Cost of a photograph

  • Thread starter Thread starter whiteflyer
  • Start date Start date
W

whiteflyer

Guest
I have just watched the last episode of BBC 4s photography program and at the end it said the highest price paid of a single photo was $3.3 million. Now I'd be happy if one of mine sold for a fiver, I'm I setting my sights too low :lol:
 
ahhhh man ive missed every single one of those shows and i didnt want to !!!Youtube time! $3.3 Million WHATTTTT what was it of ?
 
The previous record was Pond-Moonlight by Edward Steichen at $2.6 million

image440dd770-f01f-4ed5-a395-bfdce3044b22.jpg
 
For $2.6m I sincerely hope the actual pic is better than what I see on my monitor. :lol:

Some people have more money than sense. :thinking:
 
Actually, I've seen that Steichen print in person, and it's unbelievably stunning. One of my favorites, and if I had more money than I knew what to do with, I'd have paid the price.

It's quite historically significant, as photography in those days was "supposed" to be a very straightforward record. The pictorial style was key in the evolution of photography as art.

- CJ
 
The irony of the world most expensive photograph is immense! :bonk: :bang:
 
chewyuk said:
Come on CJ - 2.6 Million. If I had 2.6 Million, I buy the land and sit in the view ;)
Click to expand...

Nope. Even sitting in the view, you wouldn't see it the way Steichen shows it. That's kind of the point, isn't it?

That's a little like saying, "I see my kids every day. Why would I want a photo of them?"

;)

- CJ
 
The value is not in the beauty of the shot, in your case maybe, but I'm sure the fact it sold for 2.6 mill was not down to the beauty, it was an investment as the buyer no doubt knew:

It was very early example of colour photography, produced using the autochrome process.
And it was 1 of 3 known copies in existence of which two are in museum collections.

:)
 
The price is obviously to do with the historical and arty value, other wise there is no way on earth it would command such a price. If I had taken that shot last week I probably wouldn't even win POTM. :p
 
Paul, honestly, you have to see it in person. It GLOWS. Gorgeous.

It's certainly not to everyone's taste, but it's so much different in person than in a crappy online photo. It's quite delicate in tone with beautiful subtleties that are totally lost on a computer screen.
 
Alex, I'm not sure where the other two prints are anymore, or if they're even available for viewing. Hopefully they are, because photographs like that should be seen by as many people as possible.

- CJ
 
cjnicolai said:
Paul, honestly, you have to see it in person. It GLOWS. Gorgeous.

It's certainly not to everyone's taste, but it's so much different in person than in a crappy online photo. It's quite delicate in tone with beautiful subtleties that are totally lost on a computer screen.
Click to expand...

CJ, i'm not denying that its one of a kind :p. It's probably a stunning photo. All i'm saying is that if I had taken that photo last week, and then you came to see it on my wall, would you offer me millions for it?

As well as the quality of the image, the value mainly lies in the historical value. The cutting edge technique (in those days), the infamy of the photographer, the personal history involved.

Viewed as an "antique" or a "historically important" piece of artwork, I can't deny it would command a high price tag, but purely as an "excellently composed photo" it certainly shouldn't.

I'm too cynical for my own good :p
 
antihero said:
If I had taken that shot last week I probably wouldn't even win POTM. :p
Click to expand...

This implies that the only value a photo can possess is strictly æsthetic which is patently absurd :confused:

I mean, take something super famous like the photo of Kim Phuc (the little girl running from the napalm attack in Vietnam). Not only is the subject incredibly powerful, but it's historical context is incredible important too: taken in 1972, when public opinion of the Vietnam war was virtually at its nadir, it came to symbolise the horrors of American involvement in Vietnam.

Technically, though? I dunno. Few blown highlights here, clipped blacks there. It's grainy, and not in a nice way. Compositionally it's pretty cluttered.

And yet that doesn't matter one jot. It's one of the most incredible images of the 20th century.

It's not even just an investment based on the historical worth of the item. Images can be powerful in and of themselves despite a complete absence of technical/æsthetic merit.
 
You also have to consider the photographer, who was very important to photography as a whole, and has an incredibly body of work behind him. This wasn't a one-off lucky shot. It's a rare, significant print by a legendary photographer. Of course it's worth a ton of money.
 
cjnicolai said:
You also have to consider the photographer, who was very important to photography as a whole, and has an incredibly body of work behind him. This wasn't a one-off lucky shot. It's a rare, significant print by a legendary photographer. Of course it's worth a ton of money.
Click to expand...

It might have been missed somewhere, but that's exactly the point i was trying to make. The value of THAT photograph isn't on the merits of the image itself, but also the infamy and credentials of the person that took it.
 
richmond said:
For $2.6m I sincerely hope the actual pic is better than what I see on my monitor. :lol:

Some people have more money than sense. :thinking:
Click to expand...

agreed!
my worst images are better than that :D
well i think so anyway ....:naughty:

seriously though the small jpg obvously doesnt do it justice, i'll just take your word for it that it looks stunning in real life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top