DSLRUsers.com

lol, i was hoping that would escape DSLRusers...

to the contrary of just about every other photographer on forums and social media, i'm gonna say I LOVE IT, i soo wish i could take a shot like that, but I would only pay 4.2mil for it, he got done....

"It says a lot using the most minimal means … for me it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are."

Obviously it wasn't bought by EnergyPolice!

WTF!! - I've got literally thousands of shite pictures they can buy for millions each...

But people, can't you see "it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are"? To me that was immediately obvious. Pity about the shutter lag though, the subject had already moved out of the frame…

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:Pity about the shutter lag though, the subject had already moved out of the frame…

Nope, he photoshopped it out. Distracting detail from the meaning of life...

More 'pop' than art IMO, but good luck to him.

Michael

biggerry wrote:i soo wish i could take a shot like that

I bet these photographers wish that too: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011 ... 11/100187/

Cheers
Steffen.

I reckon it was just created with photoshop - content aware fill.

Steffen wrote:

biggerry wrote:i soo wish i could take a shot like that

I bet these photographers wish that too: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011 ... 11/100187/

Cheers
Steffen.

But those photos aren't allegorical.

Reschsmooth wrote:But those photos aren't allegorical.

Yep, that's why they fail so miserably. I'm going to try to be more allegorical with my own photos, too…

Cheers
Steffen.

surenj wrote::rotfl2:

I reckon it was just created with photoshop - content aware fill.

Doubt it.

For that to occur, there would need to be some content to be aware of first.

Steffen wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:But those photos aren't allegorical.

Yep, that's why they fail so miserably. I'm going to try to be more allegorical with my own photos, too…

Cheers
Steffen.

I think the Image Review and Critique board should be renamed to the "Is this allegorical enough for ya" board.

I cant say I believe it is worth the money paid but I have to admit that it is attractive

It seems to be a popular style though.

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2506122&forward=

Buyer beware.

why is there such a negative attitude to this image? across all the forums and g+ all you see is
'i could do that'
'i would have scrapped that'
'thats shit'
'wtf'
'i wouldn't pay 5 bucks for that'
blah blah blah...

if that image was posted on any forum before this sale I don't think people would be so negative about it. People just get narky when they see a picture which they reckon is shit compared to them that sells for a crapload. I reckon there would people going, oohh ahh i love the use of minimalist style and ooohhh i love the texture and painterly feeling.

Suren has nailed it with teh photsig example, that dude got 3TU's for something very similiar - people are jealous...

You can buy one of his works here for $12.99

http://www.metroartwork.com/andreas-gur ... 562f0b232c

I've got no doubt it sold for so much because of the 'arty' point of view. Not just a technical photographic view point.

I assume this was an auction so to get $4.3m there would've been other people bidding on it too.

Matt. K wrote:You can buy one of his works here for $12.99

http://www.metroartwork.com/andreas-gur ... 562f0b232c

nope, not for sale, did you buy it?

Most people who are not multimillionaires will be jealous of this. This is more than what one could earn in a lifetime let alone selling one piece of work. It's a cool style to practice though. I am keen to check this style out.....

biggerry wrote:why is there such a negative attitude to this image? across all the forums and g+ all you see is

Maybe people aren't afraid to point out that the emperor is naked if that's what they see.

People just get narky when they see a picture which they reckon is shit compared to them that sells for a crapload.

I'm not bothered by that at all. On the contrary, it means there is hope for all of us

Suren has nailed it with teh photsig example

Now, that image is different in every conceivable way (apart from the use of horizontals perhaps), it has a lot going on and I like it very much.

Cheers
Steffen.

biggerry wrote:why is there such a negative attitude to this image? across all the forums and g+ all you see is

Its not jealousy, for me its plain old disbelief and wonder. Good luck to anyone who can pull those sort of numbers. For me, we have gone past the point where the monetary value equals intrinsic photographic value IMO. That's not unusual, the same thing happens in most art fields. That could equally be my own inability to appreciate the work as well as these others paying above expectations for institutionally popular works.

Frankly, I'd rather pay a few grand each for a large print (or hundreds of them!) from Rob Blakers or Grant Dixon than millions for an abstract photo of someplace I have no relationship with. At least when I look at a Blakers shot, my emotional and intellectual response is grounded in my recognition of the elements and the light as being from places like those I have witnessed and spent time in. I'm also sure my bank manager would be a lot happier.

Theres a bit of discussion about the archival merit of the print and display process used in these images here. Interesting stuff.

Michael

biggerry wrote:why is there such a negative attitude to this image? across all the forums and g+ all you see is
'i could do that'
'i would have scrapped that'
'thats shit'
'wtf'
'i wouldn't pay 5 bucks for that'
blah blah blah...

if that image was posted on any forum before this sale I don't think people would be so negative about it. People just get narky when they see a picture which they reckon is shit compared to them that sells for a crapload. I reckon there would people going, oohh ahh i love the use of minimalist style and ooohhh i love the texture and painterly feeling.

Suren has nailed it with teh photsig example, that dude got 3TU's for something very similiar - people are jealous...

I don't think, on this forum anyway, there has been a negative attitude to the image but that someone has placed such surreal value on it. To be sure, no-one has to agree with the value and no-one has to pay it, but it exemplifies the feeling, as in much of the art world, there is a disconnect between 'value' and 'artistic merit', irrespective of how subject that merit is. They guy is not even dead yet!

That said, this is not just limited to the art world:

1. How can a sports player be 'worth' over USD 100 million?
2. How can a case of 1971 Domaine de la Romanee Conte be worth over GBP100,000?
3. How can a CEO of an underperforming company be paid $X million per year?

I could care less that it sold for $4.3m or 43c, I think it's a crap image personally.

Has nothing to do with jealousy; I'm glad the bloke got paid a shitload, more power to him; but that doesn't change what I think of it.

Steffen wrote:I bet these photographers wish that too: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011 ... 187/Cheers. Steffen.

Whoa, some seriously amazing images there.

My bottle of 1971 Domaine de la Romanee Conte is worth how much! Bloody hell! I just used a bottle in my pasta sauce!

Matt. K wrote:My bottle of 1971 Domaine de la Romanee Conte is worth how much! Bloody hell! I just used a bottle in my pasta sauce!

As long as it was just the La Tache, that's fine. Just cheap plonk.