# Seriously - How Can a Photo Be Worth £2.7m?



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

Have a look at this picture for a few seconds....











> An image of the Rhine by German artist Andreas Gursky has fetched $4.3m (£2.7m) at Christie's New York, setting an auction record for a photograph.


WTF?


----------



## bigmc (Mar 22, 2010)

Seriously £2.7M!! It's not even a great photo.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Seriously?! I must be sitting on a good billion worth of snaps!
The buyer must be gutted that it's appeared here; they could just have copied it from DW and used the ALDI photo print service - would have saved £2,699,999.76 :lol:


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

It is beautifully framed, though. Look at the size of the stripes. And then the materials of teh grey ones. And then the lack of people and other distractions.

This kind of thing is *extremely* hard to do.

Bret


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

This is a classic example of breaking the rule of thirds and therefore deliberately breaking the rules of convention and initiating discussion and debate.

Therefore, it is modern art and worth a fortune to an idiot with too much money and pretention.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

bretti_kivi said:


> This kind of thing is *extremely* hard to do.


I'm tempted to take on a challenge here but I feel I might be biting off more than I can chew... hard to believe though. Can it be THAT difficult?


----------



## bigmc (Mar 22, 2010)

bretti_kivi said:


> It is beautifully framed, though. Look at the size of the stripes. And then the materials of teh grey ones. And then the lack of people and other distractions.
> 
> This kind of thing is *extremely* hard to do.
> 
> Bret


In the words of Jim Royle


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

Oh get lost thats gotta be a wind up!

I have taken better photos on my BlackBerry!!


----------



## justina3 (Jan 11, 2008)

its worth 2.7million because someone wanted to pay 2.7 million for it simples


----------



## Stumper (Apr 5, 2009)

bretti_kivi said:


> It is beautifully framed, though. Look at the size of the stripes. And then the materials of teh grey ones. And then the lack of people and other distractions.
> 
> This kind of thing is *extremely* hard to do.
> 
> Bret


Rubbish.

Read the last two paragraphs of this article about the photo........It's not a photo he's taken, it's been photoshopped to give the image he wanted!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-by-Andreas-Gursky-breaks-auction-record.html


----------



## Prism Detailing (Jun 8, 2006)

I think its more the name than the picture itself that dictated the price.


----------



## PaulN (Jan 17, 2008)

Im lost for words........ not in a good way either!


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

graeme_t said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Read the last two paragraphs of this article about the photo........It's not a photo he's taken, it's been photoshopped to give the image he wanted!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-by-Andreas-Gursky-breaks-auction-record.html


Oookay, I was working from the image and not from the 'shopping.

Then again, how much PS work is acceptable?

I've seen enough of the Rhein to understand that this isn't a million miles away from possible and find it to be a very powerful image. Whether it was created by digitisation or "real" methods is a moot point.

I do think, though, that a couple of mill is over the top. I can understand wanting a nice copy in a decent frame and paying in the region of £1k for it (that is, after all, what decent landscapes, nicely printed, go for) but the £2m? Someone hit the nail on the head when they said



> its worth 2.7million because someone wanted to pay 2.7 million for it simples


IMO.

Yes, the proportions are really hard to do and it wasn't taken from head height, either, IMO. I might be wrong.. but if this is Düsseldorf, then it's so wide that to get the perspective you need to be 3-4m up.

Bret


----------



## Car Key (Mar 20, 2007)

Would love to see this guy on Dragons Den. Duncan Ballantyne would kick his @rse down the stairs!


----------



## VIPER (May 30, 2007)

Oh dear, oh dear! [_shakes head, exits thread_]


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> It is beautifully framed, though. Look at the size of the stripes. And then the materials of teh grey ones. And then the lack of people and other distractions.
> 
> This kind of thing is *extremely* hard to do.
> 
> Bret


Presumably this post is written in jest.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

graeme_t said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Read the last two paragraphs of this article about the photo........It's not a photo he's taken, it's been photoshopped to give the image he wanted!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-by-Andreas-Gursky-breaks-auction-record.html


it's photoshopped!?!?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Imagine spending £2.7m on a photo then finding out it's fake.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

SteveyG said:


> Presumably this post is written in jest.


Nope, I'm serious. I don't agree with the pricetag, but I do agree with the concept.



Nanoman said:


> I'm tempted to take on a challenge here but I feel I might be biting off more than I can chew... hard to believe though. Can it be THAT difficult?





Gruffs said:


> This is a classic example of breaking the rule of thirds and therefore deliberately breaking the rules of convention and initiating discussion and debate.
> 
> Therefore, it is modern art and worth a fortune to an idiot with too much money and pretention.


These two quotes together:
- measuring: the horizon is at the halfway mark. 
- far bank is 30 px
- tarmac is 30 px
- grass between tarmac and water is 90px or so

there's another 1:3 or 1:1.3 in there, too, I can't remember where and just lost an answer 

How difficult?

There's no obvious repetition I can see in the clouds, water or grass. 
Oookay... so from here, I'd say you need around 10-15 identically lit shots of the bank, the grass, the tarmac. From the same perspective every time. And the clouds.
Now shop 'em together to create a 100MP monster (don't forget, you'll need a machine with a *lot* of memory to do this as you'll end up with an awful lot of layers). Easy that, wasn't it?

I spent an hour last night doing three photos from a wedding that a family member took. I did the basics - zit removal, downplay the flash highlights - is that still "faking it"? Most customers IME *expect* photoshopping of images in some way shape or form. I shoot RAW, I must postprocess (PP) or I haven't got a JPG to show.

Just because it's "digitally edited" doesn't mean it's fake.

Bret


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

Now thats what i call shell bidding...:lol:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Damn, if only my lad hadn't got in the way, I could have made a fortune....


----------



## Shug (Jul 13, 2007)

Suppose it'd take quite a lot of work to make a 3 metre print on acrylic glass. Maybe not 2.7 million worth of work.
Shiny, add a couple zeros to the price if you include the words 'isolation' 'reflection' 'individuality' in the title!


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

tip #1 - stuff like that really does come over well. However: put him anywhere but dead centre. 
#2 - straighten it (-0.9degrees, I think, I've just tried it)
#3 - a bit more action and it would be truly excellent.

I'd also crop it, preferably 21:9 (cinemastyle).... I've just tried this, too, and really like the effect it gives... but that's me 

And I have expensive tastes 

I can also offer this: 









and this (yes, it's not straight and it has at least one dust bunny)










as examples of "less is more"...

Bret


----------



## npinks (Feb 25, 2008)

I like it, simple, nice colours

Something similar will be in ikea soon enough to buy


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

The cropped shot "Solitude"


----------



## Edward101 (Jun 5, 2009)

Gursky also sold his photo '99 cents' for something like 1 million. I like his work but I wouldn't pay that for it! (well if I had 2.7 million lying around :lol


----------

