Could someone explain why this is a big deal (no sarcasm)? Does DPP do anything better than Lightroom/DxO/whatever?
beckmarc: I am not sure why there are so many negative posts. Most photographers complain about photography being under valued. Here is a concrete example of someone valuing a photograph and being willing to part with a serious amount of cash to buy a print. On one level this is a boost to all photographers. Our hobby/business is worth while. Photographers are appreciated.
Also he is a fellow Ozzie.
When the tide comes in all the boats rise :)
munro harrap: Surely if somebody WANTS to lose that much money on an artwork, they require psychiatric assessment?Personally I would not pay more for a bunch of real sunflowers than I would for a painting of them in a vase, or should that be the other way around?
I am satisfied however to see crazy people valuing images of the real world-our sole actual asset- as much as they do daubs of paint etc, but it is however disheartening when they dont go the whole hog and pay as much for the same thing in colour- as created.
Why this denial of God's creation by all and very serpentine means continuesI have no idea, except to say how sad it is that we are still rooted in an incomplete and Oedipal infancy.
Reality Itself is just so much more FUN!
Would it help if you thought of it as an investment? Personally, I would not like to own a retail store - I'm not interested in retail. But owning stocks in one, which may then accrue value might be worth something.
This is a beautiful photo - no doubt about it. But I wonder if it is worth anywhere near that amount.
This looks like an art landscape from at least 20 years ago - nothing like what is currently winning the top comps. Beautiful photos will always attract a few hundred, if not some thousands. But this photos is just that - beautiful. It pushes no boundaries and tries nothing new.
If this was a limited run print I'd personally look at $800-1500, depending on size.
photo_rb: This is a little off topic, but how many think that black and white photography is only valid when it is done with b/w film, or perhaps a monochrome sensor?
I do, but only in a general sense. When you're shooting with BW film you're actively visualising - in the Ansel Adams sense - the finished product in BW. Those people who hit the BW button in Lightroom and go, "hmm, that's nice" aren't showing the same degree of mastery.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the effort that goes into capturing a shot adds to its value, and therefore the photo that serendipitously looks better in BW is worth less.
However, for the photographer who shoots digital with the intent to process in BW, their work has as much value as a film shooter.
Personally, I like to shoot BW JPEG and RAW. I really like the BW rendition that Canon automagically produces, and it gives me a much better idea of whether the final photo is a keeper.
Someone forgot to correct their parallels :)
Geoff Helliwell: Carrying out professional photography in public places in many major city centres/places of interest very often requires a licence and fees to be paid if a crew/props/models/interuption to free movement by others etc are involved. Walking around with a camera round your neck (as a rule) does not. It would be completely un-enforcable as hundreds of thousands of tourists do it all the time. For the same reason, I can't see how anyone could claim copyright on a location. (JimBob has got it right, I think)
Should qualify - this 'general' location. I agree with Jimbob. However, I remember reading at some stage that the public presentation of a building may be copyrighted. Haven't ever come across an instance though.
Australian pro here. In Australia, copyright is enforceable for this particular location. It is qualified under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Regulations 1999 Legislation. It restricts commercial photography unless sanctioned by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. It applies to the use of a camera in a public area.