sadly Im not sure I will be here long enough to finish #20 questions....but we will try!
(otherwise next week you will see the images and know the answer)
#1 western
I don't want to wait...rolleyes
Uh,, Helloooooooo, you said yourself you may not have the time to hang around on the board all day to answer our questions..
Thought we was cutting you a break..
Sucko? You said we sucko....
O.K man,, puttem up...:beatwax, them there's fightin words cowboy..:rambo:lol4
:patch hmmmm.. wait maybe there was a hint in there somewhere? Awwwww, come on Aaron...you can't just cut us off like that... we mean well.. and besides, if you don't finish it, I will PM you once an hour pleading till ya do
So, there, now you know what I will be doing as of 12 am tonight., clocks a tickin...:D
Dancin on a table naked? ha ha.. I can see why they left...
Well kiss my grits if I don't disappear for a day or so and y'all have upped the entries in this thread by at least 50. Were there any other real Challenge questions in there, cuz I don't think so.
Hmmm...not a trivia question, just a theoretical question. If you were to have the option of:
a) a new computer
b) upgrade of lightroom and noise ninja
c) a cheap studio light kit
Well kiss my grits if I don't disappear for a day or so and y'all have upped the entries in this thread by at least 50. Were there any other real Challenge questions in there, cuz I don't think so.
Hmmm...not a trivia question, just a theoretical question. If you were to have the option of:
a) a new computer
b) upgrade of lightroom and noise ninja
c) a cheap studio light kit
which would you choose and why?
The answer would depend on:
a) how old the existing computer was
b) whether PS and the freeware version of Noiseware were already in hand
c) what the position on speedlights and off-camera firing options was
Well kiss my grits if I don't disappear for a day or so and y'all have upped the entries in this thread by at least 50. Were there any other real Challenge questions in there, cuz I don't think so.
Hmmm...not a trivia question, just a theoretical question. If you were to have the option of:
a) a new computer
b) upgrade of lightroom and noise ninja
c) a cheap studio light kit
which would you choose and why?
Well, lets see.. already invested in a four quad computer, and I took lightroom off of it because I cannot make peace with lightroom, I am spoiled to my CS3 and and all of my plugins for it, so I would have to say a studio light set up.. Yep, I need one of those badly... for now, I am making use of any lighting system I can get my hands on... ya know those big double shop light things, the real bright ones, and some lamps and window light.. so.. yes, I need a studio setup...:D
Edward Steichen Pond-Moonlight (1904), $2,900,000+, 2006
Richard Prince Untitled (Cowboy) (1989), $1,248,000, 2005
Gustave Le Gray The Great Wave, Sete, (1857), $838,000, 1999
Andreas Gursky Untitled 5 1997, $559,724, Feb. 6, 2002
Gustave Le Gray Tree (1855), $513,150, 1999
IMO...I have seen much better pics than what I see in the Pond-Moonlight and have taken better...I guess its a matter of taste. But considering the guy probably used a box camera....that wouldn't be too bad of a pic!
Looks like it's a combo win, with Sherstone finding the most updated Google!
But yeah, realy, look at those pics which sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. What makes them THAT special? Is it the photo, or the photographer? I mean, if an image was shot in 1904, then you would have to assume there's some important history that you're buying there as well. But Gursky is far more recent than that, and has made a large fortune it seems. Why do you think tht is? If I took the same photo for a Dgrin Challenge, what critique/feedback would you give me on it?
I don't see anything special about Gursky's 99 Cent II Diptychon. At least not from my computer. The photo looks busy and cluttered to me. To tell you the truth, we have better photos in our galleries here. This guy probably has made some good connections in his life.
Pond-Moonlight fascinates me. The effort it must have taken for Steichen to have achieved the effect he did must have been monumental since color photography came into being AFTER this was taken. I think that fact adds a lot of value to the photo.
Anonymous Cowboy cracks me up because the rider is running out of the frame rather than into it. I took a similar shot during a vacation and when I entered it into an exhibit a judge panned it because the rider was riding out of the frame (the horizon was straightened for the entry). Again, this photographer must have some connections.
Price on an item is often not related to THAT item, but to everything around it, including the creator and provenance. There's plenty of mediocre Picaso, or Monet, or Turner that commands a small fortune simply BECAUSE it's a Picasso, Monet or Turner. I think to some extent that's the case with the Steichen (even though I personally think the Pond is gorgeous, but then again I adore Steichen, as my "Emulation" round image would sugggest )
From wikipedia: "The Pond—Moonlight is an early color photograph, created through the use of light-sensitive gums. Only three copies are known to exist."
The rarity of the prints is also what will have driven up the price, I suspect.
However, botttom line is that pricing always boils down to "basic material value + how badly somebody wants it". The latter is what puts the high prices on these images, I suspect, and doesn't really establish a TRUE "value", but merely what one particular collector was willing to pay.
Related quasi-philosophical question: high-end, name-photographer shoot charges, ie David Bailie, Leibowitz, Cecil Beaton, Lord Snowdon, A.N.Other Vogue/Vanity Fair/Hollywood superstar photogs (whose names I haven't even heard of before because I'm still learning about all this). Dare one even speculate what they charge? Does the cost of "creating" the images they take change our perception of the "value" of the final image, and will the subject portrayed also contribute to the value of the image down the line?
I'm curious about that shot, Linda. Is it a real building, designed in such a way that you see that much into the building? If it's composite/fabricated in some way, then yes he created a cool photograph. Otherwise what I see is someone taking a shot of an architect's awesome building.
I'm curious about that shot, Linda. Is it a real building, designed in such a way that you see that much into the building? If it's composite/fabricated in some way, then yes he created a cool photograph. Otherwise what I see is someone taking a shot of an architect's awesome building.
I have no idea. There's an awful lot going on in that building at night for every floor to be lit up like that. I'm guessing that he had a camera in a stationary location and took many photos over an extended period of time which be blended into one.
I enjoy studying the activity on each floor of the building.
Comments
see next week!
http://lrichters.smugmug.com
I have to ask... does this now qualify as "Most Responses To A Challenge Entry Thread" EVER?? Dunno - 513 must be WAY up there :lol4
(I don't normally suck up to anyone so I'm not very good at it. Do you think he'll buy it?)
My Site, My Book
I don't want to wait...
Uh,, Helloooooooo, you said yourself you may not have the time to hang around on the board all day to answer our questions..
Thought we was cutting you a break..
Sucko? You said we sucko....
O.K man,, puttem up...:beatwax, them there's fightin words cowboy..:rambo:lol4
:patch hmmmm.. wait maybe there was a hint in there somewhere? Awwwww, come on Aaron...you can't just cut us off like that... we mean well.. and besides, if you don't finish it, I will PM you once an hour pleading till ya do
So, there, now you know what I will be doing as of 12 am tonight., clocks a tickin...:D
Dancin on a table naked? ha ha.. I can see why they left...
Well, he might..but then there is always the chance he will be a stick in the mud too...:D
Hmmm...not a trivia question, just a theoretical question. If you were to have the option of:
a) a new computer
b) upgrade of lightroom and noise ninja
c) a cheap studio light kit
which would you choose and why?
The answer would depend on:
a) how old the existing computer was
b) whether PS and the freeware version of Noiseware were already in hand
c) what the position on speedlights and off-camera firing options was
How's that for a non-answer?
Well, lets see.. already invested in a four quad computer, and I took lightroom off of it because I cannot make peace with lightroom, I am spoiled to my CS3 and and all of my plugins for it, so I would have to say a studio light set up.. Yep, I need one of those badly... for now, I am making use of any lighting system I can get my hands on... ya know those big double shop light things, the real bright ones, and some lamps and window light.. so.. yes, I need a studio setup...:D
(Grand Canyon)
(lots of night photography, I hope i dont screw it up!)
anyway, Emily: Lights. you can always get the other stuff later...
C – Already have a good computer and CS4. Really (really really?) need the lights.
My Site, My Book
Nice! I haven't been there since I was about 5 years old. (It was only a small depression in the dirt then.:D ) Can't wait to see your photos!
My Site, My Book
All right, back to trivia. Name 5 of the top paid photographers in the world.
hmm.. I dunno for the others... I will have to look that up..:D
Annie Leibovitz
Andreas Gursky
Patrick Demarchelier
Anton Corbijn
.....let me think about #5
My Photos - Powered by SmugMug!
Sounds good...let me know on #5. Ok, and while y'all are there...what are the top 5 most expensive photographs ever?
James Elliott?
My Photos - Powered by SmugMug!
Sounds good to me...you win!
Now, anyone got the top 5 most expensive photos?
IMO...I have seen much better pics than what I see in the Pond-Moonlight and have taken better...I guess its a matter of taste. But considering the guy probably used a box camera....that wouldn't be too bad of a pic!
Andreas Gursky, 99 Cent II Diptychon, sold for $3,346,456?
But yeah, realy, look at those pics which sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. What makes them THAT special? Is it the photo, or the photographer? I mean, if an image was shot in 1904, then you would have to assume there's some important history that you're buying there as well. But Gursky is far more recent than that, and has made a large fortune it seems. Why do you think tht is? If I took the same photo for a Dgrin Challenge, what critique/feedback would you give me on it?
Pond-Moonlight fascinates me. The effort it must have taken for Steichen to have achieved the effect he did must have been monumental since color photography came into being AFTER this was taken. I think that fact adds a lot of value to the photo.
Anonymous Cowboy cracks me up because the rider is running out of the frame rather than into it. I took a similar shot during a vacation and when I entered it into an exhibit a judge panned it because the rider was riding out of the frame (the horizon was straightened for the entry).
Here's a link to some of those photos: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2009/03/03/most-expensive-photos-ever.aspx
http://lrichters.smugmug.com
From wikipedia: "The Pond—Moonlight is an early color photograph, created through the use of light-sensitive gums. Only three copies are known to exist."
The rarity of the prints is also what will have driven up the price, I suspect.
However, botttom line is that pricing always boils down to "basic material value + how badly somebody wants it". The latter is what puts the high prices on these images, I suspect, and doesn't really establish a TRUE "value", but merely what one particular collector was willing to pay.
Related quasi-philosophical question: high-end, name-photographer shoot charges, ie David Bailie, Leibowitz, Cecil Beaton, Lord Snowdon, A.N.Other Vogue/Vanity Fair/Hollywood superstar photogs (whose names I haven't even heard of before because I'm still learning about all this). Dare one even speculate what they charge? Does the cost of "creating" the images they take change our perception of the "value" of the final image, and will the subject portrayed also contribute to the value of the image down the line?
/musings
"I could do that."
This was said in the second paragraph of the linked article about - Andreas Gursky - 99 Cent II Diptychon
Is it because art is subjective or is it because an artist "networks" and it's who you know not what you know that gives a value to art?
Passion is what drives us and if passion is worth $ then we will all be well off someday
Perhaps the person who bought the shot felt he or she got something special but I just don't see what it is.
However, I really do dig this shot of his: http://www.creativeandlive.com/article_images/0000/1479/andreas-gursky5455354135.jpg
http://lrichters.smugmug.com
yeah when I'm dead probably!!....
I'm curious about that shot, Linda. Is it a real building, designed in such a way that you see that much into the building? If it's composite/fabricated in some way, then yes he created a cool photograph. Otherwise what I see is someone taking a shot of an architect's awesome building.
I have no idea. There's an awful lot going on in that building at night for every floor to be lit up like that. I'm guessing that he had a camera in a stationary location and took many photos over an extended period of time which be blended into one.
I enjoy studying the activity on each floor of the building.
http://lrichters.smugmug.com