kylebarendrick wrote:
For me the problem is that when someone misrepresents their work (straight out of the camera, tremendous research and photographic skill required, etc. for an image that is an obvious composite) it taints everyone else.
While misrepresentation is bad, there is a lack of logic implicit and almost explicit in that sentence.
When an image is a composite (obvious or otherwise) it can take a lot of research and photographic skill to photograph the parts and to composite them. "Composite" does not mean "no research" and it does not mean "no skill". If you dispute that, then you try to make the composite parts and put them together and print as large as the Lik photograph at the same level of quality.
Grognard wrote:
Peter Lik, he is the Weather Channel guy right? The guy that is always running to get "the shot"? Never heard of him until I saw him on the Weather Channel. Other than guys here on FM, I probably could not name more than four or five current "famous" photographers. Let's see: MCurry, Sexton, Kubota, Parent, Caponigro and Shaw. That's six.
I also hadn't hard of Lik before that..err actually I heard of him first on Pawn Stars when someone was selling the "pier" image to the guys for like $1500 or something..
There is also Art Wolfe, Kevin McNeal, Sean Bagshaw, Zach Schnepf (Photo Cascadia.com guys)... there are many more, just most don't have their own show, other then Lik and Wolfe..
Dustin Gent wrote:
I also hadn't hard of Lik before that..err actually I heard of him first on Pawn Stars when someone was selling the "pier" image to the guys for like $1500 or something..
There is also Art Wolfe, Kevin McNeal, Sean Bagshaw, Zach Schnepf (Photo Cascadia.com guys)... there are many more, just most don't have their own show, other then Lik and Wolfe..
I've seen that episode. Retail price 25 grand, asking price was 12 grand. Crazy for such an ordinary shot if you ask me... Also the trivia card said he earns 30 million annually.....
Monito wrote:
When an image is a composite (obvious or otherwise) it can take a lot of research and photographic skill to photograph the parts and to composite them. "Composite" does not mean "no research" and it does not mean "no skill". If you dispute that, then you try to make the composite parts and put them together and print as large as the Lik photograph at the same level of quality.
I completely agree with you. My point is that when an image is only possible to create with a well designed and executed composite, but the creator claims that they have the photographic skills to create it in-camera with no editing, then it creates a perception that those of us who use focus or exposure stacking are somewhat less skilled.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't believe I have ever lied about a photograph of mine. As I wrote earlier, I'm willing to describe techniques that I use to make my photographs, including post-processing. (I write a couple paragraphs about each photograph that I post at my blog daily: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/, and I'm happy to answer aesthetic and technical questions about them that you or others might have.)
I have some photographs that involve intentionally significant departures from _reality_ that I label as imaginary landscapes so as to differentiate them from more believable photographs.
And I have never lied to a client of mine about the nature of a photograph that they licensed or purchased, nor have I intentionally misled anyone about the nature of a photograph of mine.
As to the question of "purity," I'm pure me. :-)
Does that answer your question?
Dan
BTW: I note that you still have not directly answered the question about whether or not you would lie to a client...
Milan Hutera wrote:
I've seen that episode. Retail price 25 grand, asking price was 12 grand. Crazy for such an ordinary shot if you ask me... Also the trivia card said he earns 30 million annually.....
I would feel dishonest charging that much for a print, though technically I guess it's not unethical.
Of course, and I may get some flak for this, I hate the idea of "limited editions" anyway. It always feels like a scam to me for photographers to artificially inflate the value of their photographs. Just my opinion.
andyjaggy82 wrote:
I would feel dishonest charging that much for a print, though technically I guess it's not unethical.
Of course, and I may get some flak for this, I hate the idea of "limited editions" anyway. It always feels like a scam to me for photographers to artificially inflate the value of their photographs. Just my opinion.
True. There are members on this very board who are IMO crazy (but in a good way) - Mark Metternich and Aaron Feinberg, who charge insane prices for their prints, but their prices are nowhere near 12 grand, not to mention 25. And, again, IMHO, both mentioned guys produce much better work than Lik.
andyjaggy82 wrote:
Of course, and I may get some flak for this, I hate the idea of "limited editions" anyway. It always feels like a scam to me for photographers to artificially inflate the value of their photographs. Just my opinion.
Most photographers are only known for maybe 2 or 3 images. The rest of their body of work may be good, but those 2 or 3 photos are the bread winners. If you do not offer limited series prints, customers are far more hesitant to purchase the work. Likewise, If you do not do limited editions with sliding price scale, you will sell through the edition and no longer be able to create any income from those killer images. I'm a big fan of limited edition prints with the sliding scale for that very reason. If you don't do this, it is not a very wise business decision. We can talk about art all we want, but here's the deal -- it's a business and you need to be able to support yourself and your family from it.
Feb 11, 2012 at 01:04 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
There are members on this very board who are IMO crazy (but in a good way) - Mark Metternich and Aaron Feinberg, who charge insane prices for their prints, but their prices are nowhere near 12 grand, not to mention 25. And, again, IMHO, both mentioned guys produce much better work than Lik.
Insane prices?
When you use the very best materials (and most expensive) in the industry (like Flex paper printed and reprinted over and over until reaching as close to "perfection" an artist can get, through a top fine art lab (which is much more expensive than a lab that does mainly production) or REAL Dibond for back mounting (instead of cheaper knock offs or thin acrylic) or scratch resistant and UV protected acrylic (face mount) or hand made aluminum back frames, or custom hand made wooden crates (not boxes) for the ultra-protection of shipping... Then the sheer hours of labor (and everyone has a different quantitative value for their time) for attempting top quality workmanship then huge shipping costs, and then you consider the retail standard of 100% mark up, or the overhead Aaron and others may have, or the 40-50+% the galleries take or the 50+% you may pay your sales team to go out and sell your work - "insane" would not be the word I would choose!
Standard common sense business practice might be a better way to put it. Many (or most?) good artists are poor as dirt because they simply (and often mainly) don't value their time overall investments or work. When all the time and investment (including shooting time and travel and fuel and vehicle/camper/camping/permits, software costs, camera equipment, and electricity bill for being behind your computer 14 hrs a day...) and all the work is added up, plus the aforementioned things (materials and labor...) IMO a person would have to not respect themselves, their work or the people they financially provide for to give away their work cheaply. I sometimes see artists do this, and that may have potential overall effect of driving down the market.
It is simple economics. I value my time and others (the ones who pay me for it) do as well. As far as putting limits to the amount of images you will sell (LE prints) of course this adds to the exclusivity of the piece as well as its inherent value. If you spent countless thousands of dollars acquiring an image and making the quality product and sold it, say, 10 times only, would it make any sense to profit only $250 for each of the pieces?! You would fall into bankruptcy overnight with that attitude. The public loves exclusivity. They usually love things more when they are less common. IMO, it is a service to the public to make something limited so it will be more special to them. Sometimes I think photographers don't think about the service qualities of our work. We are serving others. This is a privilege. It isn't about us as much as it should be about those we serve. If I have busted my tail to serve others and to produce something special in the market for someone who will value it, should I not be able to get a decent price (or value on my time and resources)?
Some may use LE images as a gimmick, but many do not. I find less often, that extremely hard working photographers/artists have as much business sense as they do artistic sense. Thus few make a decent/justifiable living from it.
Feb 11, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
KAREL WOLF wrote:
I'am sure he knows about this thread....by now someone has surely informed him about it.....i am sure he cares....i am sure he will not reply and by doing so risking even more critique. I even bet that he does not find this thread "ROOOOAAARING" (quote P.Lik ).
No, he does not pay attention to what photographers think.
Feb 11, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Speaking of ethics, maybe we should all ask ourselves how ethical it is to be attacking a persons character when he is not around to defend himself. Just a thought........
When you use the very best materials (and most expensive) in the industry (like Flex paper printed and reprinted over and over until reaching as close to "perfection" an artist can get, through a top fine art lab (which is much more expensive than a lab that does mainly production) or REAL Dibond for back mounting (instead of cheaper knock offs or thin acrylic) or scratch resistant and UV protected acrylic (face mount) or hand made aluminum back frames, or custom hand made wooden crates (not boxes) for the ultra-protection of shipping... Then the sheer hours of labor (and everyone has a different quantitative value for their time) for attempting top quality workmanship then huge shipping costs, and then you consider the retail standard of 100% mark up, or the overhead Aaron and others may have, or the 40-50+% the galleries take or the 50+% you may pay your sales team to go out and sell your work - "insane" would not be the word I would choose!
Standard common sense business practice might be a better way to put it. Many (or most?) good artists are poor as dirt because they simply (and often mainly) don't value their time overall investments or work. When all the time and investment (including shooting time and travel and fuel and vehicle/camper/camping/permits, software costs, camera equipment, and electricity bill for being behind your computer 14 hrs a day...) and all the work is added up, plus the aforementioned things (materials and labor...) IMO a person would have to not respect themselves, their work or the people they financially provide for to give away their work cheaply. I sometimes see artists do this, and that may have potential overall effect of driving down the market.
It is simple economics. I value my time and others (the ones who pay me for it) do as well. As far as putting limits to the amount of images you will sell (LE prints) of course this adds to the exclusivity of the piece as well as its inherent value. If you spent countless thousands of dollars acquiring an image and making the quality product and sold it, say, 10 times only, would it make any sense to profit only $250 for each of the pieces?! You would fall into bankruptcy overnight with that attitude. The public loves exclusivity. They usually love things more when they are less common. IMO, it is a service to the public to make something limited so it will be more special to them. Sometimes I think photographers don't think about the service qualities of our work. We are serving others. This is a privilege. It isn't about us as much as it should be about those we serve. If I have busted my tail to serve others and to produce something special in the market for someone who will value it, should I not be able to get a decent price (or value on my time and resources)?
Some may use LE images as a gimmick, but many do not. I find less often, that extremely hard working photographers/artists have as much business sense as they do artistic sense. Thus few make a decent/justifiable living from it. ...Show more →
Mark, in a few days I'm delivering the first part of my PhD. project on business diagnostics to my department, so I understand a bit what economics is. If your pricing works for you then great, I couldn't be more happy for you. I was trying to prove a point while you or Aaron charge prices that are far higher than most pro landscape photographers charge, they are still nowhere near Lik's prices. Now, compare the mid day Tahiti pier shot that goes for 25 grand with some of your work. Not to mention it wasn't that big to begin with (probably a 30" prited on Fuji crystal archive).
runamuck wrote:
It is Peter Lik's photo and he is free to do with it as he pleases within the framework of the law. You are free to criticize any way you wish within the framework of the law. I question your posting of the image here in light of copyright laws.
I do not see how it "...reflects poorly on hard working photographers." I find it to be a great example of what photographers are capable of using today's techniques.
Milan Hutera, I don't know if it will become "...another million dollar image." It is a striking image, and I wouldn't bet against it....Show more →
Too many haters out there.
Photojournalism should be truth in photography and everything else should be allowed as an art form with artistic liberties.
Klaus Priebe wrote:
Too many haters out there.
Photojournalism should be truth in photography and everything else should be allowed as an art form with artistic liberties.
+1
If those criticizing Peter on this forum were making 25 Grand a shot, I doubt they would be fussing!
Feb 11, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Milan Hutera wrote:
Mark, in a few days I'm delivering the first part of my PhD. project on business diagnostics to my department, so I understand a bit what economics is. If your pricing works for you then great, I couldn't be more happy for you. I was trying to prove a point while you or Aaron charge prices that are far higher than most pro landscape photographers charge, they are still nowhere near Lik's prices. Now, compare the mid day Tahiti pier shot that goes for 25 grand with some of your work. Not to mention it wasn't that big to begin with (probably a 30" prited on Fuji crystal archive). ...Show more →
I get it. I was just questioning your choice of word "insane" toward my price structure. I think "fair" would be better (but I can't speak for Aaron since, although friends, I don't know his specifics).
!!
