€14,000 Photograph

Micilin Muc

What makes this photograph worth €14,000?! Taken from http://annieatkins.tumblr.com/post/505296082/dublin-1966-by-evelyn-hofer

sheesh

I lolled

I love that her hobbies include 'taking herself too seriously' and 'talking about herself in the third person'

Thecageyone

No idea, I've taken way better pictures of Dublin myself! Ok, I didn't have that perspective, but tbh, that picture isn't very good at all apart from the perspective. It lacks punch, detail, life, interest ...

Think I should start over charging for my prints!

[yes, I realise it's a joke price ... or it better be!]

DaireQuinlan

Micilin Muc wrote: »

What makes this photograph worth €14,000?! Taken from http://annieatkins.tumblr.com/post/505296082/dublin-1966-by-evelyn-hofer

What makes it worth that ? The fact that people pay it. Evelyn Hofer is a reasonably well known photographer. She's also dead. This could be a signed print or something. The postage seems a bit steep though

DaireQuinlan

Thecageyone wrote: »

tbh, that picture isn't very good at all apart from the perspective. It lacks punch, detail, life, interest ...

You're right, a bit of work with the clarity slider in lightroom would give it a bit of oomph. Maybe bring out the shadows a little. Pity she didn't have the raw to work from, or a couple of bracketed exposures.

magicbastarder

she's broken the rule of thirds, too.

Micilin Muc

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

What makes it worth that ? The fact that people pay it. Evelyn Hofer is a reasonably well known photographer. She's also dead. This could be a signed print or something. The postage seems a bit steep though

Maybe you'll excuse my ignorance, I have never heard of her until now! I don't think it's a good photograph!

melekalikimaka

i like it alot. if i won euro millions... id consider it... just for the crack like

Paulw

Micilin Muc wrote: »

I don't think it's a good photograph!

That's the joy of photography - it's subjective. People like different things.

To me, I like the photo. But, at the same time, I'd never pay that price for art.

dazftw

Or you could buy this for just a little over 3 million.

bullpost

magicbastarder wrote: »

she's broken the rule of thirds, too.

Naughty - probably one of those anarchist, dadaist, situationist types !

dazftw

Thecageyone wrote: »

No idea, I've taken way better pictures of Dublin myself! Ok, I didn't have that perspective, but tbh, that picture isn't very good at all apart from the perspective. It lacks punch, detail, life, interest ...

Think I should start over charging for my prints!

[yes, I realise it's a joke price ... or it better be!]

You do realise it was taken in 1966?

melekalikimaka

dazftw wrote: »

You do realise it was taken in 1966?

OMG before CS2... no wonder!!!

Micilin Muc

melekalikimaka wrote: »

OMG before CS2... no wonder!!!

But how else would she have cloned out the Millennium Bridge? ;-)

Fenster

dazftw wrote: »

Or you could buy this for just a little over 3 million.

Most 99 Cent stores in or around Nevada have a 20x10 foot print of that hanging up somewhere inside the store. Seen at 'real-life' size that photograph is absoutely gobsmacking.

Sleepy

What's so gobsmacking about it Fenster?

All I see is a colourful photo of a shop...

stcstc

its not a photo of a shop as such

he actually adds in loads of the items and duplicates items etc

there is a lot of work in those

gaz wac

stcstc wrote: »

its not a photo of a shop as such

he actually adds in loads of the items and duplicates items etc

there is a lot of work in those

got a linky?

stcstc

oh sorry

heres some stuff on him

gursky

magicbastarder

Sleepy wrote: »

What's so gobsmacking about it Fenster?

All I see is a colourful photo of a shop...

i suspect that the scale you're seeing the photo at does it little justice.

dazftw

Another expensive photo: The Pond Moonlight sold for just 2.9 million dollars



Taken in 1904!

Also for anyone who hasn't seen the bbc series "The Genius of Photography" you must go purchase and watch it. I guarantee your view on photography will drastically change. You will actually realise why these photos are good and why they go for so much.

Eirebear

Sleepy wrote: »

All I see is a colourful photo of a shop...

Aaaaarrrgggghhhh!

I hate this kind of attitude towards photography.

Imagine someone said of the Mona Lisa, "I dont get the big deal, its just a picture of a not that pretty chick"

gaz wac

( mona lisa is a painting )

Eirebear

gaz wac wrote: »

( mona lisa is a painting )

Trev M

dazftw wrote: »

Another expensive photo: The Pond Moonlight sold for just 2.9 million dollars



Taken in 1904!

Also for anyone who hasn't seen the bbc series "The Genius of Photography" you must go purchase and watch it. I guarantee your view on photography will drastically change. You will actually realise why these photos are good and why they go for so much.

Could you not spare us all , and ya know.....give us the jist of it?:D

magicbastarder

Eirebear wrote: »

Imagine someone said of the Mona Lisa, "I dont get the big deal, its just a picture of a not that pretty chick"

while we're on the subject, i *don't* get the big deal, it's an unremarkable painting.

Slidinginfinity

Eirebear wrote: »

Imagine someone said of the Mona Lisa, "I dont get the big deal, its just a picture of a not that pretty chick"

magicbastarder wrote: »

while we're on the subject, i *don't* get the big deal, it's an unremarkable painting.

Well actually it is a bit of a marvel: Link

Though to be honest it does very little for me.

Eirebear

magicbastarder wrote: »

while we're on the subject, i *don't* get the big deal, it's an unremarkable painting.

I dont particularly "get it" either, thats kind of my point. Its all subjective.

A work of art, be it a painting a sculpture a photograph is only worth the money if someone is willing to pay the money for it, simple as that really.
And if someone is willing to pay a few million for "just a picture of a shop" then who are we to complain about it?

DaireQuinlan

Eirebear wrote: »

I dont particularly "get it" either, thats kind of my point. Its all subjective.

A work of art, be it a painting a sculpture a photograph is only worth the money if someone is willing to pay the money for it, simple as that really.
And if someone is willing to pay a few million for "just a picture of a shop" then who are we to complain about it?

Human nature normally dictates the following sort of sequence in these cases though ...

1. It's -just- a picture of a shop
2. I could take the same picture
3. but wait ... no-one will give ME a million dollars
4. ????
5. I HATE THAT GUY

mehfesto

Trev M wrote: »

Could you not spare us all , and ya know.....give us the jist of it?:D

Look at it. People would struggle to recreate that today. He did that in 1904! Cant remember what year the Brownie came in, but I'd imagine a larger format camera was used.

I think all early photographs are important and worthy of praise. They are essentially the history of the art in a tangible form. They show where it's come from - and we all copy them today, whether we knowingly do so or not.

It's easy to criticize pictures of shops in the past etc., because we don't know the context, or because what was groundbreaking to them personally, became overdone by other and to us became banal and bland.

Fenster

Sleepy wrote: »

What's so gobsmacking about it Fenster?

All I see is a colourful photo of a shop...

You really need to see the photograph at its full size to appreciate how much is in the image. If you're ever in Las Vegas, stop into a 99 Cent store branch. I'll give directions.

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

2. I could take the same picture

the usual answer to the 'i could have taken that picture!' is 'but you didn't!'

Fenster

dazftw wrote: »

Also for anyone who hasn't seen the bbc series "The Genius of Photography" you must go purchase and watch it. I guarantee your view on photography will drastically change. You will actually realise why these photos are good and why they go for so much.

I sat down and watched it; the series focused on a very narrow range of photography (street/candid), basically didn't include anything from the last 15-20 years and - to me - went to great lengths to show how many arrogant twats there were in the entire industry: The price of prints; the nonsensical and artificial "exclusivity" that collectors would have you believe exists in this age of effective digital post-scarcity; the fact that there are those who can warble on unselfconsciously about the sublime and multi-layered meaning present in a blurry photograph of a door that rightfully rotted away in somebody's archives for a century and a half.

Here is something really eye-opening about the (financial) worth of art: Pearls Before Breakfast

Trev M

Fair play mehfesto , my post was lazy etc but still you made a case and to an extent I see and agree with your point ,the time it was taken, the context etc.

Im pretty ignorant in the ways of the arts, at best would have a limited appreciation of "what's good" but even I can appreciate when something is pioneering or original which is what I think your pointing at , aswell as the aesthetically (sp?) please value of the picture from your point of view of course.

I dont think I'll ever get the crazy money side of it all though.:(

Effects

Fenster wrote: »

I sat down and watched it; the series focused on a very narrow range of photography (street/candid), basically didn't include anything from the last 15-20 years

You obviously didn't watch it all in that case

dazftw

Effects wrote: »

You obviously didn't watch it all in that case

Yeah its goes from the 1st photograph ever taken to now.. I think the last thing was that guy who setup like the movie sets for photos. Over six programmes

BUY IT!!!

http://cgi.ebay.ie/THE-GENIUS-OF-PHOTOGRAPHY-DVD-NEW-FREE-P-P_W0QQitemZ280453060026QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CDsDVDs_DVDs_DVDs_GL?hash=item414c4e15ba#ht_2826wt_852

magicbastarder

Fenster wrote: »

Here is something really eye-opening about the (financial) worth of art: Pearls Before Breakfast

i don't have time to read the whole article now, so at the risk of tilting at windmills, based on my understanding of the article - i would heartily disagree to the point of causing myself an embolism. that was just a cheap stunt, and said nothing about the way art is appreciated. it's not in a context where people are going to be able to appreciate the music. people are in a hurry, and are not going to stop to give him time. it's almost deliberately designed to reach the conclusion they were looking for, and as such tells us nothing.

the venue and the time for busking could have been given a small tweak, and the experiment would have been more interesting. e.g. a shopping area on a weekend - where people are more relaxed and less likely to be in transit.

Effects

dazftw wrote: »

I think the last thing was that guy who setup like the movie sets for photos. Over six programmes

Greg Crewdson, it was great to see how he works.

Thecageyone

dazftw wrote: »

You do realise it was taken in 1966?

And that's an excuse for under exposure and uninterestingness?

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

And that's an excuse for under exposure and uninterestingness?

yes. todays idea of interestingness (is that a word) is very different to back then, also think about image degradation/ less refined cameras... no digi to preview shot

Fenster

Effects wrote: »

You obviously didn't watch it all in that case

Yeah, I did. It focused on four, five photographers from the past two decades who almost wholly used old techniques and styles.

DaireQuinlan

Thecageyone wrote: »

And that's an excuse for under exposure and uninterestingness?

I would imagine that the exposure is almost exactly as Evelyn Hofer intended it. I'd say she would have been quite surprised to hear it dismissed as 'underexposed'.

Thecageyone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

yes. todays idea of interestingness (is that a word) is very different to back then, also think about image degradation/ less refined cameras... no digi to preview shot

Its not, I made it up, it was underlined but I like to disobey spell checker every now and then

And I strongly disagree. So what, they had no preview?? There's brilliant photos pre-dating this one. Back when people had to lug about huge wooden box cameras and wind them up

She would have taken many shots, I reckon. And chose this as the best, and decided it was good enough to blow up. Just my opinion, I see nothing special about it. If it was a random image popped up on Flickr you'd not give it a second glance, the fact it's old doesn't mean it's more special.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

Its not, I made it up, it was underlined but I like to disobey spell checker every now and then

And I strongly disagree. So what, they had no preview?? There's brilliant photos pre-dating this one. Back when people had to lug about huge wooden box cameras and wind them up

She would have taken many shots, I reckon. And chose this as the best, and decided it was good enough to blow up. Just my opinion, I see nothing special about it. If it was a random image popped up on Flickr you'd not give it a second glance, the fact it's old doesn't mean it's more special.

You're assuming that this isn't the photograph she intended to create.

Also, it isn't underexposed. It may be a different exposure value to what a matrix-metering digital SLR would choose for the scene, but it's certainly not incorrect.

You need to acknowledge the difference between "it's not the way I would've done it" and "it's a bad photograph".

As regards the worthiness of random images on Flickr, this is a classic example of the attitude you're describing.

Waking-Dreams

An overpriced old photo? And this is surprising? We tend to place value on things when they cost more. The high price is the value. If that picture was going for €50 I reckon it would lose most of its appeal.

Jewellery, art, cosmetics, clothes - these are all things which sell at high mark-up prices, and yet people buy them because of the high price - they don't always want the supposed cheapy version of "lesser" quality. And I hate to say it, but wedding photographers are guilty of this kind of carry on.

Read: Influence by Robert Cialdini, for more on this irrational consumer logic.

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

You're assuming that this isn't the photograph she intended to create.

Also, it isn't underexposed. It may be a different exposure value to what a matrix-metering digital SLR would choose for the scene, but it's certainly not incorrect.

You need to acknowledge the difference between "it's not the way I would've done it" and "it's a bad photograph".

As regards the worthiness of random images on Flickr, this is a classic example of the attitude you're describing.

It's mostly the price that sparked my criticism tbh. When I see stupidly priced things I don't think they must be amazing automatically, I look closer and question Why the F they're so highly valued.

It's all about opinion end of the day though, I wouldn't pay anything for it, but if it was given as a gift [a copy, obviously, original and I'd sell it for anything I could fetch!] , framed, I might hang it in the hall ...

magicbastarder

bear in mind that you're looking at a 16KB jpeg - there's no telling how well it reproduces the print.

Thecageyone

true that, they should have a link to a larger version. Suppose they're worried people will make prints.

Effects

Fenster wrote: »

basically didn't include anything from the last 15-20 years

Fenster wrote: »

It focused on four, five photographers from the past two decades

Ok, so which post are you going to stick by?

mehfesto

Trev M wrote: »

Fair play mehfesto , my post was lazy etc but still you made a case and to an extent I see and agree with your point ,the time it was taken, the context etc.

Im pretty ignorant in the ways of the arts, at best would have a limited appreciation of "what's good" but even I can appreciate when something is pioneering or original which is what I think your pointing at , aswell as the aesthetically (sp?) please value of the picture from your point of view of course.

Yeah, that's what I reckon. I mean I didn't get Bill Hailey & The Comets personally for years until I was told that "rocking around the clock" was not only a truly filthy notion to sing about in the 50s, but that people went wild for it because it was so new & exciting. Given that I've experienced the likes of Lady Gaga and Marilyn Manson now, his wee tune seems ultimately twee by comparison.

I reckon this happens in photography probably moreso than music - we devour images quicker than music and on a far greater scale - everywhere we look there's something that has been constructed for our eyes. Things that are somewhat shocking become blasse so quickly.

Photography I thought a few years back is unshockable by today's standards. Then I saw those Guantanamo pictures. They were horrible - I havnt reacted to pictures like those ever before. If something like that can impact upon me heavily, surely there's someone who can channel something positive out of it. There's still life in photography yet - we just need a new genius!

Trev M wrote: »

I dont think I'll ever get the crazy money side of it all though.:(

Me neither, but then again I still can't believe/rationale how someone could spend £100 million on Christiano Ronaldo. I'm terrible with figures, but if it's the going rate - and people are willing to pay for it - who am I to argue?

Leave them to it - and hope we take a picture they reckon is worth a squillion quid.

Fenster

Effects wrote: »

Ok, so which post are you going to stick by?

Both. The series, while it did feature recent photographers, also went to lengths to show that these photographers used old techniques - 35mm, 120mm, 8x10"; additionally, the focus within the series was almost entirely on the candid/street/portrait genre.

Digital photography mostly got the short shrift. There was a mention of Martin Parr using a digital-backed Hasselblad; a digital retoucher is shown working on a Gregory Crewdson set piece; there was a five minute vignette apparently composed of stock images of people using point and shoot cameras; and Nobuyoshi Araki was proudly shown holding a bridge camera.

That was it. The areas of contemporary photography which are relevant to our lives, little things like the Internet, the ubiquity and versatility of digital processing, the general replacement of film with digital in many many areas barely got a mention beyond some queasy faces from art dealers. I wanted to see landscapes, architecture, alternate wavelengths, crowd-sourcing, sharing, changes in outlook to copyright, new mediums, new methods. The retro scene? Hah. "Retro" in the series was homemade daguerreotype plates.

I really wasn't impressed with the series, in the end. It was hugely informative and utterly fascinating look at the history of photography, but ultimately its focus was too narrow for my likings.