# Why is Peter Lik's work so valuable?



## jwbryson1

He sells millions every year and makes a lot of $$$.  It's great stuff, yes, but one of his biggest selling images is the shot of the dock leading out into the blue water.  Captivating?  Yes.  Beautiful?  Surely.  Been done a millions times before and since?  No doubt.  So, why is his worth $750 per print and Joe Photographer's print is worth $7.50 per print?

Is it all in the name?


----------



## amolitor

Art, for the most part, has value because it is expensive and is expensive because it is valuable.

People want to spend money on it. From millions of dollars for a super high end piece to a couple hundred for a minor "name" artist's piece, there are markets for every price point.

The trouble with art is that there's so much of it. It's being made by millions of people, constantly. And, it's not all bad. And what IS good or bad, anyways? The result is that you wind up with artificially created markets defined by designated tastemakers. So and so decrees that that guy's sculpture of welded together car parts is worth $1.5M. This magazine decrees that this other guy's photos are worth $750. Once the price is set, the artist's name is dumped into a price-point bucket, and people buy the work based on the fact that the artist has sold other work at or around that price point.

It's not *completely* arbitrary, mostly the expensive stuff has some merit of some sort. It might not be to my taste or yours, but someone probably genuinely thinks it's good work. Still, there's lots of good work out there, and not all of it is salable at all.

How do you get to be a tastemaker, one of the gatekeepers of the community? Well, that's complicated.

How do you get the ATTENTION of a tastemaker? You sleep with them, you hang around with them, you're related to them, or you're just plain lucky.

So yeah, in a sense it's all in the name. Some names are picked out of the hat to be lucky winners, and most names are not.


----------



## Designer

He is just THAT GOOD!


----------



## Designer

amolitor said:


> Some names are picked out of the hat to be lucky winners, and most names are not.



Yea, he's "lucky" and the harder he works, the luckier he gets.


----------



## amolitor

Sure, you gotta work at it, and you gotta have some sort of talent.

The point is that hard work and talent are not a path to success. They are (kind of, mostly) prerequisites, but they're not indicators. Work hard, be diligent. Develop a vision fully, express yourself powerfully in your chosen medium. And then go start sleeping with curators.

Not that you have to sleep with curators to sell prints at $750, we're not in High End Art land here. Maybe sleep with a magazine editor, though!


----------



## sm4him

I do think some of it (perhaps quite a lot of it) is serendipity--being in the right place at the right time with the right photo, grabbing the attention of that person in the art world who has the ability to get your name and your art into the right circles and make things happen. Having the right connections really is critical--whether you are related to people in the art community (makes note to self to start being even more wonderful and sweet to my DC Art Museum-employee/UGA Art School board-member sister-in-law...), or whether you MAKE the right connections, it's critical to have them if you're ever going to make the really big break to THAT kind of money for your work.

But something else also strikes me when I google his name and look at the resulting images--they are ALL stunningly gorgeous. There are no "meh, whatever" quality pictures there. Joe Blow *might* be able to take a similar "dock leading out into blue water" kinda shot, but then you look at Joe Blow's body of work and you see some good, some bad and a lot of mediocre.  
I'm not saying that Peter Lik has never taken a mediocre picture--I'm just saying what he chooses to put out there is STELLAR.


----------



## Ilovemycam

jwbryson1 said:


> He sells millions every year and makes a lot of $$$.  It's great stuff, yes, but one of his biggest selling images is the shot of the dock leading out into the blue water.  Captivating?  Yes.  Beautiful?  Surely.  Been done a millions times before and since?  No doubt.  So, why is his worth $750 per print and Joe Photographer's print is worth $7.50 per print?
> 
> Is it all in the name?



Yes, name is it. 

Look at Cindy Sherman...millions per print.


----------



## Designer

amolitor said:


> Maybe sleep with a magazine editor, though!



You're right about that!  I once worked for a man who had developed a relationship (not THAT way) with the editor of a national magazine.  He got special projects handed to him, and had his stuff featured in the magazine in spite of the fact that the designs were not very good.


----------



## ann

He makes eye candy, at least for me, and I wouldn't buy for $7.50. However, it is clear I am in the minority


----------



## CCericola

The same reason David Choe makes thousands. Rich people love paying for stuff regular people can't buy. It only takes 1 large sale to get a reputation.


----------



## runnah

I sell each of my prints upwards of $1200 a piece. They are so exclusive no one has bought one yet.


----------



## Steve5D

My brother used to lament the fact that he could never sell prints. He had some space in a gallery, but nothing was moving. There were plenty of people who looked but, in the end, they were just tire kickers.

I suggested he raise his prices  by 20%. He thought I was crazy, but he also figured he had nothing to lose, since nothing was selling anyway. The gallery owner was indifferent.

He had 12 prints in the gallery for three months, without making a single sale. He raised his prices and, in two months time, had sold all 12 prints.

Sometimes pricing something too low can be worse than pricing it too high...


----------



## runnah

Steve5D said:


> Sometimes pricing something too low can be worse than pricing it too high...




Good point...raised to $1500! Oh you have to provide your own frame, and pick it up at the walmart photo center.


----------



## jwbryson1

runnah said:


> I sell each of my prints upwards of $1200 a piece. They are so exclusive no one has bought one yet.




:smileys:


----------



## jwbryson1

Steve5D said:


> Sometimes pricing something too low can be worse than pricing it too high...




On that note, I have a gently used Nikon D40, 18-55mm kit lens, extra battery, 2G SB card.  35,000 actuations.  I hate to sell it, but I will take the first $7,500 through the door.  Hit me up with a PM if you're interested.

Thanks!


----------



## imagemaker46

All people have to do is hook up with the right gallery at the right time and have the right person by a single piece.  After the value has been placed on the one piece, selling a bunch of dogs playing cards is easy.


----------



## Buckster

jwbryson1 said:


> He sells millions every year and makes a lot of $$$.  It's great stuff, yes, but one of his biggest selling images is the shot of the dock leading out into the blue water.  Captivating?  Yes.  Beautiful?  Surely.  Been done a millions times before and since?  No doubt.  So, why is his worth $750 per print and Joe Photographer's print is worth $7.50 per print?
> 
> Is it all in the name?


Marketing no doubt has a LOT to do with it, but there's more.

Have you ever been to a gallery of Peter Lik's work at full size on walls?  If not, you REALLY need to seek one out and GO.  It's actually pretty breathtaking.


----------



## TATTRAT

Buckster said:


> Have you ever been to a gallery of Peter Lik's work at full size on walls?  If not, you REALLY need to seek one out and GO.  It's actually pretty breathtaking.




Exactly. Went to the one in Lahaina on Maui, it was an experience in itself. They could charge admission. Really stunning to see images displayed like that, especially the slot canyon shots, it was as if we were there.


----------



## runnah

Buckster said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He sells millions every year and makes a lot of $$$.  It's great stuff, yes, but one of his biggest selling images is the shot of the dock leading out into the blue water.  Captivating?  Yes.  Beautiful?  Surely.  Been done a millions times before and since?  No doubt.  So, why is his worth $750 per print and Joe Photographer's print is worth $7.50 per print?
> 
> Is it all in the name?
> 
> 
> 
> Marketing no doubt has a LOT to do with it, but there's more.
> 
> Have you ever been to a gallery of Peter Lik's work at full size on walls?  If not, you REALLY need to seek one out and GO.  It's actually pretty breathtaking.
Click to expand...


He uses fancy paper that enhances the look. 

They all look like screensavers to me.


----------



## amolitor

Printing big makes everyone's stuff look better. That's why galleries are filled with giant prints of nothing these days.

Making a compelling and powerful 8x10, now that's a challenge.

Not a comment on Peter Lik's work specifically, since I literally don't even know who he is.


----------



## runnah

amolitor said:


> Printing big makes everyone's stuff look better. That's why galleries are filled with giant prints of nothing these days.
> 
> Making a compelling and powerful 8x10, now that's a challenge.
> 
> Not a comment on Peter Lik's work specifically, since I literally don't even know who he is.



He is the guy who takes all your desktop backgrounds.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pet...&biw=1920&bih=1109&sei=j3NDUai7O7ik4AOPioCAAw


----------



## kathyt

Name, Branding, Marketing. Same reason I buy a new Coach purse every year. My must have splurge of a superficial, materialistic item; but I really love them. p.s. Is that tax deductible if I throw my camera in it and use it as a camera bag every now and then?


----------



## amolitor

AIG MY EYES MY EYES. Why couldn't you have just given me a virus or something? Heartless bastard.


----------



## runnah

amolitor said:


> AIG MY EYES MY EYES. Why couldn't you have just given me a virus or something? Heartless bastard.



Boom!  Wide crop + over saturation = famous


----------



## Buckster

amolitor said:


> Printing big makes everyone's stuff look better. That's why galleries are filled with giant prints of nothing these days.


Lik's prints go way beyond the sheer fact that they're large.  The precision and detail on those large prints is nothing short of amazing.  Combined with the color reproduction on that "special" paper, it's an experience to the senses that goes far beyond just looking at a large print.

I've seen plenty of large prints in museums and galleries across the United States, from sea to shining sea, and Lik's work truly stands out as remarkable.

It's kind of like seeing photos of the Grand Canyon all your life and then actually going there and having your senses overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the whole experience; Nothing prepares you for that, I don't care how many photos you've seen of it, nor how well they were done - NOTHING prepares you for it.  It's like the difference between seeing a picture of a roller coaster and riding one.

Lik's images similarly take your breath away as you _*experience*_ them.



amolitor said:


> Not a comment on Peter Lik's work specifically, since I literally don't even know who he is.


Yeah, that figures.


----------



## amolitor

I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.


----------



## Buckster

amolitor said:


> I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.


Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person


----------



## amolitor

Why you gotta be so nasty, man?


----------



## Steve5D

runnah said:


> He is the guy who takes all your desktop backgrounds.



You mean _I'm _Peter Lik?


----------



## jwbryson1

On the wide angle shot of the dock leading into the blue water, does anybody know what kind of lens he used and how wide angle it is?  It's pretty damn wide.


----------



## Steve5D

Buckster said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Why get all snotty?

Lik's work is excellent. Are his prints worth the associated prices? Well, yeah, to some people. That doesn't make him "great", though.

It's also kinda' stupid to say "Yeah, that figures" when someone says he doesn't know who he is. A lot of people don't know who he is, and probably for not other reason than they've not been exposed to his work. Being critical of someone for that is stupid...


----------



## amolitor

Some of the photos in runnah's link suggest that he uses a panoramic camera.


----------



## jwbryson1

amolitor said:


> Some of the photos in runnah's link suggest that he uses a panoramic camera.



Yep.  Check out this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products/225515-peter-lik.html


----------



## Buckster

Steve5D said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why get all snotty?
Click to expand...

I'll take that as rhetorical, since answering in all truth and honesty would probably just get me into trouble with the mods for hurting you and amolitor's feelings.



Steve5D said:


> Lik's work is excellent. Are his prints worth the associated prices? Well, yeah, to some people. That doesn't make him "great", though.


It makes him and his work "great" to those who value his work to that degree.

I myself didn't think much of it beyond, "yeah - screen savers" until I saw it in person in a gallery in San Francisco - and it reached in through my eyeballs and shook my brain in a way that nearly knocked me to my knees and literally left me with a feeling of tingling, vibrating euphoria that lasted for several hours after the experience.  Up until that moment, I was CLUELESS about Peter Lik's work, and was unqualified and unprepared to comment on it in any meaningful way up until then, though you'd never have been able to convince me of that until it kicked my a$$ in person.

Have you seen it large as life in person, or are you similarly unqualified without knowing it?  It sounds like the latter, since everyone I've talked to who's actually seen it in person describes it as an unforgettable experience.  Like someone earlier in the thread said, they could charge admission just for letting you in to look at it.

Those who haven't seen it in person and make comments like, "yeah - screen savers - blah" or "yeah - printing big makes anyone's stuff look good" (implying "yeah - so this is no big deal - blah") _*ARE*_ as clueless as people who've never ridden a roller coaster saying, "yeah - a cart riding up and down on hills - blah - boring".



Steve5D said:


> It's also kinda' stupid to say "Yeah, that figures" when someone says he doesn't know who he is. A lot of people don't know who he is, and probably for not other reason than they've not been exposed to his work. Being critical of someone for that is stupid...


My criticism is that _*some*_ people who don't know what they're talking about LOVE to chime in like they're experts.  Wannabe art critic bloggers who can't themselves make work worth spit carry on with their snooty noses in the air about accomplished photographers, saying they suck and their work is gauche and mediocre and cliche and so on, pretending that anything popular is, by default, no good, so they don't like it.  THAT is what's "stupid" to me.

THAT is why I laughed my a$$ off recently watching Zack Arias show up here and kick a certain wannabe photography/photographer critic blogger's a$$ over that kind of bullschit, and why he gets very little respect from me.  He either makes a valid point and gets credit for it, or he makes yet another bullschit statement and gets called on it, but his too few "attaboys" don't buy him any passes for his bullschit with me, and neither do yours buy any for you.

Don't like it?  Can't take it?  You know where the Ignore button is.


----------



## The_Traveler

amolitor said:


> *Printing big makes everyone's stuff look better. That's why galleries are filled with giant prints of nothing these days.*
> 
> Making a compelling and powerful 8x10, now that's a challenge.
> 
> Not a comment on Peter Lik's work specifically, since I literally don't even know who he is.



what he said.


----------



## timor

amolitor said:


> Art, for the most part, has value because it is expensive and is expensive because it is valuable.


I like what Amolitor said, especially the part I am quoting. It sounds really bad, but is close to what we have; a small percentage of true art lovers, a few noisy  trend and price setters and the rest playing connoisseurs but in fact just following the fashion and dollar signs.
Lik has impressive collection of shots around the world, but nothing "shocking" as compositions and his color treatment aims for quick, popular acceptance. And office wall calendars.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

Printing something big doesn't always make it look *pretty*, especially if it sucks.


----------



## Steve5D

Buckster said:


> I'll take that as rhetorical, since answering in all truth and honesty would probably just get me into trouble with the mods for hurting you and amolitor's feelings.



Oh, don't flatter yourself. In order to hurt my feelings, I'd need to have a measurable level of respect for you...



> It makes him and his work "great" to those who value his work to that degree.



Um, okay, that's pretty much what I was saying.

So, I guess... thanks for stating the obvious...



> I myself didn't think much of it beyond, "yeah - screen savers" until I saw it in person in a gallery in San Francisco - and it reached in through my eyeballs and shook my brain in a way that nearly knocked me to my knees and literally left me with a feeling of tingling, vibrating euphoria that lasted for several hours after the experience. Up until that moment, I was CLUELESS about Peter Lik's work, and was unqualified and unprepared to comment on it in any meaningful way up until then, though you'd never have been able to convince me of that until it kicked my a$$ in person.



Oh, I see.

So because Amolitor is in the same position you once were, you feel justified in calling him out for never seeing Lik's stuff?




> Have you seen it large as life in person, or are you similarly unqualified without knowing it? It sounds like the latter, since everyone I've talked to who's actually seen it in person describes it as an unforgettable experience. Like someone earlier in the thread said, they could charge admission just for letting you in to look at it.



I have seen it in person.

His work is excellent. I said that before. Is it unforgettable? Depends, I suppose. I've seen similar images by other photographers, and had you seen those images, and not Lik's, you'd be salivating over _those_...



> Those who haven't seen it in person and make comments like, "yeah - screen savers - blah" or "yeah - printing big makes anyone's stuff look good" (implying "yeah - so this is no big deal - blah") _*ARE*_ as clueless as people who've never ridden a roller coaster saying, "yeah - a cart riding up and down on hills - blah - boring".



Nonsense. Yours is an opinion. You've sipped the Lik Kool-Aid, and have concluded that no one could possibly view it and not be ridiculously and irrevocably impressed by it. 



> My criticism is that _*some*_ people who don't know what they're talking about LOVE to chime in like they're experts. Wannabe art critic bloggers who can't themselves make work worth spit carry on with their snooty noses in the air about accomplished photographers, saying they suck and their work is gauche and mediocre and cliche and so on, pretending that anything popular is, by default, no good, so they don't like it. THAT is what's "stupid" to me.



Amolitor was clear that he didn't know who Lik is, so it's kinda' silly to try to promote the argument that he was chiming in as an expert on it. Not knowing who he is precludes him from commenting on his work.

You've gone off the rails simply because you _think _someone offered nothing more than an opinion regarding the work of someone you so clearly idolize. Ergo, objectivity will not be your strong suit here.



> THAT is why I laughed my a$$ off recently watching Zack Arias show up here and kick a certain wannabe photography/photographer critic blogger's a$$ over that kind of bullschit, and why he gets very little respect from me. He either makes a valid point and gets credit for it, or he makes yet another bullschit statement and gets called on it, but his too few "attaboys" don't buy him any passes for his bullschit with me, and neither do yours buy any for you.
> 
> Don't like it? Can't take it? You know where the Ignore button is.



You're not important enough for me to ignore. In fact, I'm getting a real kick out of this. 

It's pretty clear you've got an over-inflated sense of self here, to think that my not being able to buy a "pass" from you should bother me.

Really, in the grand scheme of things, you're just some random guy on the internet, and I really tend to not get too spun up by random guys on the internet...


----------



## rexbobcat

I didn't know the name until I looked him up. I've heard of him before and many of his photos are beautiful...

But he dresses like a douchebag.

Also; why do people get all defensive or aggressive when talking about some stranger who doesn't give two ****s about anyone on this forum?

Also also; on the Wiki page for him he's holding a panoramic camera. 

He takes nice pictures that I'm sure are incredible in person, but at the same time they don't make me feel much beyond "wow that's gorgeous" since the market is already saturated with image that are in the same surreal style as his. I'm sure I could search Flickr an find just as many amazing shots that blown up huge would be just as staggering.


----------



## squirrels

rexbobcat said:


> But he dresses like a douchebag.



No way. That hat is totally brilliant marketing!


----------



## Steve5D

rexbobcat said:


> I didn't know the name until I looked him up. I've heard of him before and many of his photos are beautiful...
> 
> But he dresses like a douchebag.
> 
> Also; why do people get all defensive or aggressive when talking about some stranger who doesn't give two ****s about anyone on this forum?
> 
> Also also; on the Wiki page for him he's holding a panoramic camera.
> 
> He takes nice pictures that I'm sure are incredible in person, but at the same time they don't make me feel much beyond "wow that's gorgeous" since the market is already saturated with image that are in the same surreal style as his. I'm sure I could search Flickr an find just as many amazing shots that blown up huge would be just as staggering.



Stand by for your verbal flogging from Bucky.

How dare you express your own opinion...


----------



## HerkFE

I have seen his gallery I believe in Vegas and while the scenes he captures are gorgeous and breathtaking they surely don't deserve the price he fetches in my opinion. I think he is a master of good composition and finds ways to capture some extremely beautiful landscapes and scenery that do provide eye popping images. Of course I had never read a single book on photography or exposure when I saw his gallery I may very well return and feel differently. I will say that his images are interesting and compelling visually to me personally.


----------



## Steve5D

rexbobcat said:


> Also; why do people get all defensive or aggressive when talking about some stranger who doesn't give two ****s about anyone on this forum?



Unfortunately, some people are absolutely and completely unable to digest the fact that not everyone shares their opinion, and they get truly upset when faced with a differing opinion. They believe their view is the one and only correct view, and all differing views are to be trivialized and scorned. These are often the same people who'll cut in line at the snack bar at a ball game, or will start asking a store clerk questions while that store clerk is in the middle of helping another customer. 

I think we're seeing some of that personality trait in this thread...


----------



## amolitor

I kind of want to let this go on without me, but I do want to step in and say one thing.

I don't find it funny at all. I am depressed by Buckster's attitude toward me, not because I crave his praise or anything like that, but because he's clearly got a lot of anger toward me. He's a dude who's dealt with some really really tough stuff in his life, and I don't see how holding some grudge against some bloke on the internet is doing him or anyone else any good. I'm depressed to be involved in making another little spot of darkness in an already very dark universe. I don't really know what the hell I did to accomplish this, but I wish I hadn't.


----------



## invisible

Rotanimod said:


> Printing something big doesn't always make it look *pretty*, especially if it sucks.


I 'liked' your post not for the negative message but because I think it's exquisitely beautiful. What taste!


----------



## timor

invisible said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Printing something big doesn't always make it look *pretty*, especially if it sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> I 'liked' your post not for the negative message but because I think it's exquisitely beautiful. What taste!
Click to expand...

Aha, Rotanimod didn't miss the point.


----------



## Buckster

Steve5D said:


> You attacked someone because he doesn't know who Lik is.


First of all, this is not "AN ATTACK":



Buckster said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


It was also not about him not knowing who Lik is, which I've also already explained to you.

Let's first remember what the thread is about. What makes Peter Lik's work worth the money it sells for?

I've tried to explain that while marketing has a lot to do with it, seeing web-size images of his work vs seeing it large, in person, in all of it's fine print on the best paper glory is like the difference between seeing a picture of a roller coaster and riding it. Now, anyone who's seen his work in person may disagree, but I think that it at least deserves to be seen in person to make that judgement.

If you were to say that you had the opportunity to drive a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and it was the most awesome driving experience you ever had, and then I came into the thread and said, "Meh - I don't get into racing, don't really know anything about it, don't see what the big deal is, certainly have never driven a Formula 1 car 200 MPH, or ANY car that fast for that matter, but I imagine it's no different than driving any other car", then I think it'd be totally reasonable for you to say to me, "get back to me after you've actually driven a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and have a clue what you're talking about."

I don't see how that could be construed as an "attack" from you, much less construed as an attack BECAUSE I said I don't know anything about racing. Such accusations would totally miss the point, misconstrue what was actually said and, all in all, make a mountain out of a molehill for no apparent reason.

By doing exactly that, by your continued over-reaction to it, by your interest in twisting my words to fit your agenda, by your bizarre need to don armor and do battle with me while putting on some show of defending the poor, weak amolitor over it, you introduce the real puzzle here - what the heck crawled up your swollen colon? You can believe what you want,  than it does about me or amolitor or whatever is going on between us that we'll no doubt eventually straighten out together without your "help".

If you think any of this is getting to me, I've got a news flash for you: I've dealt with WAY worse RL stuff than you'll EVER be able to muster with your little e-peen flaming, and made jokes and cartoons out of those experiences that I'm proud to say are able to make cancer patients laugh. You're not even a minor blip on the size radar screen I use for tracking things that are troubling and dealing with them, pal.

Now go ahead and throw your next mud pie at me. And you can feel free to keep throwing them until your mom calls you home for supper (or until you decide to get back on the thread's actual theme).


----------



## weepete

The trouble with art is that it's not only subjective, but also defined by the context in which we view it.


----------



## BrianV

He shoots film.

Next Question.


----------



## kathyt

Guys.....come on now. For real! I think Buckster has been through enough lately, and life is really toooo short! Say one positive thing about one another or this thread will be closed!  Right moderators?? (moderators, this is where you chime in....)


----------



## Buckster

Amolitor has a cool hat, seems very likable on a personal level, shows a lot of interest in things he posts about, and often brings a unique perspective.

Steve is someone I usually agree with when he posts, especially when it comes to the social aspects of things.  I think he does really good work and I enjoy seeing it.  He also seems quite knowledgeable and capable when giving advice on gear and technique.


----------



## StoneNYC

You guys are pretty funny.  I read through all the posts and I have a few points to make.

First off, have you researched the history? Do you know HOW he got where he was? He spent x amount of years living in a Van driving around taking pictures around the country with no money at all, he struggled and perfected his imagery, THEN he got big.

I visited his gallery in Key West Florida on my 2010 Kodachrome adventure, this was before he had his TV show and was a household name.  His shots were certainly something to behold.

I don't think he's so much more amazing than many others, but he's perfected his showcase, the image, the frame, the selection of images that come with each other. All meld perfectly. There's an art to display as well.

I also think his images cost well over $750 as I recall them being in the $1,000-$10,000 range, but those were limited editions etc.

He shoots a lot on film, I suspect Velvia for a lot of it, and what new stuff he shoots on digital I'm sure he mimics a Velvia like profile.  I wouldn't consider that cheating, just using the tools you have.

He has invested a LOT of years taking images, he doesn't display the mediocre ones as someone pointed out.

He does ALL his own printing, he doesn't outsource anything, he has his own facility for this and makes sure each image is to HIS specifications.

I also have a perspective I would like to share.  If I live in NY, and after training as a photographer for 10 years I research and buy a very specific panoramic camera (in the $4,000 used or $10,000 new range), travel to the Grand Canyon, take a really beautiful sunset image, risk my life hanging on the side of a cliff to get the shot, fly home, develop that and perfectly print that image.  How much money have I invested in that image, THOUSANDS, tens of thousands of dollars to get that image, and if I sell it for $750 and sell 10 prints in a year, have I even made my money back on the investment? Is that picture maybe worth even more than that if you encompass all that it took to create that?

THAT'S the answer to the OP's question, that's what makes his work so valuable.

As far as perspective, sure not everyone likes over saturated images, not everyone likes Ansel Adams either, honestly I think his moonrise over xxxx isn't all that great, I've seen better, but I can see why people admire it, and could see why someone would pay a lot for it.

And if I had never seen an Ansel Adams image, I certainly wouldn't be saying anything about the artists work, good nor bad, I think it's in poor taste to talk about something you don't really have any facts or experience on. So I think that's why one of you was mad when the other "armadillo" or whatever your name is (excuse me I'm on my phone and can't look back, not saying that to be insulting that's just sort of your name right?) that's why the other guy was upset, because you're talking about a work you've never even seen, at least look him up and read a little before entering the discussion.

I sold a print from my Grand Canyon trip for $750 this month, this includes the frame and such, after the cost of the frame and special mattering and printing  my net profit is $300, do I feel all the effort I took to make and sell this image is only worth $300? No, it cost me $8,000 to get that shot (if you include all the shots and travel I took to create the entire Kodachrome project that includes that one image).  But I don't think I over priced it at all, and I certainly don't think that the image is as good as many (or any) of Peter Lik's work, it's not bad, but it's not as epic as some of his. And the size (11x14) wasn't as big as his, but I felt my price was justified.  Do you?







It's all perspective my friends 

~Stone 


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TATTRAT

wow, got $750 for that? Kudos!


----------



## Steve5D

Buckster said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked someone because he doesn't know who Lik is.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this is not "AN ATTACK":
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was also not about him not knowing who Lik is, which I've also already explained to you.
> 
> Let's first remember what the thread is about. What makes Peter Lik's work worth the money it sells for?
> 
> I've tried to explain that while marketing has a lot to do with it, seeing web-size images of his work vs seeing it large, in person, in all of it's fine print on the best paper glory is like the difference between seeing a picture of a roller coaster and riding it. Now, anyone who's seen his work in person may disagree, but I think that it at least deserves to be seen in person to make that judgement.
> 
> If you were to say that you had the opportunity to drive a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and it was the most awesome driving experience you ever had, and then I came into the thread and said, "Meh - I don't get into racing, don't really know anything about it, don't see what the big deal is, certainly have never driven a Formula 1 car 200 MPH, or ANY car that fast for that matter, but I imagine it's no different than driving any other car", then I think it'd be totally reasonable for you to say to me, "get back to me after you've actually driven a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and have a clue what you're talking about."
> 
> I don't see how that could be construed as an "attack" from you, much less construed as an attack BECAUSE I said I don't know anything about racing. Such accusations would totally miss the point, misconstrue what was actually said and, all in all, make a mountain out of a molehill for no apparent reason.
> 
> By doing exactly that, by your continued over-reaction to it, by your interest in twisting my words to fit your agenda, by your bizarre need to don armor and do battle with me while putting on some show of defending the poor, weak amolitor over it, you introduce the real puzzle here - what the heck crawled up your swollen colon? You can believe what you want, but I think it says a lot more about you and your juvenile interests and intentions than it does about me or amolitor or whatever is going on between us that we'll no doubt eventually straighten out together without your "help".
> 
> If you think any of this is getting to me, I've got a news flash for you: I've dealt with WAY worse RL stuff than you'll EVER be able to muster with your little e-peen flaming, and made jokes and cartoons out of those experiences that I'm proud to say are able to make cancer patients laugh. You're not even a minor blip on the size radar screen I use for tracking things that are troubling and dealing with them, pal.
> 
> Now go ahead and throw your next mud pie at me. And you can feel free to keep throwing them until your mom calls you home for supper (or until you decide to get back on the thread's actual theme).
Click to expand...



You don't get to have me throw mud pies at you, Chief.

Now, follow your own advice and employ that "ignore" feature. That way you can impart your failed wisdom on others without challenge.

You're dismissed, boy...


----------



## StoneNYC

TATTRAT said:


> wow, got $750 for that? Kudos!



That was kind of mean...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve5D

Steve5D said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked someone because he doesn't know who Lik is.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this is not "AN ATTACK":
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was also not about him not knowing who Lik is, which I've also already explained to you.
> 
> Let's first remember what the thread is about. What makes Peter Lik's work worth the money it sells for?
> 
> I've tried to explain that while marketing has a lot to do with it, seeing web-size images of his work vs seeing it large, in person, in all of it's fine print on the best paper glory is like the difference between seeing a picture of a roller coaster and riding it. Now, anyone who's seen his work in person may disagree, but I think that it at least deserves to be seen in person to make that judgement.
> 
> If you were to say that you had the opportunity to drive a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and it was the most awesome driving experience you ever had, and then I came into the thread and said, "Meh - I don't get into racing, don't really know anything about it, don't see what the big deal is, certainly have never driven a Formula 1 car 200 MPH, or ANY car that fast for that matter, but I imagine it's no different than driving any other car", then I think it'd be totally reasonable for you to say to me, "get back to me after you've actually driven a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and have a clue what you're talking about."
> 
> I don't see how that could be construed as an "attack" from you, much less construed as an attack BECAUSE I said I don't know anything about racing. Such accusations would totally miss the point, misconstrue what was actually said and, all in all, make a mountain out of a molehill for no apparent reason.
> 
> By doing exactly that, by your continued over-reaction to it, by your interest in twisting my words to fit your agenda, by your bizarre need to don armor and do battle with me while putting on some show of defending the poor, weak amolitor over it, you introduce the real puzzle here - what the heck crawled up your swollen colon? You can believe what you want, but I think it says a lot more about you and your juvenile interests and intentions than it does about me or amolitor or whatever is going on between us that we'll no doubt eventually straighten out together without your "help".
> 
> If you think any of this is getting to me, I've got a news flash for you: I've dealt with WAY worse RL stuff than you'll EVER be able to muster with your little e-peen flaming, and made jokes and cartoons out of those experiences that I'm proud to say are able to make cancer patients laugh. You're not even a minor blip on the size radar screen I use for tracking things that are troubling and dealing with them, pal.
> 
> Now go ahead and throw your next mud pie at me. And you can feel free to keep throwing them until your mom calls you home for supper (or until you decide to get back on the thread's actual theme).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to have me throw mud pies at you, Chief...
Click to expand...


----------



## Buckster

Steve5D said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked someone because he doesn't know who Lik is.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, this is not "AN ATTACK":
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was also not about him not knowing who Lik is, which I've also already explained to you.
> 
> Let's first remember what the thread is about. What makes Peter Lik's work worth the money it sells for?
> 
> I've tried to explain that while marketing has a lot to do with it, seeing web-size images of his work vs seeing it large, in person, in all of it's fine print on the best paper glory is like the difference between seeing a picture of a roller coaster and riding it. Now, anyone who's seen his work in person may disagree, but I think that it at least deserves to be seen in person to make that judgement.
> 
> If you were to say that you had the opportunity to drive a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and it was the most awesome driving experience you ever had, and then I came into the thread and said, "Meh - I don't get into racing, don't really know anything about it, don't see what the big deal is, certainly have never driven a Formula 1 car 200 MPH, or ANY car that fast for that matter, but I imagine it's no different than driving any other car", then I think it'd be totally reasonable for you to say to me, "get back to me after you've actually driven a Formula 1 car at 200 MPH for an hour and have a clue what you're talking about."
> 
> I don't see how that could be construed as an "attack" from you, much less construed as an attack BECAUSE I said I don't know anything about racing. Such accusations would totally miss the point, misconstrue what was actually said and, all in all, make a mountain out of a molehill for no apparent reason.
> 
> By doing exactly that, by your continued over-reaction to it, by your interest in twisting my words to fit your agenda, by your bizarre need to don armor and do battle with me while putting on some show of defending the poor, weak amolitor over it, you introduce the real puzzle here - what the heck crawled up your swollen colon? You can believe what you want, but I think it says a lot more about you and your juvenile interests and intentions than it does about me or amolitor or whatever is going on between us that we'll no doubt eventually straighten out together without your "help".
> 
> If you think any of this is getting to me, I've got a news flash for you: I've dealt with WAY worse RL stuff than you'll EVER be able to muster with your little e-peen flaming, and made jokes and cartoons out of those experiences that I'm proud to say are able to make cancer patients laugh. You're not even a minor blip on the size radar screen I use for tracking things that are troubling and dealing with them, pal.
> 
> Now go ahead and throw your next mud pie at me. And you can feel free to keep throwing them until your mom calls you home for supper (or until you decide to get back on the thread's actual theme).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an insignificant troll.
> 
> You don't get to have me throw mud pies at you, Chief.
> 
> Now, follow your own advice and employ that "ignore" feature. That way you can impart your failed wisdom on others without challenge.
> 
> You're dismissed, boy...
Click to expand...

Imagine my surprise at this response.

First I was like :er:

But then I was like 

And now I'm like :greenpbl:

LOL!


----------



## Steve5D

Bucky, I see you're still having a hard time with the whole "ignore" thing, huh?


----------



## Steve5D

Buckster said:


> But then I was like
> 
> LOL!



You mean you thought it was funny?

Well, using _your own _criteria, you've just admitted to being a troll.

Nice work, Zip...


----------



## tirediron

Okay folks, let's get this thread back on track.  The next pointless post regarding who knows more than whom about what will result in a large lock being applied to the front door of this thread!

Thank-you.


----------



## O'Rork

All I want to know is, how is his name pronounced?


----------



## Steve5D

His work is exceptionally good.

Like anything else, though, it's only worth something to the people who are willing to buy it.

Personally, I would rather hang a Henry Diltz print in my home than a Peter Lik print...


----------



## oldhippy

Reciently a world class violinest, playing a 500,000.00 stratavarious played in the New York subway. Hew was dressed in casual cloths.  He got one or two to pause, and a few to throw in a buck.  At the same time he was booked at the best concert venue there at 100.00 plus a seat.
My point is talent and recognition aren't always the price or appreciation motivator. Some buy to have a such n such because of the authentication along with recognition.
just pondering


----------



## tirediron

Steve5D said:


> His work is exceptionally good.
> 
> Like anything else, though, it's only worth something to the people who are willing to buy it.
> 
> Personally, I would rather hang a Henry Diltz print in my home than a Peter Lik print...


Meh... I'd rather have a 'tirediron' hanging on Peter or Henry's wall!


----------



## Steve5D

tirediron said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> His work is exceptionally good.
> 
> Like anything else, though, it's only worth something to the people who are willing to buy it.
> 
> Personally, I would rather hang a Henry Diltz print in my home than a Peter Lik print...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh... I'd rather have a 'tirediron' hanging on Peter or Henry's wall!
Click to expand...


That wouldn't suck...


----------



## pgriz

Ive stayed out of this discussion, but I find it a bit sterile.  As for Liks work, there are several ways of looking at the value.  One is that hes very good at marketing, and is getting high prices mainly becaue of that.  Another is that hes actually really, really, good and his critics unfortunately dont have the seeing skills to understand what they are looking at.  A third may be that there is a method to building up value that a single image doesnt convey, but a body-of-work does.  

I havent seen his work in a display setting, so I cannot comment on whether his images would impress me or make me want to buy his art.  But if someone is successful in selling his or her art, at prices that we can only dream of, maybe we should ponder what is it that someone else is seeing, and willing to pay money for.  If I dont get it, chances are pretty good the fault is with me for not having the skills or understanding to see the merit in the work.

If we see a photographer/artist doing well, shouldn't we all be celebrating that fact, instead of belittling his achievements?  I'm sure there is a least one learning opportunity in stuying what he does and how he does it.


----------



## Steve5D

pgriz said:


> If we see a photographer/artist doing well, shouldn't we all be celebrating that fact, instead of belittling his achievements?



I don't think anyone has really belittled his achievements...


----------



## pgriz

Steve5D said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we see a photographer/artist doing well, shouldn't we all be celebrating that fact, instead of belittling his achievements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone has really belittled his achievements...
Click to expand...


OK, so let's figure out why he is successful, and what we can learn from his example that can be useful to us.  What I seem to be seeing is a lot of very hard work, and an insight into what people want to see on their walls.  I don't necessarily want to be just like him, but I do want to understand how he connects to his client base (or admirers).


----------



## Ilovemycam

More so than Lik, I'd ask why Cindy Sherman's work gets 3 or 4 million dollars? 

Check this $900 print out by Kenna 

Michael Kenna 1999 Perspective of Trees Russia Signed Silver Gelatin Print | eBay

I'd rather have a Lik than a Sherman or this Kenna. 

Kenna does have a few nice ones I like, but the ebay Kenna is not anything I'd want, even for free. Neihter do I want any of the Sherman's for free. (except to resell) I do like Kenna's pyramids a lot. 

Once a photog sells a print for a certain price the value of their work can skyrocket from there if the art world starts to bid them up. It does not hurt Lik any that his photos are pretty. Compared to the poor street photogs like myself that usually have ugly photos.


----------



## Ilovemycam

pgriz said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we see a photographer/artist doing well, shouldn't we all be celebrating that fact, instead of belittling his achievements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone has really belittled his achievements...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so let's figure out why he is successful, and what we can learn from his example that can be useful to us. What I seem to be seeing is a lot of very hard work, and an insight into what people want to see on their walls. I don't necessarily want to be just like him, but I do want to understand how he connects to his client base (or admirers).
Click to expand...



OP, you could also say the same thing about the beanie baby craze. Remeber the crazy prices for them? The Weather channel also helped build Lik up to some extent by showcasing him. If you can buy one of Lik's giant prints for $750 I'd say it is very fair. (For the real thing.) If I needed a giant print, I'd pay $400 for one possibly. 

On ebay there are some of his prints going for $750 to $12,000. (But Russian Federation $750...I don't know if they are authentic?)


----------



## Steve5D

pgriz said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we see a photographer/artist doing well, shouldn't we all be celebrating that fact, instead of belittling his achievements?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone has really belittled his achievements...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so let's figure out why he is successful, and what we can learn from his example that can be useful to us.  What I seem to be seeing is a lot of very hard work, and an insight into what people want to see on their walls.  I don't necessarily want to be just like him, but I do want to understand how he connects to his client base (or admirers).
Click to expand...


At the moment, I'd be more interested in why you think anyone was belittling his accomplishments. Such comments serve no purpose other than to inflame a discussion, so perhaps you could explain the impetus of your comment...


----------



## BrianV

jwbryson1 said:


> He sells millions every year and makes a lot of $$$. It's great stuff, yes, but one of his biggest selling images is the shot of the dock leading out into the blue water. Captivating? Yes. Beautiful? Surely. Been done a millions times before and since? No doubt. So, why is his worth $750 per print and Joe Photographer's print is worth $7.50 per print?
> 
> Is it all in the name?



I think the initial post set the "belittling" tone of this thread, "Is it all in the name?" I suspect it is the man dedicating a lifetime to his profession that is responsible for success, not the name.


----------



## rexbobcat

BrianV said:


> I think the initial post set the "belittling" tone of this thread, "Is it all in the name?" I suspect it is the man dedicating a lifetime to his profession that is responsible for success, not the name.



I imagine that there is a tipping point somewhere when it comes to art lol.


----------



## pgriz

Well, Steve, if you feel that no-one was belittling his success, then let's blame that impression on my poor reading skills, and call it a wash.  As for "inflaming a discussion", again, it appeared to me to be inflamed enough, and I though we should focus on understanding what made him successful.


----------



## Ilovemycam

rexbobcat said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the initial post set the "belittling" tone of this thread, "Is it all in the name?" I suspect it is the man dedicating a lifetime to his profession that is responsible for success, not the name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine that there is a tipping point somewhere when it comes to art lol.
Click to expand...


Nope, Cindy Sherman again pops up. $4 million a pix...all in a name.

Look at the $900 ebay Kenna link above...no Kenna name and it is $15. I've been around many a photo collector. They buy garbage if it has a name. No name and they don't want it for free.

I think some of the photogs here may be jealous. They would like to make millions as well. Maybe that is the belittling issue.I think Lik is a talented photog and a great biz man. Maybe he is the richest photog in the world, surpassing Annie L?


----------



## rexbobcat

Ilovemycam said:


> Nope, Cindy Sherman again pops up. $4 million a pop...all in a name.



That's what I mean. I'm sure that up to some point an artist's hardwork and diligence are what puts them on top and then after that they can coast on their notoriety.

Salvador Dali wrote his name on pieces of paper I believe and then sold them. Sure, Lik isn't quite THAT famous but I imagine it works the same way.

A mediocre Lik print will probably almost always outsell an incredible, once in lifetime, knock you off your feet print from some dude in Colorado.

Isn't the photography (and art) business something like 70% marketing and 30% actual photography/art? Lol


----------



## Steve5D

pgriz said:


> Well, Steve, if you feel that no-one was belittling his success, then let's blame that impression on my poor reading skills...



Works for me...


----------



## kathyt

Steve5D said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Steve, if you feel that no-one was belittling his success, then let's blame that impression on my poor reading skills...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me...
Click to expand...


Ya know Steve, pgritz is one of the more respectful members of this forum, and is ALWAYS adding well thought out, positive posts to our threads. I think you might need to step off the forums for a few days and do a bit of self reflection, because you are adding alot of unnecessary negativity to thread after thread. Just saying...


----------



## Steve5D

kathythorson said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Steve, if you feel that no-one was belittling his success, then let's blame that impression on my poor reading skills...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya know Steve, pgritz is one of the more respectful members of this forum, and is ALWAYS adding well thought out, positive posts to our threads. I think you might need to step off the forums for a few days and do a bit of self reflection, because you are adding alot of unnecessary negativity to thread after thread. Just saying...
Click to expand...


Well, maybe he'd be so kind as to point out where Lik's accomplishments have been "belittled". No one likes being accused of something they haven't done, so if there's been "belittling" going on, the fact that "one of the more respectful members" lays the accusation does not preclude him from the responsibility of providing an example of where it's happened, and that's all I'm asking for.

How that's a problem for you is truly a mystery.

Not caring for someone's work, or preferring someone else's work, is hardly "belittling", but that's all I've seen done here. No one has belittled anything. If  pgritz wants to chalk it all up to what he refers to as his poor reading skills, who am I to argue?


----------



## StoneNYC

Ilovemycam said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the initial post set the "belittling" tone of this thread, "Is it all in the name?" I suspect it is the man dedicating a lifetime to his profession that is responsible for success, not the name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine that there is a tipping point somewhere when it comes to art lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Cindy Sherman again pops up. $4 million a pix...all in a name.
> 
> Look at the $900 ebay Kenna link above...no Kenna name and it is $15. I've been around many a photo collector. They buy garbage if it has a name. No name and they don't want it for free.
> 
> I think some of the photogs here may be jealous. They would like to make millions as well. Maybe that is the belittling issue.I think Lik is a talented photog and a great biz man. Maybe he is the richest photog in the world, surpassing Annie L?
Click to expand...


Actually Annie is broke right now believe it or not.

I'm semi new to this particular forum, but I have to say, my first impression isn't good.  I responded with a very well thought out and long response that took me about an hour to compose, and with all the bickering I don't think anyone even saw it to respond to.

I don't mean to be all "oh look at me" but I thought I made some very good points, and was trying to help answer the OP's question, but I wonder did anyone even see it? Do people agree or do they think I'm wrong, and why?

Sorry, I just expected at least a little response.

I'm really annoyed with the 2 or 3 of you who are fighting with each other, take it somewhere else, it's not at all helpful to the OP and is clogging up this discussion with people who actually care about discussing it over talking **** to each other.

Sorry but I would like to talk about this issue.  Thanks and sorry if this is harsh.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ilovemycam

I deal with museums continually in the US and worldwide, so I know a little about what I'm talking about.

http://photobookclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/stephen_shore_chevron.jpg

Look at a recent Milwaukee Art Museum purchase. Without the name, it is garabge.


http://whitney.org/image_columns/0001/6700/91.100.3_eggleston_imageprimacy_compressed_600.jpg

William Eggelston is in a number of important collections and museums...nothing but garbage...it is all in a name.


http://www.pdngallery.com/20years/art/20mostinfluential/goldin.jpg

Nan Goldin is another big name snapshot shooter. Take away the Goldin name and the $ dissapears.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hBqdPD_7M_Y/S-wPyFEoVSI/AAAAAAAALEc/wnYEW3lrSUo/s800/CRI_3177.jpg

I love this photog, but everything this photog shot was not great. Add the name and it becomes gold!


http://www.stephendaitergallery.com...rossman_Untitled_birds_over_water_1902_67.jpg

Time and time again we see photos in museums and collections that are nothing, but for the name.


http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ph/web-highlight/DP242682.jpg

Don't you wish you were this good! then you could be in the Met too!! Without the famous name, any museum would throw you out on your ass if you tried to sell it to a museum. (Discounting any historical worth.)


Only a numskull would say Lik has no talent. But to settle this question, ask yourself this. 

Would you would get a million dollars for this shot? 

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/02_ONE.jpg

Or would a no name photog like you be lucky to get $50 for it at a craft fair? With no name, you can't sell it anyplace else, maybe ebay. At ebay it would bring $15 - $25..._if your lucky._ If you don't belive me, take your protfolio around to the big name galleries in NY. Offer them your photos for $75 each and see how far you get with no name. 

Devoting your life to an art means nothing. Great work means nothing. (At least means nothing when it comes to the crazy priced art. Great work wil always sell for nominal $.)

Why do you think an auction listing will say 'listed artist?' It all rests on name recognition. For even bad and terrible work will be worth a fortune with name recognition. _*It is all in the fudging NAME!!*_


----------



## Ilovemycam

StoneNYC said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine that there is a tipping point somewhere when it comes to art lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Cindy Sherman again pops up. $4 million a pix...all in a name.
> 
> Look at the $900 ebay Kenna link above...no Kenna name and it is $15. I've been around many a photo collector. They buy garbage if it has a name. No name and they don't want it for free.
> 
> I think some of the photogs here may be jealous. They would like to make millions as well. Maybe that is the belittling issue.I think Lik is a talented photog and a great biz man. Maybe he is the richest photog in the world, surpassing Annie L?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Annie is broke right now believe it or not.
> 
> I'm semi new to this particular forum, but I have to say, my first impression isn't good. I responded with a very well thought out and long response that took me about an hour to compose, and with all the bickering I don't think anyone even saw it to respond to.
> 
> I don't mean to be all "oh look at me" but I thought I made some very good points, and was trying to help answer the OP's question, but I wonder did anyone even see it? Do people agree or do they think I'm wrong, and why?
> 
> Sorry, I just expected at least a little response.
> 
> I'm really annoyed with the 2 or 3 of you who are fighting with each other, take it somewhere else, it's not at all helpful to the OP and is clogging up this discussion with people who actually care about discussing it over talking **** to each other.
> 
> Sorry but I would like to talk about this issue. Thanks and sorry if this is harsh.
> 
> 
> ~Stone
> 
> Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Stone, that is just how it goes. Not just this forum. 

Just invest enough time in your posts so that you will still be happy if no one replies to it. 

Can't belive Annie is broke, just can't unless it was due to some other issue.


----------



## Ilovemycam

StoneNYC said:


> You guys are pretty funny. I read through all the posts and I have a few points to make.
> 
> First off, have you researched the history? Do you know HOW he got where he was? He spent x amount of years living in a Van driving around taking pictures around the country with no money at all, he struggled and perfected his imagery, THEN he got big.
> 
> I visited his gallery in Key West Florida on my 2010 Kodachrome adventure, this was before he had his TV show and was a household name. His shots were certainly something to behold.
> 
> I don't think he's so much more amazing than many others, but he's perfected his showcase, the image, the frame, the selection of images that come with each other. All meld perfectly. There's an art to display as well.
> 
> I also think his images cost well over $750 as I recall them being in the $1,000-$10,000 range, but those were limited editions etc.
> 
> He shoots a lot on film, I suspect Velvia for a lot of it, and what new stuff he shoots on digital I'm sure he mimics a Velvia like profile. I wouldn't consider that cheating, just using the tools you have.
> 
> He has invested a LOT of years taking images, he doesn't display the mediocre ones as someone pointed out.
> 
> He does ALL his own printing, he doesn't outsource anything, he has his own facility for this and makes sure each image is to HIS specifications.
> 
> I also have a perspective I would like to share. If I live in NY, and after training as a photographer for 10 years I research and buy a very specific panoramic camera (in the $4,000 used or $10,000 new range), travel to the Grand Canyon, take a really beautiful sunset image, risk my life hanging on the side of a cliff to get the shot, fly home, develop that and perfectly print that image. How much money have I invested in that image, THOUSANDS, tens of thousands of dollars to get that image, and if I sell it for $750 and sell 10 prints in a year, have I even made my money back on the investment? Is that picture maybe worth even more than that if you encompass all that it took to create that?
> 
> THAT'S the answer to the OP's question, that's what makes his work so valuable.
> 
> As far as perspective, sure not everyone likes over saturated images, not everyone likes Ansel Adams either, honestly I think his moonrise over xxxx isn't all that great, I've seen better, but I can see why people admire it, and could see why someone would pay a lot for it.
> 
> And if I had never seen an Ansel Adams image, I certainly wouldn't be saying anything about the artists work, good nor bad, I think it's in poor taste to talk about something you don't really have any facts or experience on. So I think that's why one of you was mad when the other "armadillo" or whatever your name is (excuse me I'm on my phone and can't look back, not saying that to be insulting that's just sort of your name right?) that's why the other guy was upset, because you're talking about a work you've never even seen, at least look him up and read a little before entering the discussion.
> 
> I sold a print from my Grand Canyon trip for $750 this month, this includes the frame and such, after the cost of the frame and special mattering and printing my net profit is $300, do I feel all the effort I took to make and sell this image is only worth $300? No, it cost me $8,000 to get that shot (if you include all the shots and travel I took to create the entire Kodachrome project that includes that one image). But I don't think I over priced it at all, and I certainly don't think that the image is as good as many (or any) of Peter Lik's work, it's not bad, but it's not as epic as some of his. And the size (11x14) wasn't as big as his, but I felt my price was justified. Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all perspective my friends
> 
> ~Stone
> 
> 
> ~Stone
> 
> Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk



That is nice pix Stone. I saved it, nice work!


----------



## Ilovemycam

sm4him said:


> I do think some of it (perhaps quite a lot of it) is serendipity--being in the right place at the right time with the right photo, grabbing the attention of that person in the art world who has the ability to get your name and your art into the right circles and make things happen. Having the right connections really is critical--whether you are related to people in the art community (makes note to self to start being even more wonderful and sweet to my DC Art Museum-employee/UGA Art School board-member sister-in-law...), or whether you MAKE the right connections, it's critical to have them if you're ever going to make the really big break to THAT kind of money for your work.
> 
> But something else also strikes me when I google his name and look at the resulting images--they are ALL stunningly gorgeous. There are no "meh, whatever" quality pictures there. Joe Blow *might* be able to take a similar "dock leading out into blue water" kinda shot, but then you look at Joe Blow's body of work and you see some good, some bad and a lot of mediocre.
> I'm not saying that Peter Lik has never taken a mediocre picture--I'm just saying what he chooses to put out there is STELLAR.



Yes, true. But one must also remember Lik is not the exact 'only one' behind the pix. Army of PP people, print lab, gallery...they all have input. 

With our own work it may rest all on us. With pros they have lots of help. Art director, hair and makeup people, assitiants, pro models, location coop, pro labs, fixers, studio manager, pro pp people, best of equipment, $$ lubrication...and talent.

But we can all learn form Lik...just show your best work.


----------



## Ilovemycam

timor said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Art, for the most part, has value because it is expensive and is expensive because it is valuable.
> 
> 
> 
> I like what Amolitor said, especially the part I am quoting. It sounds really bad, but is close to what we have; a small percentage of true art lovers, a few noisy trend and price setters and the rest playing connoisseurs but in fact just following the fashion and dollar signs.
> Lik has impressive collection of shots around the world, but nothing "shocking" as compositions and his color treatment aims for quick, popular acceptance. And office wall calendars.
Click to expand...



True art lovers don't care about name, they just care about the art. Most of the art world is run by name though. I am run by art. I save lots of pix I find online with no name. Love the pix, name means nothing to me, although nice to have a name to put on the back of the print. I list it as 'annonymous' if I don't know.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Stone you are right...

Why Is Annie Leibovitz Broke?


----------



## Ilovemycam

Here is another example...

1950's Jeannette Klute "Trout Lily" Flora Photograph Dye Transfer Reprint | eBay

Dye transfer prints were very expensive. (extinct now) This one failed to sell for $24. Was relisted for $16. To get a dye trnasfer print made would have cost you many hundreds of dollars. No name, it is hardly worth the paper it is printed on.


----------



## Steve5D

Ilovemycam said:


> Stone you are right...
> 
> Why Is Annie Leibovitz Broke?



Wow.

The last line, I think, says it all:  

*If Leibovitz went into this agreement expecting leniency from a company which decorates its New York offices with the masterpieces forfeited by other defaulting debtors, she has been sadly proven wrong.
*


----------



## Buckster

Ilovemycam said:


> I save lots of pix I find online with no name. Love the pix, name means nothing to me, although nice to have a name to put on the back of the print. I list it as 'annonymous' if I don't know.


So, you print photos you find on the internet?  What do you do with them?


----------



## amolitor

To write off Eggleston and Sherman and all these others as "garbage" is to a) promote your own opinion as truth and b) to miss a lot of the important aspects of what's going on here.

I don't like Cindy Sherman, my opinion of her work is quite low. However, what she was doing was something interesting and innovative in an era when Performance Art and Conceptual Art were relatively new and interesting ideas. She fit into the milieu of the time, producing intellectually consistent work. She was producing work that could be sold at that time, and she was producing it consistently. Probably there were dozens or hundreds of other artists working similar ideas with similar dedication, and Sherman won the lottery.

The fact that she won a lottery and is now a Name does NOT mean that she wasn't working hard and well. She was. I don't like her work, but I don't deny that she's had a vision and bloody well stuck to it, and produced a coherent body of work and didn't let people see all the crap she no doubt shot at the same time. THIS is what it takes to get a lottery ticket, and it's not easy, and it's not trivial. If you don't have a lottery ticket, you're not going to win.

I think you will find that most successful artists work similarly hard to produce coherent bodies of work that reveal their ideas, and they scrap the stuff that doesn't fit. Their ideas and their art hit the right balance of innovation and evolution to be marketable at the time they're being made. This is real work.

This also has nothing to do with whether you like the art or not. This labor deserves our respect, even if we really hate the work.


----------



## orljustin

Never heard of this guy.  And up a few posts, that's a picture of a tree.  Not worth $750, IMO.


----------



## Ilovemycam

amolitor said:


> To write off Eggleston and Sherman and all these others as "garbage" is to a) promote your own opinion as truth and b) to miss a lot of the important aspects of what's going on here.
> 
> I don't like Cindy Sherman, my opinion of her work is quite low. However, what she was doing was something interesting and innovative in an era when Performance Art and Conceptual Art were relatively new and interesting ideas. She fit into the milieu of the time, producing intellectually consistent work. She was producing work that could be sold at that time, and she was producing it consistently. Probably there were dozens or hundreds of other artists working similar ideas with similar dedication, and Sherman won the lottery.
> 
> The fact that she won a lottery and is now a Name does NOT mean that she wasn't working hard and well. She was. I don't like her work, but I don't deny that she's had a vision and bloody well stuck to it, and produced a coherent body of work and didn't let people see all the crap she no doubt shot at the same time. THIS is what it takes to get a lottery ticket, and it's not easy, and it's not trivial. If you don't have a lottery ticket, you're not going to win.
> 
> I think you will find that most successful artists work similarly hard to produce coherent bodies of work that reveal their ideas, and they scrap the stuff that doesn't fit. Their ideas and their art hit the right balance of innovation and evolution to be marketable at the time they're being made. This is real work.
> 
> This also has nothing to do with whether you like the art or not. This labor deserves our respect, even if we really hate the work.




Sure, it is just my opinion. People love their stuff. But to me it is crap. Some people love boring photos and like to see how borng they can get things. I'm a street and doc photog, so boring is not my thing. You are welcome to love their stuff. We are all allowed opinions.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Buckster said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I save lots of pix I find online with no name. Love the pix, name means nothing to me, although nice to have a name to put on the back of the print. I list it as 'annonymous' if I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you print photos you find on the internet? What do you do with them?
Click to expand...


Put em in a 11 x 14 porfolio. When people look at my stuff. If they are serious and into pix and we talk a lot about them, then I show them some other photogs work that impressed me. Kinda like photo books, but ones you can't buy. 

I may even put some of the boring crap in the book, tell them look at what the museums are buying... CRAP! But I limit the crap, don't even like looking at it, not even worth .90 cents for paper and .40 cents for ink.


----------



## Buckster

Ilovemycam said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I save lots of pix I find online with no name. Love the pix, name means nothing to me, although nice to have a name to put on the back of the print. I list it as 'annonymous' if I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you print photos you find on the internet? What do you do with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Put em in a 11 x 14 porfolio. When people look at my stuff. If they are serious and into pix and we talk a lot about them, then I show them some other photogs work that impressed me. Kinda like photo books, but ones you can't buy.
> 
> I may even put some of the boring crap in the book, tell them look at what the museums are buying... CRAP! But I limit the crap, don't even like looking at it, not even worth .90 cents for paper and .40 cents for ink.
Click to expand...

So, you willingly violate others' copyright by doing that without their permission, printing and using their photos as you please.


----------



## StoneNYC

Good thing I put my copy write on that image and only uploaded the small version haha, it's nice to have appreciation but if you're printing my work I would appreciate a referral from viewers 

I agree those other pictures were certainly crap on their own, perhaps knowing the back story and seeing an entire collection might make them good somehow but nothing wow'ed me about any of those photos, and that gas station... Really? Haha mine is better I think... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It's not in any way "my best work" but better than his haha.

There are many pictures of trees that have sold for more.  If you knew that this was on Kodachrome, taken the last month it was ever processed, that I had 70lbs on my back and was all alone, would that change anything? Maybe not? But it gives some context.

I have many much more beautiful prints, and that is the only one that sold for that much money, it was commissioned by request and really is only one of 3 images I've ever sold as prints....yet....

I forget what else I was going to respond to, other then that yes that's true some forums people ignore you, but I've never seen this amount of bickering over an opinion of someone who hasn't even seen the artist haha



~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dmunsie

"But we can all learn form Lik...just show your best work."

Agreed. But this is obvious....marketing...done right.  Btw...he's using a Nikon D800E, at least for his latest image.


----------



## pgriz

Branding:  The consumers trust in a name for product value and perceived goodness, as a substitute for indepth knowledge about the product itself.

How to recognize: 


A name brand distinguishes itself from the no-name brands as being (perceived) superior.
A name brand typically is (significantly) more expensive than the competition.
A name brand typically is purchased preferentially to the no-name brands.
A name brand embodies an emotional attraction to the consumer, in terms of the goodness the consumer is buying, and the aspirational benefits the consumer is hoping to receive.
A name brand appeals strongly to a niche of the buying public.

How to develop a brand:


A brand identity that encompassed a set of attributes that are attractive to a specific niche of the buying public.
Consistency of message, appearance and presentation in line with the brand identity.
Frequent exposure over a long period of time using the mediums that the niche uses for its information and entertainment.
 
This thread has covered many aspects of brand management, without identifying the underlying principles.  That in itself is not surprising, since we are immersed in brand messaging, and we accept it as a normal, even essential part of making informed choices.  Branding is as pervasive for us as water is to a fish. 

We, as photographers, are as brand-focused as are most consumers.  We associate with our brand all the positive attributes that we desire in our best products.  But being members of this forum, we generally also have enough basic knowledge to be able to go behind the brand image to evaluate (more or less objectively) the attributes of a specific brand.  Which is partly why, when we get the questions of what is the best camera for.... or what is the best lens for... (which are part of the brand identity), we generally reply with specifics of what to look for.  Our answers are usually still tainted with brand love, but we know enough not to be unquestioning about our loyalties.

And so it is with wine  those who know, dont need the name to know whether they are drinking plonk or the exilir of the gods.  And so it is with art.  If we use Peter Liks brand identity, we can see the consistent application of the principles of brand management, to create a demand from a specific niche of the art-buying public.  Chances are, if were not buying his $750 prints, were not in his target niche.  But those in the niche, will buy a Peter Lik print over any one of ours, any and every day of the week. 

The lesson here for us to to know our desired market, and to make our art the safe and easy answer when they think of what to buy, either for themselves, or for those they wish to impress and influence.

I think Kathy nailed it noting that the hat is a key part of his image.  Peter Lik is selling Peter Lik as much as his art.  He is using his use of exotic gear, and exotic locations as a branding tool to make himself be exotic.  There is much he can teach us if we pay attention.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Now, if name means nothing then why do unsigned photos bring a fraction of a signed photo will bring?

Check out a Sturges shot

Jock Sturges Ballerina s F Ballet Silver Gelatin 8x10 Print Signed | eBay

Nice pix, but it is a $5 - $15 shot on ebay from a no name photog. Only reason Sturges stuff brings big bucks is he made a name for himself by shooting nude kids. Same with the rest of the nude kiddy photogs. OK, Sally Mann is a little better than the rest. but still, without here kiddy nudes she would not be where she is.


----------



## Ilovemycam

What is a photo worth? A few dollars for a no name photog. Our world is just polluted with photos. 

8x8 Flower Blossom Photography Print Wall Decor Art Photograph All My Dreams | eBay


Saving things that are enjoyable or remarkable is what humans are about. So should be no surpise people save your pix. Esp other photogs. 

"Looking at photographs, like taking them, can be joyful, sensuous pleasure. Looking at photographs of quality can only increase that pleasure." Pete Turner (Looking at garbage hurts, so we don't save them except to show others what garbage looks like.)

"A photograph that has not been shared or at least printed is almost an unexistent photograph, is almost an untaken picture." Sergio Garibay

...and that's the truth! Someday all our pix will be lost most likely...better enjoy them while you can!


----------



## Ilovemycam

StoneNYC said:


> Good thing I put my copy write on that image and only uploaded the small version haha, it's nice to have appreciation but if you're printing my work I would appreciate a referral from viewers
> 
> I agree those other pictures were certainly crap on their own, perhaps knowing the back story and seeing an entire collection might make them good somehow but nothing wow'ed me about any of those photos, and that gas station... Really? Haha mine is better I think...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in any way "my best work" but better than his haha.
> 
> There are many pictures of trees that have sold for more. If you knew that this was on Kodachrome, taken the last month it was ever processed, that I had 70lbs on my back and was all alone, would that change anything? Maybe not? But it gives some context.
> 
> I have many much more beautiful prints, and that is the only one that sold for that much money, it was commissioned by request and really is only one of 3 images I've ever sold as prints....yet....
> 
> I forget what else I was going to respond to, other then that yes that's true some forums people ignore you, but I've never seen this amount of bickering over an opinion of someone who hasn't even seen the artist haha
> 
> 
> 
> ~Stone
> 
> Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk



I would not save your gas station. Holds no interest to me. But as far as gas sstations go, it is nice. 

Yes, your gas station is much better than the crapper the museum bought. But they wanted a color shot. You road shot was worthy of a save, but not a print. I don't have room to print everything that cathes my eye. Road was just a nice, pleasant shot. Pluse I'm not that big in landscapes. i like street photography best. On the other hand, 99.9% of what I see on the forums is not worthy of a save. so says something about your pix if it is saved.

Sure watermark them and use 200 to 400 kb res. If your generous use 600kb. I used to offer 600 - 800 kb with a watermark. I took the watermark off and reduced them to 200 kb. I listed my name on the image and don't need it shown on the image photo. Sure, someone can take my name off the data, but my photos are not easy to confuse with other photogs, so am not too worried about it. 

I don't actually print my little collection 11 x 14. The paper is 11 x 14, images smaller. Seldom do you get a high res image online. I have wide white boarders to frame em. Usually prints are 5 x 7 to 6 x 9 with the res you get online. Sadly some photogs send in 50 kb stuff that can't be printed or even looked at very well. I wont archive them, too small.


----------



## Ilovemycam

pgriz said:


> Branding: The consumer&#8217;s trust in a name for product value and perceived &#8220;goodness&#8221;, as a substitute for indepth knowledge about the product itself.
> 
> How to recognize:
> 
> 
> A name brand distinguishes itself from the &#8220;no-name&#8221; brands as being (perceived) superior.
> A name brand typically is (significantly) more expensive than the competition.
> A name brand typically is purchased preferentially to the no-name brands.
> A name brand embodies an emotional attraction to the consumer, in terms of the &#8220;goodness&#8221; the consumer is buying, and the aspirational benefits the consumer is hoping to receive.
> A name brand appeals strongly to a niche of the buying public.
> How to develop a brand:
> 
> 
> A brand identity that encompassed a set of attributes that are attractive to a specific niche of the buying public.
> Consistency of message, appearance and presentation in line with the brand identity.
> Frequent exposure over a long period of time using the mediums that the niche uses for its information and entertainment.
> 
> This thread has covered many aspects of brand management, without identifying the underlying principles. That in itself is not surprising, since we are immersed in brand messaging, and we accept it as a normal, even essential part of making &#8220;informed&#8221; choices. Branding is as pervasive for us as water is to a fish.
> 
> We, as photographers, are as brand-focused as are most consumers. We associate with &#8220;our&#8221; brand all the positive attributes that we desire in our &#8220;best&#8221; products. But being members of this forum, we generally also have enough basic knowledge to be able to go behind the brand image to evaluate (more or less objectively) the attributes of a specific brand. Which is partly why, when we get the questions of &#8220;what is the best camera for....&#8221; or &#8220;what is the best lens for...&#8221; (which are part of the brand identity), we generally reply with specifics of what to look for. Our answers are usually still tainted with brand love, but we know enough not to be unquestioning about our loyalties.
> 
> And so it is with wine &#8211; those who know, don&#8217;t need the &#8220;name&#8221; to know whether they are drinking plonk or the exilir of the gods. And so it is with art. If we use Peter Lik&#8217;s brand identity, we can see the consistent application of the principles of brand management, to create a demand from a specific niche of the art-buying public. Chances are, if we&#8217;re not buying his $750 prints, we&#8217;re not in his target niche. But those in the niche, will buy a Peter Lik print over any one of ours, any and every day of the week.
> 
> The lesson here for us to to know our desired market, and to make our art the safe and easy answer when they think of what to buy, either for themselves, or for those they wish to impress and influence.
> 
> I think Kathy nailed it noting that the hat is a key part of his image. Peter Lik is selling &#8220;Peter Lik&#8221; as much as his art. He is using his use of exotic gear, and exotic locations as a branding tool to make himself be exotic. There is much he can teach us if we pay attention.



Well spoken and true post. 

The acid test will be how does the market treat his work after the fad wears off. Will it hold value, increase in value or not?


----------



## Ilovemycam

Set Signed Harry Callahan 1977 Ireland Dye Transfer Print and Color Book | eBay

Harry Callahan was another snapshot shooter that made it big. No name and his work would sell for nothing.


----------



## amolitor

I am astonished at how little you're willing to read and understand, ilovemycam.

You reply to things with remarks that show clearly that you simply couldn't be bothered to read what was written. If you're not going to hold up your end of the conversation, you'll find it difficult to actually discuss anything with anybody.


----------



## Ilovemycam

Forgot to mention...

Lik couln't sell anything cheap is he wanted to. Lik Corp has a huge overhead. Check it out. If he sold things cheap he'd go bust. If you like his work and can't afford a pix, you still can buy his 'big book' for $2000.

Speaking of books...

McCurry has some great ones for low $. For $75 - $100 you can buy 3 or 4 of them used. I have many of his books myself. Esp like the Monsoon book

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560431_10150868183863511_991036813_n.jpg

I love off beat shots. Here is a nice one from Mel Digiacomo. Everything clicked and the snapshot became a photograph!

http://phototechmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/meldigiacomo.jpg

Eisenstaedt...just wonderful!

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_3276168_633201_alfred-eisenstaedt.jpg

This is the type of work I like.


----------



## imagemaker46

Ilovemycam, can you post some of your street photography. Generally people that rant and rave about the quality of other people's work being crap, are themselves, producing crap.


----------



## Steve5D

imagemaker46 said:


> Ilovemycam, can you post some of your street photography. Generally people that rant and rave about the quality of other people's work being crap, are themselves, producing crap.



I've found either that to be the case, or they produce nothing at all...


----------



## StoneNYC

I'm only slightly concerned at his keeping my photo, still, I have to say, I find it uncouth of you to save a photo you haven't asked permission to save, especially in a photography forum, it's just simple politeness and proper etiquette to ask first.

I am not mad, but I don't think it's good form either.

This is why I mostly use APUG as it seems a little safer there,


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianV

If you post an image on the Internet, assume it has been downloaded and saved forever. Do a google search on a few keywords that appear next to any image that you have posted, and click "images". Stuff from forum accounts and galleries that I deleted years ago still show up, "Cached forever". Upload it, anybody can download it at anytime, and long after you think it has been deleted.

Apug has gone through a lot of wild-swings. I gave up on them a couple of years ago when it went way-out there.


----------



## Buckster

BrianV said:


> If you post an image on the Internet, assume it has been downloaded and saved forever.


That doesn't justify it or make it right or make anyone's copyright null and void, especially when it's more than just downloaded and saved; It's been downloaded, saved, printed. put in a book and is being used for business purposes by someone whom one would think has copyright concerns of their own, being in the business and all.


----------



## mjhoward

Buckster said:


> Lik's prints go way beyond the sheer fact that they're large.  The precision and detail on those large prints is nothing short of amazing.  Combined with the color reproduction on that "special" paper, it's an experience to the senses that goes far beyond just looking at a large print.



A significant portion of that "POP" is also attributed to the face mount Acrylic.... which is a relatively expensive process. 

I'll add that Peter Lik wasn't one of those "right place at the right time" guys.  I vaguely remember his success story and I think it included many failures before starting fresh with the best of the best of everything.  He doesn't use a top of the line Canon or Nikon, he uses a 60+ MP Phase One MF back with an Alpa body along with the absolute best lenses.  He doesn't just go out to a good location and setup a few shots... he scouts the locations for weeks, sometimes longer, looking for the best angles, the best times of day for that location, and making sure the weather is cooperating.  He doesn't go out looking for the best printers either.  He does all of that himself (with his peers of course).  He has everything done in house, from start to finish.  He doesn't manuf. his own paper though, for that he uses Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl Paper which does help to make the colors pop... but it also attributes greatly to the "back lit" look that is so incredible to look at in person.  The prints truly look back lit and anyone that has ever been to his gallery has come out saying the same.  To make the colors REALLY pop, every print is face mounted to Acrylic.  This process is demonstrated here:




Lastly, he doesn't even seek out the best frame designer.  He designs them and has them made in house.  He only seeks out the materials, which are generally rare or exotic woods, some bamboo, etc.  If you've ever been to one of his gallery's, you'll also know that he takes this a bit further by designing EVERYTHING in them down to the floors and the very unique furniture.


----------



## StoneNYC

mjhoward said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik's prints go way beyond the sheer fact that they're large.  The precision and detail on those large prints is nothing short of amazing.  Combined with the color reproduction on that "special" paper, it's an experience to the senses that goes far beyond just looking at a large print.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A significant portion of that "POP" is also attributed to the face mount Acrylic.... which is a relatively expensive process.
> 
> I'll add that Peter Lik wasn't one of those "right place at the right time" guys.  I vaguely remember his success story and I think it included many failures before starting fresh with the best of the best of everything.  He doesn't use a top of the line Canon or Nikon, he uses a 60+ MP Phase One MF back with an Alpa body along with the absolute best lenses.  He doesn't just go out to a good location and setup a few shots... he scouts the locations for weeks, sometimes longer, looking for the best angles, the best times of day for that location, and making sure the weather is cooperating.  He doesn't go out looking for the best printers either.  He does all of that himself (with his peers of course).  He has everything done in house, from start to finish.  He doesn't manuf. his own paper though, for that he uses Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl Paper which does help to make the colors pop... but it also attributes greatly to the "back lit" look that is so incredible to look at in person.  The prints truly look back lit and anyone that has ever been to his gallery has come out saying the same.  To make the colors REALLY pop, every print is face mounted to Acrylic.  This process is demonstrated here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, he doesn't even seek out the best frame designer.  He designs them and has them made in house.  He only seeks out the materials, which are generally rare or exotic woods, some bamboo, etc.  If you've ever been to one of his gallery's, you'll also know that he takes this a bit further by designing EVERYTHING in them down to the floors and the very unique furniture.
Click to expand...


You said this better than I did, but that's what I tried to say before.  He's earned his spot through hard work.

I'll add that many if his more famous panoramic's were NOT shot with the digital Leaf you mentioned, but on film with a 6x12 (or 6x17 I forget) film camera, I don't know what film but my guess would be some kind of Velvia/Provia version.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ilovemycam

Here is Peter Lik without the high overhead and the name...


"Grand Prismatic" 20x60 Jeffrey Murray Photography Yellowstone Peter Lik Style | eBay


$400...a few pages ago, that was ecactly what I said Lik was worth with no name.


----------



## Ilovemycam

StoneNYC said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik's prints go way beyond the sheer fact that they're large. The precision and detail on those large prints is nothing short of amazing. Combined with the color reproduction on that "special" paper, it's an experience to the senses that goes far beyond just looking at a large print.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A significant portion of that "POP" is also attributed to the face mount Acrylic.... which is a relatively expensive process.
> 
> I'll add that Peter Lik wasn't one of those "right place at the right time" guys. I vaguely remember his success story and I think it included many failures before starting fresh with the best of the best of everything. He doesn't use a top of the line Canon or Nikon, he uses a 60+ MP Phase One MF back with an Alpa body along with the absolute best lenses. He doesn't just go out to a good location and setup a few shots... he scouts the locations for weeks, sometimes longer, looking for the best angles, the best times of day for that location, and making sure the weather is cooperating. He doesn't go out looking for the best printers either. He does all of that himself (with his peers of course). He has everything done in house, from start to finish. He doesn't manuf. his own paper though, for that he uses Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl Paper which does help to make the colors pop... but it also attributes greatly to the "back lit" look that is so incredible to look at in person. The prints truly look back lit and anyone that has ever been to his gallery has come out saying the same. To make the colors REALLY pop, every print is face mounted to Acrylic. This process is demonstrated here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, he doesn't even seek out the best frame designer. He designs them and has them made in house. He only seeks out the materials, which are generally rare or exotic woods, some bamboo, etc. If you've ever been to one of his gallery's, you'll also know that he takes this a bit further by designing EVERYTHING in them down to the floors and the very unique furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said this better than I did, but that's what I tried to say before. He's earned his spot through hard work.
> 
> I'll add that many if his more famous panoramic's were NOT shot with the digital Leaf you mentioned, but on film with a 6x12 (or 6x17 I forget) film camera, I don't know what film but my guess would be some kind of Velvia/Provia version.
> 
> 
> ~Stone
> 
> Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Thanks for the vid. 

Never heard of this process. Put one in the sun and see how the adhesive ages. That is my only question. Does it yellow?

Not very expensive to do. Has anyone used this on your work? How do you Lik it?

http://blog.bumblejax.com/substrates/

I didn't know Lik used this on his prints. In that case, $700 - $800 is more  Lik what thay are worth without the Lik name.


----------



## StoneNYC

Ilovemycam said:


> Here is Peter Lik without the high overhead and the name...
> 
> 
> "Grand Prismatic" 20x60 Jeffrey Murray Photography Yellowstone Peter Lik Style | eBay
> 
> 
> $400...a few pages ago, that was ecactly what I said Lik was worth with no name.



A nice 20x60 frame will cost $300 I don't know how $400 is even possible with any profit.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## StoneNYC

Ilovemycam said:


> Here is Peter Lik without the high overhead and the name...
> 
> 
> "Grand Prismatic" 20x60 Jeffrey Murray Photography Yellowstone Peter Lik Style | eBay
> 
> 
> $400...a few pages ago, that was ecactly what I said Lik was worth with no name.



First off he is selling the PRINT unframed...

Second he IS  using the Peter Lik name, I doubt he got any purchases at that price before he added Lik's name...

So your theory is a little off...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic   |   Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BrianV

Buckster said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you post an image on the Internet, assume it has been downloaded and saved forever.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't justify it or make it right or make anyone's copyright null and void, especially when it's more than just downloaded and saved; It's been downloaded, saved, printed. put in a book and is being used for business purposes by someone whom one would think has copyright concerns of their own, being in the business and all.
Click to expand...



And yet, my statement is true. I did not state if it was right or wrong, but it is happening- and just happened in this thread. So be careful of what you put online, and don't be surprised when it is used without permission elsewhere in the world. An RFF member was notified that one of their gallery images was used in a travel poster half-a-world-away. Another walked into a Bar in England to see her work adorning the walls, sold by an interior decorating company without her permission.


I have some signed photographs hanging up in the Lab, spent a good bit to professionally frame them. The images are incredible, the story of the man that took them- even more so.

Peter Lik- my wife saw him on a show, told me I should watch it and that I'd like him, "he shoots with film". I'm reading online that he currently shoots film and digital. I'm surprised to read here that he shoots with a D800e, figure it would blow the highlights. A Digital back- larger pixels preserve highlights, don't saturate easily. 

Photographs are personal, different meaning to different people. 

Peter Lik is obviously someone that goes the extra mile to get their photographs. That should be respected. Sometimes the story behind the photographs is worth something, and should be in this case. He's a great photographer, at least this thread made me read some of the stories behind the images that he made.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

amolitor said:


> Sure, you gotta work at it, and you gotta have some sort of talent.
> 
> The point is that hard work and talent are not a path to success. They are (kind of, mostly) prerequisites, but they're not indicators. Work hard, be diligent. Develop a vision fully, express yourself powerfully in your chosen medium. And then go start sleeping with curators.
> 
> Not that you have to sleep with curators to sell prints at $750, we're not in High End Art land here. *Maybe sleep with a magazine editor, though!*



+1  and/or a bunch of the stakeholders


----------



## timor

orljustin said:


> Never heard of this guy.  And up a few posts, that's a picture of a tree.  Not worth $750, IMO.


Finally I had the opportunity to see Liks work in full size display. Bamboo, Tree of life, Lilies of the pond. Definitely worth $750 or more. If I have opportunity I will talk to the owner of this pieces and as, how much he paid. I thing Bamboo and Tree of life at least $2000-3000 with the whole set-up, they are huge ! I don't remember the others, but on Lilies the number of total copies was 750. If that is true no way Lik is making them all in person. Even with one you need 3-4 people just to handle the product.


----------



## spacefuzz

I guess Im a little late to this thread, but as someone who is actively trying to break into the same market demographic as peter lik Ive done a lot of research on him. 

He is one of the most savy marketers in the business, perhaps second only to Trey Ratcliff. He truly does market himself and his rugged aussie image, its his style. (although personally Ive heard he can be kind of an ass).
His photos are excellent, but lately he has been faking moon shots, and they kind of turn me off. 
He hires salepeople instead of art critiques to sell his art.  Many of them sold high end cars (ferraris etc) before moving to his galleries. They sell, they dont know squat about photography. If you try to talk to them it is painful. 
He was able to cut out the middle man by opening and controlling his own galleries, for example in the vegas market he has a gallery in nearly every large casino. This lets him control everything, and not give away that 50% gallery cut. 
I dont believe he actually face mounts to acryllic, or at least there werent any images like that when I was in one of his Vegas galleries last weekend. Its a fuji paper with silver halide based emulsion that is covered in a thin coating to protect it from UV. Ive made similar prints up to 50" and they are drop dead gorgeous. 

If anyone has any other questions I will try to answer them. 

And if your wondering the most Ive gotten for a similar style print is $700 for an unframed photo of the subway.


----------



## Tony S

He has a good agent, markets well, and has the confidence to charge that much and say to hell with people who think I'm over charging for my work.  Shoot, even his TV program isn't super great but it pulls in lot of viewers because he goes to pretty places, markets well, and there are not a lot of tv programs about photographers making images so it gets seen (which then increases the sales at Best Buy when people watch and think "hell, I can do that").

If more of us had all that going on no matter what we were doing we'd do well at it.


----------



## Steve5D

spacefuzz said:


> He hires salepeople instead of art critiques to sell his art. Many of them sold high end cars (ferraris etc) before moving to his galleries. They sell, they dont know squat about photography. If you try to talk to them it is painful.



Hiring sales people to sell something?

Boy, that's one Helluva' concept.

I would bet that the lion's share of Lik's customers are _not _photographers. Ergo, he needs salespeople, not photographers posing as salespeople, to sell his product.

If I go buy a car, I really don't need to know the intricacies of how it was constructed, so I don't need someone who _builds _cars to sell me one...


----------



## spacefuzz

Steve5D said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He hires salepeople instead of art critiques to sell his art. Many of them sold high end cars (ferraris etc) before moving to his galleries. They sell, they dont know squat about photography. If you try to talk to them it is painful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring sales people to sell something?
> 
> Boy, that's one Helluva' concept.
> 
> I would bet that the lion's share of Lik's customers are _not _photographers. Ergo, he needs salespeople, not photographers posing as salespeople, to sell his product.
> 
> If I go buy a car, I really don't need to know the intricacies of how it was constructed, so I don't need someone who _builds _cars to sell me one...
Click to expand...


Well I know that when I sell at an art fair, I do the selling and boy do I suck at it.  Id like to hire someone but cant afford it, and cant afford it because I didnt hire someone 

I wonder how much better sales wise more artists would do if they had a competant sales staff behind them.


----------



## Steve5D

spacefuzz said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> He hires salepeople instead of art critiques to sell his art. Many of them sold high end cars (ferraris etc) before moving to his galleries. They sell, they dont know squat about photography. If you try to talk to them it is painful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring sales people to sell something?
> 
> Boy, that's one Helluva' concept.
> 
> I would bet that the lion's share of Lik's customers are _not _photographers. Ergo, he needs salespeople, not photographers posing as salespeople, to sell his product.
> 
> If I go buy a car, I really don't need to know the intricacies of how it was constructed, so I don't need someone who _builds _cars to sell me one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I know that when I sell at an art fair, I do the selling and boy do I suck at it.  Id like to hire someone but cant afford it, and cant afford it because I didnt hire someone
> 
> I wonder how much better sales wise more artists would do if they had a competant sales staff behind them.
Click to expand...


I've been in sales since retiring from the military 12 years ago. For the most part, "sales is sales". If you can sell cars, you can sell jewelry. If you sell jewelry, you can sell stereos. The basics of sales are a constant, regardless of what you're selling...


----------



## StoneNYC

Steve5D said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiring sales people to sell something?
> 
> Boy, that's one Helluva' concept.
> 
> I would bet that the lion's share of Lik's customers are _not _photographers. Ergo, he needs salespeople, not photographers posing as salespeople, to sell his product.
> 
> If I go buy a car, I really don't need to know the intricacies of how it was constructed, so I don't need someone who _builds _cars to sell me one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know that when I sell at an art fair, I do the selling and boy do I suck at it.  Id like to hire someone but cant afford it, and cant afford it because I didnt hire someone
> 
> I wonder how much better sales wise more artists would do if they had a competant sales staff behind them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been in sales since retiring from the military 12 years ago. For the most part, "sales is sales". If you can sell cars, you can sell jewelry. If you sell jewelry, you can sell stereos. The basics of sales are a constant, regardless of what you're selling...
Click to expand...


I agree for the most part, but I think you need at least a little knowledge about the piece you are selling, some experience.. Driving a stick is different than an automatic... leather seats vs vinyl in the summer time... Or cloth... Trunk space, golf club room, sound system, navigation, handling, maintenance etc... Having those experiences you can relate to the customer... If you've never owned or driven a car, it will be obvious to the customer when they start asking questions.


----------



## 12sndsgood

A good salesman will learn the product and learn it quickly.


----------



## snowbear

Attack of the zombie thread!


----------



## StoneNYC

snowbear said:


> Attack of the zombie thread!



As I said on another thread, I got locked out and thought the site was down but it turns out I just had to log in on a computer and look at some event thing that happened in 2013 but had locked me from doing anything till I read it, but they wasn't clear on the app I use to navigate the forum.

So these were the last threads I had subscribed too, sorry about the resurrections haha


----------



## unpopular

It is likely that some rich guy liked his mediocre, easy access art, and from there a name was made for himself. It's marketing more than anything.

Really though, his stuff isn't really that valuable. And given the large number of editions he produces, it's probably a foolish investment. I'd venture to guess he's not someone who will have the same name he does now in twenty years.


----------

