Why is Peter Lik's work so valuable?

[Steve5D]

Ilovemycam, can you post some of your street photography. Generally people that rant and rave about the quality of other people's work being crap, are themselves, producing crap.

I've found either that to be the case, or they produce nothing at all...

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm only slightly concerned at his keeping my photo, still, I have to say, I find it uncouth of you to save a photo you haven't asked permission to save, especially in a photography forum, it's just simple politeness and proper etiquette to ask first.

I am not mad, but I don't think it's good form either.

This is why I mostly use APUG as it seems a little safer there,


~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

 

[BrianV]

If you post an image on the Internet, assume it has been downloaded and saved forever. Do a google search on a few keywords that appear next to any image that you have posted, and click "images". Stuff from forum accounts and galleries that I deleted years ago still show up, "Cached forever". Upload it, anybody can download it at anytime, and long after you think it has been deleted.

Apug has gone through a lot of wild-swings. I gave up on them a couple of years ago when it went way-out there.

 

[Buckster]

If you post an image on the Internet, assume it has been downloaded and saved forever.

That doesn't justify it or make it right or make anyone's copyright null and void, especially when it's more than just downloaded and saved; It's been downloaded, saved, printed. put in a book and is being used for business purposes by someone whom one would think has copyright concerns of their own, being in the business and all.

 

[mjhoward]

Lik's prints go way beyond the sheer fact that they're large. The precision and detail on those large prints is nothing short of amazing. Combined with the color reproduction on that "special" paper, it's an experience to the senses that goes far beyond just looking at a large print.

A significant portion of that "POP" is also attributed to the face mount Acrylic.... which is a relatively expensive process.

I'll add that Peter Lik wasn't one of those "right place at the right time" guys. I vaguely remember his success story and I think it included many failures before starting fresh with the best of the best of everything. He doesn't use a top of the line Canon or Nikon, he uses a 60+ MP Phase One MF back with an Alpa body along with the absolute best lenses. He doesn't just go out to a good location and setup a few shots... he scouts the locations for weeks, sometimes longer, looking for the best angles, the best times of day for that location, and making sure the weather is cooperating. He doesn't go out looking for the best printers either. He does all of that himself (with his peers of course). He has everything done in house, from start to finish. He doesn't manuf. his own paper though, for that he uses Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl Paper which does help to make the colors pop... but it also attributes greatly to the "back lit" look that is so incredible to look at in person. The prints truly look back lit and anyone that has ever been to his gallery has come out saying the same. To make the colors REALLY pop, every print is face mounted to Acrylic. This process is demonstrated here:

Lastly, he doesn't even seek out the best frame designer. He designs them and has them made in house. He only seeks out the materials, which are generally rare or exotic woods, some bamboo, etc. If you've ever been to one of his gallery's, you'll also know that he takes this a bit further by designing EVERYTHING in them down to the floors and the very unique furniture.

 

[StoneNYC]

Lik's prints go way beyond the sheer fact that they're large. The precision and detail on those large prints is nothing short of amazing. Combined with the color reproduction on that "special" paper, it's an experience to the senses that goes far beyond just looking at a large print.

A significant portion of that "POP" is also attributed to the face mount Acrylic.... which is a relatively expensive process.

I'll add that Peter Lik wasn't one of those "right place at the right time" guys. I vaguely remember his success story and I think it included many failures before starting fresh with the best of the best of everything. He doesn't use a top of the line Canon or Nikon, he uses a 60+ MP Phase One MF back with an Alpa body along with the absolute best lenses. He doesn't just go out to a good location and setup a few shots... he scouts the locations for weeks, sometimes longer, looking for the best angles, the best times of day for that location, and making sure the weather is cooperating. He doesn't go out looking for the best printers either. He does all of that himself (with his peers of course). He has everything done in house, from start to finish. He doesn't manuf. his own paper though, for that he uses Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl Paper which does help to make the colors pop... but it also attributes greatly to the "back lit" look that is so incredible to look at in person. The prints truly look back lit and anyone that has ever been to his gallery has come out saying the same. To make the colors REALLY pop, every print is face mounted to Acrylic. This process is demonstrated here:

Lastly, he doesn't even seek out the best frame designer. He designs them and has them made in house. He only seeks out the materials, which are generally rare or exotic woods, some bamboo, etc. If you've ever been to one of his gallery's, you'll also know that he takes this a bit further by designing EVERYTHING in them down to the floors and the very unique furniture.

You said this better than I did, but that's what I tried to say before. He's earned his spot through hard work.

I'll add that many if his more famous panoramic's were NOT shot with the digital Leaf you mentioned, but on film with a 6x12 (or 6x17 I forget) film camera, I don't know what film but my guess would be some kind of Velvia/Provia version.


~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

 

[Ilovemycam]

Here is Peter Lik without the high overhead and the name...


"Grand Prismatic" 20x60 Jeffrey Murray Photography Yellowstone Peter Lik Style | eBay


$400...a few pages ago, that was ecactly what I said Lik was worth with no name.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Lik's prints go way beyond the sheer fact that they're large. The precision and detail on those large prints is nothing short of amazing. Combined with the color reproduction on that "special" paper, it's an experience to the senses that goes far beyond just looking at a large print.

A significant portion of that "POP" is also attributed to the face mount Acrylic.... which is a relatively expensive process.

I'll add that Peter Lik wasn't one of those "right place at the right time" guys. I vaguely remember his success story and I think it included many failures before starting fresh with the best of the best of everything. He doesn't use a top of the line Canon or Nikon, he uses a 60+ MP Phase One MF back with an Alpa body along with the absolute best lenses. He doesn't just go out to a good location and setup a few shots... he scouts the locations for weeks, sometimes longer, looking for the best angles, the best times of day for that location, and making sure the weather is cooperating. He doesn't go out looking for the best printers either. He does all of that himself (with his peers of course). He has everything done in house, from start to finish. He doesn't manuf. his own paper though, for that he uses Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl Paper which does help to make the colors pop... but it also attributes greatly to the "back lit" look that is so incredible to look at in person. The prints truly look back lit and anyone that has ever been to his gallery has come out saying the same. To make the colors REALLY pop, every print is face mounted to Acrylic. This process is demonstrated here:

Lastly, he doesn't even seek out the best frame designer. He designs them and has them made in house. He only seeks out the materials, which are generally rare or exotic woods, some bamboo, etc. If you've ever been to one of his gallery's, you'll also know that he takes this a bit further by designing EVERYTHING in them down to the floors and the very unique furniture.

You said this better than I did, but that's what I tried to say before. He's earned his spot through hard work.

I'll add that many if his more famous panoramic's were NOT shot with the digital Leaf you mentioned, but on film with a 6x12 (or 6x17 I forget) film camera, I don't know what film but my guess would be some kind of Velvia/Provia version.


~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

Thanks for the vid.

Never heard of this process. Put one in the sun and see how the adhesive ages. That is my only question. Does it yellow?

Not very expensive to do. Has anyone used this on your work? How do you Lik it?

http://blog.bumblejax.com/substrates/

I didn't know Lik used this on his prints. In that case, $700 - $800 is more Lik what thay are worth without the Lik name.

 

[StoneNYC]

Here is Peter Lik without the high overhead and the name...


"Grand Prismatic" 20x60 Jeffrey Murray Photography Yellowstone Peter Lik Style | eBay


$400...a few pages ago, that was ecactly what I said Lik was worth with no name.

A nice 20x60 frame will cost $300 I don't know how $400 is even possible with any profit.


~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

 

[StoneNYC]

Here is Peter Lik without the high overhead and the name...


"Grand Prismatic" 20x60 Jeffrey Murray Photography Yellowstone Peter Lik Style | eBay


$400...a few pages ago, that was ecactly what I said Lik was worth with no name.

First off he is selling the PRINT unframed...

Second he IS using the Peter Lik name, I doubt he got any purchases at that price before he added Lik's name...

So your theory is a little off...


~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

 

[BrianV]

If you post an image on the Internet, assume it has been downloaded and saved forever.

That doesn't justify it or make it right or make anyone's copyright null and void, especially when it's more than just downloaded and saved; It's been downloaded, saved, printed. put in a book and is being used for business purposes by someone whom one would think has copyright concerns of their own, being in the business and all.

And yet, my statement is true. I did not state if it was right or wrong, but it is happening- and just happened in this thread. So be careful of what you put online, and don't be surprised when it is used without permission elsewhere in the world. An RFF member was notified that one of their gallery images was used in a travel poster half-a-world-away. Another walked into a Bar in England to see her work adorning the walls, sold by an interior decorating company without her permission.


I have some signed photographs hanging up in the Lab, spent a good bit to professionally frame them. The images are incredible, the story of the man that took them- even more so.

Peter Lik- my wife saw him on a show, told me I should watch it and that I'd like him, "he shoots with film". I'm reading online that he currently shoots film and digital. I'm surprised to read here that he shoots with a D800e, figure it would blow the highlights. A Digital back- larger pixels preserve highlights, don't saturate easily.

Photographs are personal, different meaning to different people.

Peter Lik is obviously someone that goes the extra mile to get their photographs. That should be respected. Sometimes the story behind the photographs is worth something, and should be in this case. He's a great photographer, at least this thread made me read some of the stories behind the images that he made.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Sure, you gotta work at it, and you gotta have some sort of talent.

The point is that hard work and talent are not a path to success. They are (kind of, mostly) prerequisites, but they're not indicators. Work hard, be diligent. Develop a vision fully, express yourself powerfully in your chosen medium. And then go start sleeping with curators.

Not that you have to sleep with curators to sell prints at $750, we're not in High End Art land here. Maybe sleep with a magazine editor, though!

+1 and/or a bunch of the stakeholders

 

[timor]

Never heard of this guy. And up a few posts, that's a picture of a tree. Not worth $750, IMO.

Finally I had the opportunity to see Liks work in full size display. Bamboo, Tree of life, Lilies of the pond. Definitely worth $750 or more. If I have opportunity I will talk to the owner of this pieces and as, how much he paid. I thing Bamboo and Tree of life at least $2000-3000 with the whole set-up, they are huge ! I don't remember the others, but on Lilies the number of total copies was 750. If that is true no way Lik is making them all in person. Even with one you need 3-4 people just to handle the product.

 

[spacefuzz]

I guess Im a little late to this thread, but as someone who is actively trying to break into the same market demographic as peter lik Ive done a lot of research on him.

He is one of the most savy marketers in the business, perhaps second only to Trey Ratcliff. He truly does market himself and his rugged aussie image, its his style. (although personally Ive heard he can be kind of an ass).
His photos are excellent, but lately he has been faking moon shots, and they kind of turn me off.
He hires salepeople instead of art critiques to sell his art. Many of them sold high end cars (ferraris etc) before moving to his galleries. They sell, they dont know squat about photography. If you try to talk to them it is painful.
He was able to cut out the middle man by opening and controlling his own galleries, for example in the vegas market he has a gallery in nearly every large casino. This lets him control everything, and not give away that 50% gallery cut.
I dont believe he actually face mounts to acryllic, or at least there werent any images like that when I was in one of his Vegas galleries last weekend. Its a fuji paper with silver halide based emulsion that is covered in a thin coating to protect it from UV. Ive made similar prints up to 50" and they are drop dead gorgeous.

If anyone has any other questions I will try to answer them.

And if your wondering the most Ive gotten for a similar style print is $700 for an unframed photo of the subway.

 

[Tony S]

He has a good agent, markets well, and has the confidence to charge that much and say to hell with people who think I'm over charging for my work. Shoot, even his TV program isn't super great but it pulls in lot of viewers because he goes to pretty places, markets well, and there are not a lot of tv programs about photographers making images so it gets seen (which then increases the sales at Best Buy when people watch and think "hell, I can do that").

If more of us had all that going on no matter what we were doing we'd do well at it.