the gear, and access to the locations), then so much is possible.

I'm afraid microstock has put me in such a hurry that the thought of waiting 12 hours for the 'right light'  (as he says he did in one of his videos) has become quite alien to me.   I'd like to get back to that mentality though.

Good for him I say.  It's good to see photography being highly renumerated in some circles, at least.

« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2011, 09:16 »
0
Probably for most of microstock agencies this pic would be rejected  because "Oversaturated category" or "Low commercial value".... ;D ;D
« Last Edit: February 12, 2011, 17:12 by borg »

« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2011, 10:43 »
0
not as exciting as a 12 cents sale at iRock :)

« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2011, 12:40 »
0
Funny thing is, before microstock there was a time when I would spend two weeks waiting for the right light to get the shot I wanted.  

Me too. Even when stock was sold out of catalogues it was often worthwhile to spend days if not weeks on a single image, perfecting it.

« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2011, 13:43 »
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.

« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2011, 14:35 »
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.


This attitude is the reason photography isn't considered worthy of art purchases by many art collectors. There is a distinction between photography collectors (people who only collect photography) and art collectors who mostly collect oil paintings and perhaps drawings.  The gap needs to be bridged so collectors start considering fine art photography worthy of addition to their collections.

This price point is completely normal for rare works especially oil paintings....with paintings there are only ever one original.  When I worked at a high-end art gallery the biggest reason clients gave that they didn't buy photography was that most photographers didn't limit the editions or the editions were very large like 250.  When you are printing 250 of the same image you can not expect art buyers to be attracted to it.  I think it is wonderful that photography is slowly getting the clout and the money it has long deserved.  From my art sales experience I can tell you photography as art is a very hard sell. When someone wants to buy art for over the fireplace they usually consider oil paintings...it is only the rare and sophisticated buyer who will even consider photography for the coveted over-the-mantel position. I think the idea of high priced editions of one single image never to be reprinted again is the way photography needs to go if art buyers are going to take it seriously.  Most of the best selling photographer's works are limited to editions of 1 up to 40 but many stick around the 10 area.  Much of the fun of collecting anything is knowing that is is unique, that there aren't thousands of other people with the same thing. There has been much analysis of the psychology of collecting fine things. When something is rare enough and strikes a connection with the person who wants it money is no object. We have all made purchases of things we've wanted which are difficult to justify to others but have made us so happy.  I don't think we need to be questioning weather or not a photograph is worth a million dollars because obviously it is to some people, we need to be asking how can we learn from this sale and what types of circumstances lends itself to such a high price tag.  Looking on the website I see mostly very commercial landscapes of places that have been shot to death in the stock world...antelope canyon, arches national park, the Brooklyn bridge, etc etc. what is different is the limited edition and that he makes it fun for the buyer.  Psychologists have compared collecting art to the equivalent of playing for adults. Many wealthy people don't have the outlet or time to let go and play like a child but they can find that fun and joy through the process of purchasing art, this guy creates a unique and fun environment for adults to play before they make their purchase. that is a big part of what they are paying for. Many collectors chose to remain anonymous, once you buy a work like this, museums are all over you trying to get you to lend it to them for a year or the calls start coming in to get you to donate to this or that museum..they really can be like vultures once a purchase is considered "important" they all want to be the first to display it.

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).

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #50 on: May 01, 2011, 14:40 »
0
it's art, nothing to do with stock prices - good for him
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 14:50 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
150 Replies
40057 Views
Last post May 10, 2014, 00:00
by marthamarks
49 Replies
9530 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 23:25
by leaf
1 Replies
2399 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 20:32
by EmberMike
11 Replies
1875 Views
Last post February 17, 2016, 11:01
by mklrnt
25 Replies
3941 Views
Last post April 30, 2017, 23:59
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results