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
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/35/35958-c5e3387cf4682d8c9cd7b7818c294709.jpg?1734167791)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31707-a2840f3af9af3a4fa6f6dfbd4028eae5.jpg?1734160381)