Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: Mark Ogden on February 22, 2015, 07:19:45 am
-
Very interesting and highly skeptical article about Lik and the dubious investment quality of his work from this morning's New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
-
The article pretty much follows my experience many years ago purchasing "investment" fine art. :'(
-
Excellent piece, thanks!
Nick
-
I have to wonder what the resale value of his work is? (Any stats on that?)
-
Buy art because you like it. Buying art or indeed anything for investment purposes usually ends up with most people out of pocket.
Lik is a smart businessman, whether or not you like his photography.
-
I have to wonder what the resale value of his work is? (Any stats on that?)
It is in the article. Tiny.
-
Good article. It would have been great if they described the sales process in greater detail. Someone needs to visit a gallery and record the session.
-
How many pictures did you all sell recently? Rather than knock Lik, you might want to learn some of his business techniques if you want to sell your work. He obviously knows what he's doing in a big way. It seems strange to castigate success of a fellow photographer who's worked hard and dedicated himself.
-
+1
-
How many pictures did you all sell recently? Rather than knock Lik, you might want to learn some of his business techniques if you want to sell your work. He obviously knows what he's doing in a big way. It seems strange to castigate success of a fellow photographer who's worked hard and dedicated himself.
I find it ironic that photographers who typically complain about not making enough money in today's world will complain even more about someone who is doing exceptionally well.
Interestingly, comments where people have actually seen Lik's prints in person say it's a lot more impressive than as a 400px shot online, which is how most people judge Lik's work.
-
Nobody is begrudging Lik and his sales. But it crosses an ethical line to insinuate to a prospective buyer that the work has an investment value that clearly is not there. That's the "business technique" of a bullsh*t artist.
-
How many pictures did you all sell recently? Rather than knock Lik, you might want to learn some of his business techniques if you want to sell your work. He obviously knows what he's doing in a big way. It seems strange to castigate success of a fellow photographer who's worked hard and dedicated himself.
Hope that is not directed towards me.
I have to say, I was not taking a jab at his work, and it does seem that he is a rather good business man.
I did attend a recent "Business of Fine Art Photography" talk by a very successful gallerist in NYC. I am not a fine art photographer and have no interest in making a living from that. I prefer commercial photography. I attended because the talk was free to ASMP members, I was sure (and there was) plenty of overlap in advice for both fine art and commercial work, and it is good to be social.
The person who talked discussed the importance of developing (or having really, not sure if you can develop it) value in the second hand market place. Reason being, you want to eventually develop a value for your limited prints that will eventually increase the amount of money you can sell your work for. He brought up Lik's work and said he currently feels there is no value in the second hand market for it, however it is obvious he is making a lot already.
So, I was wondering, from seeing that talk, what is the resale value of his work? It was not a jab.
Anyway, is he good? Who knows; we'll all be dead by the time the world truly decides upon that. In the mean time, he makes one great living.
-
Nobody is begrudging Lik and his sales. But it crosses an ethical line to insinuate to a prospective buyer that the work has an investment value that clearly is not there. That's the "business technique" of a bullsh*t artist.
I think the article states that sellers are dissuaded from using that as a sales tactic. What he does do is set it up so that if you buy early you get a piece at a bargain price and as some people like bargains, they feel like they get a great deal and as other people like to spend large sums they get served too when they buy later. That's the clever bit. Selling the same thing to several markets
People whinge about Lik regardless of all that anyway.
-
Anyway, is he good? Who knows; we'll all be dead by the time the world truly decides upon that. In the mean time, he makes one great living.
So who would most people rather be, Van Gogh or Peter Lik?
-
So who would most people rather be. Van Gogh or Peter Lik?
Of course, Peter Lik. However, worldview of centuries, and artists, past does not work that way.
-
Of course, Peter Lik. However, worldview of centuries, and artists, past does not work that way.
I'm sure the destitute artist will be glad that in years to come other people and not necessarily his family will make large amount of money from his creations.
-
... a very successful gallerist in NYC...discussed the importance of developing... value in the second hand market place. Reason being, you want to eventually develop a value for your limited prints that will eventually increase the amount of money you can sell your work for...
Where would you rather have higher value, in the primary or secondary market? If you are the artist, surely in the primary, as you do not benefit from the secondary market price increase. It may or may not, eventually, "increase the amount of money you can sell your work for." Original buyers, auction houses and gallerists (if they take a cut) prefer the higher secondary market, of course.
-
According to the article he has sold $420 million dollars worth of photos. I don;t know the accuracy of that number. But he has galleries throughout the world that have to cost a fortune to run. I stopped by one in Oahu while on vacation; ran through on my own as my wife waited outside. The photos were very good, presented very [professionally in an admirably looking gallery that has to cost a lot of money to rent in Honolulu with sales people, and the interior decorations of the store were excellent and expensive. He knows how to market.
The way he raises prices as the number of a particular photo decreases is used by many sellers. Creating rarity to sell art at higher prices is a well established procedure. Here's a guy who can sell his photos while the rest of us complain we can't sell ours because photos have gotten so cheaply available because of digital photography and the Internet. I would recommend to anyone interested in learning how a pro does it to visit one of his galleries and see. You might pick up a few pointers.
-
I find it ironic that photographers who typically complain about not making enough money in today's world will complain even more about someone who is doing exceptionally well....
If photography were a country, it would have experienced a transformation in name (and essence) from Mediocristan to Exremistan. In Mediocristan, most photographers were making a decent amount of money, not too high, nor too low, but around a median. In Extremistan, however, only a handful of photographers would make a huge amount of money, while the rest would be fighting for survival.
-
I'm sure the destitute artist will be glad that in years to come other people and not necessarily his family will make large amount of money from his creations.
Now your twisting my intentions and using a red herring to further your argument mixed with a little bit a satire.
Sure, the destitute artist would not be appreciative that in years to come, others not related to him, would make large sums of money off of his work. But I am not discussing the feelings of the artist, you are.
-
According to the article he has sold $420 million dollars worth of photos. I don;t know the accuracy of that number. But he has galleries throughout the world that have to cost a fortune to run. I stopped by one in Oahu while on vacation; ran through on my own as my wife waited outside. The photos were very good, presented very [professionally in an admirably looking gallery that has to cost a lot of money to rent in Honolulu with sales people, and the interior decorations of the store were excellent and expensive. He knows how to market.
The way he raises prices as the number of a particular photo decreases is used by many sellers. Creating rarity to sell art at higher prices is a well established procedure. Here's a guy who can sell his photos while the rest of us complain we can't sell ours because photos have gotten so cheaply available because of digital photography and the Internet. I would recommend to anyone interested in learning how a pro does it to visit one of his galleries and see. You might pick up a few pointers.
I was only aware of the gallery in Las Vegas. Considering he has many through out the world, that makes it ... more interesting in a way, from a business stand point. When I see his prices, I do also think about what his overhead is?
How much of what he makes goes to him vs. goes to the business?
-
If photography were a country, it would have experienced a transformation in name (and essence) from Mediocristan to Exremistan. In Mediocristan, most photographers were making a decent amount of money, not too high, nor too low, but around a median. In Extremistan, however, only a handful of photographers would make a huge amount of money, while the rest would be fighting for survival.
Well at least we're not the music industry. You want to see something scary, watch to the documentary "UnSound" when it comes out.
Insofar as your comment about the second hand market, the person who I saw recommend to hold onto even more limited addition "Artist's Print" that you could sell later, which is normal.
The real thing here is that exposure causes values to increase, so long as you can sell and keep the product limited. The question becomes, do you (or can you) handle this by yourself or do you need to have someone else to do it.
In most cases, artist need someone else to do it, due to lack of business sense, which is why most sell their work in others' galleries. If you go this route, having "Artist's Prints" and selling them later makes sense.
However, if you are like Peter Lik, and can handle all of the business yourself (and are good at it), then secondary market prices do not matter. You gain everything from the primary.
This is not a route most can achieve though. It takes a special kind of person to run just one location and make it profitable. Several locations becomes even more difficult and unachievable.
-
Now your twisting my intentions and using a red herring to further your argument mixed with a little bit a satire.
Sure, the destitute artist would not be appreciative that in years to come, others not related to him, would make large sums of money off of his work. But I am not discussing the feelings of the artist, you are.
No twisting intended. I was simply talking about being a Van Gogh or a Peter Lik and who people would prefer to be. That's purely about feelings.
Very, very few people would be happier about remembered in posterity whilst being unable to feed their family.
Obviously achieving both would be optimal
-
This is not a route most can achieve though. It takes a special kind of person to run just one location and make it profitable. Several locations becomes even more difficult and unachievable.
Lik seems to have managed it though. :-\
-
Lik seems to have managed it though. :-\
Which is what I said in the post that you are quoting me from.
-
Seems the Times published the photo "ghost" (red color) where they should have run "phantom" (b&w).
-
Which is what I said in the post that you are quoting me from.
Ah, you must have a different meaning for 'unachievable' in your parts then. ;)
-
Lets see which photographer will make a print or two and destroy the digital files. That would have some resale value, given the images are exceptional.
Was it Andy Warhol who made art what he wanted it to be? Not that related to Lik, but in my opinion AW was more BS Artist than a fine artist, and he knew it. He also knew how to draw attention.
Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art. _Warhol
"If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it." _Warhol
-
Buy art because you like it. Buying art or indeed anything for investment purposes usually ends up with most people out of pocket.
Lik is a smart businessman, whether or not you like his photography.
There are many smart and wealthy businessmen in New York buying art who are not interested in art.
-
I have to wonder what the resale value of his work is? (Any stats on that?)
Actually his "work" is so great that there are half a billion sales (1.2 million per week) and none has resale his valuable investment... The buyers are so exited with their purchase that won't resale for all the world's gold... ;)
-
I'm happy for Peter, he has figured out how to be very successful. I stumbled upon his gallerying in Waikiki last year and I loved his work. The salesman was very aggressive though, didn't care for him or his poor sales tactics.
I really wanted to purchase a couple of his prints.. but in the ended I decided I should eventually buy the equipment to make my own prints and try to replicate his success.
-
Ah, you must have a different meaning for 'unachievable' in your parts then. ;)
Not really, but if you took the time to read the line above and applied some reading comprehension you would have figured out I did say exactly what you implied I did and that the line you quoted was not applied to Peter Lik.
"However, if you are like Peter Lik, and can handle all of the business yourself (and are good at it), then secondary market prices do not matter. You gain everything from the primary."
Yes, I know it is a compound complex sentence, and this is an art forum, not an english one, but, still, it is not that hard to figure what I meant in that sentence.
The sentence you did quote (once again after some thought and reading comprehension) was directed to and about the many thousands of photographers who do not have the business skills to run multiple locations like Peter Lik.
-
The Rantatorial on Peter Lik has been updated with some new and interesting links at the bottom of the article. http://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/peter-lik-like-not/
Kevin Raber
-
...interesting links at the bottom of the article...
Better Call Saul. ;)
-
His fan club may not be as extensive as he would like us to believe -
but Lik has quietly managed to turn himself into the Thomas Kinkade of photography, selling pretty, pleasing, banal images that are wildly popular with a certain class of inexperienced collectors, but are barely recognized by the art establishment.
http://news.artnet.com/in-brief/new-york-times-exposes-peter-lik-photography-scheme-264858
p.s. Who on earth is Thomas Kincade?
-
Slobodan, that sounds like the USA in general - hedge fund managers rule, ordinary people's salaries/wages go down.
Lik has the knack of selling to nouveaux riche tourists whose trophy wives are looking for trophy images to put in the trophy homes. However, I suspect that Lik's business may tank after this article was published in the business pages of the NYT. The tourists buying photos aren't going to be readers of the arts sections, but for sure are readers of the business news. I wouldn't want to be in Lik's highly leveraged shoes at this moment.
My parents made a little money from purchase (use over 40 years) and sale of modern art vintage circa 1960s, but to tell you the truth, they read Art News, visited a lot of Manhattan galleries before they actually started buying, and a lot of the art is not worth much but is enjoyable (and will still be hanging in the kids' places).
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade
his own site: http://thomaskinkade.com/
messy legacy - GF and widow in court battle: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/08/the-drunken-downfall-of-evangelical-america-s-favorite-painter.html
Kinkade painted a romanticised prettified rural past. Give me Thomas Hart Benton any day.
But really, this Peter Lik fellow is uncouth. Rich, but doesn't have a clue about keeping a dignified interview face.
-
... But really, this Peter Lik fellow is uncouth. Rich, but doesn't have a clue about keeping a dignified interview face.
You need dignity when you are poor, not when you are rich ;)
-
I almost wish I hadn't asked now! :D
-
It's probably more a case that nobody cares whether you have it not just so long as you have money, not that I'm cynical or anything. ;)
-
from Slobodan......"You need dignity when you are poor, not when you are rich"
This is my favorite one-liner here in a long time!!! Slobodan, I always enjoy what you have to say, but this is at the top of the list.
Brad
-
from Slobodan......"You need dignity when you are poor, not when you are rich"
This is my favorite one-liner here in a long time!!! Slobodan, I always enjoy what you have to say, but this is at the top of the list.
Brad
Blush :)
-
I think of his brand more as one of home decoration, luxury-priced but mass-market appeal. Postcards printed fine-art, no wonder he has galleries in travel locations...
Interestingly the 'world's most famous fine art photographer ever' advertises his prints on Nat Geo Traveler Contests...
One more new link:
http://news.artnet.com/people/what-are-people-saying-about-peter-liks-photo-sales-scheme-269596
And for a lol :D on the image descriptions his team churns out...
"The only way I could capture this special moment of the weeping walls was after an incredibly torrential rain. I knew I had to get to a shallow portion of the river to unfold my tripod. I was drenched from head to toe by the falling water. Mist and rain covered the camera, but I fired a few shots. As I stood in awe of the scene, the sun broke through for a few seconds and cast God’s rays into the side lit waterfall."
-
I think of his brand more as one of home decoration, luxury-priced but mass-market appeal. Postcards printed fine-art, no wonder he has galleries in travel locations...
Interestingly the 'world's most famous fine art photographer ever' advertises his prints on Nat Geo Traveler Contests...
One more new link:
http://news.artnet.com/people/what-are-people-saying-about-peter-liks-photo-sales-scheme-269596
And for a lol :D on the image descriptions his team churns out...
"The only way I could capture this special moment of the weeping walls was after an incredibly torrential rain. I knew I had to get to a shallow portion of the river to unfold my tripod. I was drenched from head to toe by the falling water. Mist and rain covered the camera, but I fired a few shots. As I stood in awe of the scene, the sun broke through for a few seconds and cast God’s rays into the side lit waterfall."
So the lad got his tootsies damp wading into a stream to snatch a snap eh! Jeez, do they give out medals for such selfless devotion to the cause, I mean, he could of ended up with a life threatening dose of athletes foot!!
-
Well having been in direct competition with him while I managed my last gallery with Art Wolfe and Robert Rotella, I can certainly say he has the balls to make aggressive marketing moves that most would never sleep at night if made. He also has a wonderful apparatus to tie up personnel so the competition can not benefit from his voracious appetite for going through employees. There are enough stories floating in town to fill several novels.
With that said I must say that I admire his ability to roll out galleries and hit huge sales numbers. I am struggling to make my second million $ milestone and he is on 420. Dam he is good at it.
Robert
Www.robert-park.com
Www.nevadaartprinters.com
-
So the lad got his tootsies damp wading into a stream to snatch a snap eh!
Not to defend peter lik, but I've shot this particular location, and to do so in a rain storm would be a serious adventure and you will get more than your feet wet. Just navigating the log jam through a rain storm to get there would be pretty hazardous. your equipment better be seriously weather proof ...
-
...There are enough stories floating in town to fill several novels...
Do tell.
-
How many pictures did you all sell recently? Rather than knock Lik, you might want to learn some of his business techniques if you want to sell your work. He obviously knows what he's doing in a big way. It seems strange to castigate success of a fellow photographer who's worked hard and dedicated himself.
+1000
In Australia we call it the "tall poppy syndrome". The flower sticks its head above the weeds and the weeds try to chop it down.
I once commented on another forum about how much I had learnt about the business of photography from attending a Ken Duncan course. A "Facebook legend" piped in to tell me he was as good a photographer as Ken Duncan but that Ken had just had more luck. I guess luck comes from surviving driving your family around the outback for many years and not from posting blown out pics on Facebook.
-
Not to defend peter lik, but I've shot this particular location, and to do so in a rain storm would be a serious adventure and you will get more than your feet wet. Just navigating the log jam through a rain storm to get there would be pretty hazardous. your equipment better be seriously weather proof ...
+1
Absolutely true. I would say that negotiating that log jam in a rainstorm is not just pretty hazardous, it's flat out dangerous. In addition, you don't want to be on the wrong side of that log jam when a flash flood arrives. I have shot there as well and when doing so I wear a wool sweater over a wetsuit and my gear is in a dry bag. Once set up in rainy conditions I've found it impossible to keep the lens dry. Timing is everything here, not just for safety, but for visual effect as well. Everything must line up right to do this and then you really have to have your act together to do everything right in difficult conditions.
On the other hand, in the summer the biggest impediment to photographing there is the crowd of people that hike back in daily. When the logs are dry it's fairly easy to access.
My hat is off to Mr. Lik for the effort it took to be there at the right time and for demonstrating the skill to pull it off and getting a gorgeous photo. I've tried multiple times and failed. As for all the schmaltz, I say to each his own as long as we are not hurting or disrespecting others. I wish him the best.
-
+1
Absolutely true. I would say that negotiating that log jam in a rainstorm is not just pretty hazardous, it's flat out dangerous. In addition, you don't want to be on the wrong side of that log jam when a flash flood arrives. I have shot there as well and when doing so I wear a wool sweater over a wetsuit and my gear is in a dry bag. Once set up in rainy conditions I've found it impossible to keep the lens dry. Timing is everything here, not just for safety, but for visual effect as well. Everything must line up right to do this and then you really have to have your act together to do everything right in difficult conditions.
My hat is off to Mr. Lik for the effort it took to be there at the right time and for demonstrating the skill to pull it off and getting a gorgeous photo. I've tried multiple times and failed. As for all the schmaltz, I say to each his own as long as we are not hurting or disrespecting others. I wish him the best.
Lik say's in his speil -
The only way I could capture this special moment of the weeping walls was after an incredibly torrential rain. I knew I had to get to a shallow portion of the river
Would you say that is possible? Would there be a shallow portion of the river after torrential rain? Could you in fact get anywhere near it after torrential rain?
-
Well having been in direct competition with him while I managed my last gallery with Art Wolfe and Robert Rotella, I can certainly say he has the balls to make aggressive marketing moves that most would never sleep at night if made. He also has a wonderful apparatus to tie up personnel so the competition can not benefit from his voracious appetite for going through employees. There are enough stories floating in town to fill several novels.
With that said I must say that I admire his ability to roll out galleries and hit huge sales numbers. I am struggling to make my second million $ milestone and he is on 420. Dam he is good at it.
Robert
Www.robert-park.com
Www.nevadaartprinters.com
The fact that you made your first is pretty good going I'd have thought.
This thread has got me thinking (always dangerous) about the whole print market and why there is hardly such a thing over here yet people can make their living in the states from it.
The first thing to appreciate is that there have to be customers to buy the items. So why are there buyers in the US but not Ireland, or much of Europe come to that? Who are these buyers in the states and where are they hanging the pictures? Are American houses bigger and so have more walls to cover, or do people move house more often and so need to redecorate more frequently? I also get the impression that house prices in the states are more a reflection of how the house is fitted out and its state of repair rather than the value of the bit of land it is sat upon, a major factor over here where there is less land available. Does this have an effect on how people decorate their homes? Maybe hanging photos in the smaller rooms of European houses just makes them feel cluttered and can be overpowering or distracting?
Then there are the psychological reasons for for folk buying landscapes, is it because they want to bring the great outdoors into their homes, extend the vastness of America into their houses, be reminded of what was wrested from nature, or maybe that that nature still has not succumbed?
The list of questions is probably endless but what is quite clear is that you cannot always take a business model from one culture where it is successful and transplant it to another and expect to flourish in its new surroundings. Lik certainly knows that, which is why he has only one gallery in Europe, in Venice, a city inundated with cruise ships carrying American tourists.
-
Mr Lik must be doing something right: He has just been awarded the Federation of European Photographers International (i.e. non-European) Bronze Camera for 2015.
http://www.europeanphotographers.eu/news/2685-fep-golden-silver-and-bronze-cameras-2015 (http://www.europeanphotographers.eu/news/2685-fep-golden-silver-and-bronze-cameras-2015)
-
... So why are there buyers in the US but not Ireland, or much of Europe come to that?
Nouveau riche. They are more nouveau and more riche here. Thus less cultivated. That is not to say that American rich can not be cultivated. They are, but they do not buy Lik. It is all those sport millionaire players, dot.com entrepreneurs, etc. that do.
...Are American houses bigger and so have more walls to cover, or do people move house more often and so need to redecorate more frequently?...
Yes and yes.
-
Lik say's in his speil -
The only way I could capture this special moment of the weeping walls was after an incredibly torrential rain. I knew I had to get to a shallow portion of the river
Would you say that is possible? Would there be a shallow portion of the river after torrential rain? Could you in fact get anywhere near it after torrential rain?
Yes, and that is the only time you will find sheets of water pouring off the walls as he captured in his photo.
-
American houses can be huge, so that's one big reason that print sales are higher in US than Europe. Americans do move more, but the decorations move with them.
I think people like bringing the outside in, so landscape photos are popular. And I don't know if this reflects a lack of cultivation or a lack of time in nature. Lik's color palette is a bit gaudy for my tastes. I live 2 miles from a good art museum (St. Louis Art Museum). I can see terrific art that I would never be able to afford. I would rather see some photos on my wall than reproductions. I don't commonly see fine arts prints from local artists that both interest me and are affordable, but then again I haven't hit the better galleries on a regular basis. The fine arts items at outdoor art shows tend to be conservative in style and "pretty" - just not engaging enough.
-
BTW, does anyone know the location of the moss-covered bluffs in that Lik shot? Interesting place.
-
BTW, does anyone know the location of the moss-covered bluffs in that Lik shot? Interesting place.
I believe it is Oneonta Gorge in the Columbia Gorge
-
Thank you. There is a stereograph that seems to replicate the viewpoint in the Lik photo on the wikipedia site for the gorge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneonta_Gorge
Gorge first photographed by Carleton Watkins. You want to talk about gutsy - not only wading into the river, but wading into the river with a 16 x 20" camera and glass plates!
Added to bucket list.
-
The shot is just after getting over the log jam in the stream. Distance to hike isn’t far. further upstream is a waterfall, but the water gets quite a bit deeper (more than waist deep when I was there and it wasn’t raining). The log jam is not to be underestimated if wet, and don’t make the mistake I did of trying to keep my feet and lower body dry by climbing over it since once you get over, there is no choice but to walk through the stream. Coming out was much easier because I wasn’t trying to stay dry. The logs are extremely slick when wet. Don’t go alone.
And I will say despite Lik’s flowery description of the circumstances and not offering any opinions one way or the other of Lik and his operation, this is one magnificent image in person, I’ve seen it as large as 8 feet. The circumstances he took the shot in were daring and challenging, and like many of us shooting landscapes he also captured a fortuitous moment with the god rays from the sun peeking out. Definitely no postcard shot ...
I got an ok shot of it, one of my better images from last year, but nothing like his ..
-
I got an ok shot of it, one of my better images from last year, but nothing like his ..
Yes it's a beautiful shot. Imagine the shock when I walk into my attorneys firm and see that they had just purchased a 40 x 60 of it. At first it feels like betrayal but then you take a look at it. It is really special and is my favorite of his.
-
I own a Lik, which I bought a dozen years ago when he had a shop-front in Port Douglas Queensland. It was a very, very, slick store; a mini-art gallery complete with works from 'guest' photographers, which were not-quite-as-good as Lik's. Lik was producing very large prints well before large format inkjet printers. As I recall, some of the prints at 3 and 4 meters across were quite spectacular - especially his panoramas. Imagine a 4 m high vertical panorama of the light streaming through Antelope Canyon; that sort of thing. The images were technically fine, and very appealing in a mass-market way, but it was their size that made them something. In these days of 60 inch inkjet prints, I'm not sure the impact would be the same. No doubt, being first to market helps.
I think I paid A$4,000 framed, glassed, and delivered for a 2 1/2 meter x 1 1/2 meter print on lovely glossy Fuji paper - and, yes, the paper really does sparkle(!) - which was less than it would have cost me to do the anything like it to the same quality, which is very high; certainly so at that time, using film. It arrived in a 50 kg crate shipped directly from Fuji in Japan. It is an "edition" of 500, but if Lik has sold 500 of my particular print, which is of an almost abstract close-up of a flower, I will eat it.
It nicely covers a nasty crack in the brickwork of my dining room wall, although I still enjoy it, which is why I bought it. But a $multi-million artwork, it ain't.
-
Thank you. There is a stereograph that seems to replicate the viewpoint in the Lik photo on the wikipedia site for the gorge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneonta_Gorge
Gorge first photographed by Carleton Watkins. You want to talk about gutsy - not only wading into the river, but wading into the river with a 16 x 20" camera and glass plates!
Added to bucket list.
Or we have a different perception of risk nowadays.
-
....first photographed by Carleton Watkins. You want to talk about gutsy - not only wading into the river, but wading into the river with a 16 x 20" camera and glass plates!
Or we have a different perception of risk nowadays.
Neither. There was no risk then. Until recently there was no logjam and thousands of people walked back in there in the summer, when the water is low and it's not raining.
When Lik took his photo (2010) there was a logjam and it was raining.
Edit: "Allure" was taken sometime after 2010.
-
Neither. There was no risk then. Until recently there was no logjam and thousands of people walked back in there in the summer, when the water is low and it's not raining.
When Lik took his photo (2010) there was a logjam and it was raining.
Have we any photos of this logjam?
-
Neither. There was no risk then. Until recently there was no logjam and thousands of people walked back in there in the summer, when the water is low and it's not raining.
When Lik took his photo (2010) there was a logjam and it was raining.
2010? Are we sure about that?
I thought he used an IQ180 for that shot.
-
2010? Are we sure about that?
I thought he used an IQ180 for that shot.
Good catch! 2010 was what I recollected, but I can't locate where I got that number, and now you've proved me wrong re. the date as I do find that he states it was shot with an IQ180, which was not available until 2011. His vivid description of how the image was made (handed to me in a stylish black envelope by the sales person at his gallery) is copyrighted 2012.
-
Good catch! 2010 was what I recollected, but I can't locate where I got that number, and now you've proved me wrong re. the date as I do find that he states it was shot with an IQ180, which was not available until 2011. His vivid description of how the image was made (handed to me in a stylish black envelope by the sales person at his gallery) is copyrighted 2012.
It really doesn't matter. I was wondering if he somehow had a beta version of that back or something.
Probably 2012 as it matches his other Gorge works.
-
Probably 2012 as it matches his other Gorge works.
Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eaPNr7PU1Vo
I'm surprised he doesn't show the logjam in the video.
-
Have we any photos of this logjam?
plenty via google, although the images make it look easier than it is. When dry it’s probably easier to get over. It may also be getting larger each year, not sure. Seems a popular summer swimming location, I’ve only been there in the fall when it rains pretty much every day.
-
I saw his gallery last year. Frankly his prints looked rather chintzy w/super duper saturated colors. The Matt & frames enhanced tackiness, only plastic covers on sofas were missing. If one looks at his Galleries on his website U'll see my POV. The prints r may be 3' to 4' but 16" in height, just look at his Galleries on web, his blk & wht print of Flat Iron Bldg is probably 30"x50" the largest. I find too many people on this Forum posts much better images. IMHO
-
Yeah. But he gets $4000 a pop!
-
Yeah. But he gets $4000 a pop!
That's no big deal. It's the $50k he gets for editions that are 70% full!
-
plenty via google, although the images make it look easier than it is. When dry it’s probably easier to get over. It may also be getting larger each year, not sure. Seems a popular summer swimming location, I’ve only been there in the fall when it rains pretty much every day.
Aye, it seems a popular enough spot with plenty of people taking photos and climbing over it.
-
I noticed this structure a hundred feet off the road in Death Valley Junction last week. The building is unattended, door is permanently locked, and the interior contains nothing but four large mounted photos. For those who haven't passed through this bump on the map, it's on the way to Death Valley from Las Vegas and all the tour buses pass by here. I imagine he's cut a deal with the tour bus operators... "and on your left". Best billboard ever?
-
... there will be always a victim ...
;D
-
The obvious model here, of course, is Thomas Kinkade. Kinkade parlayed a modest talent for cranking out schmaltzy paintings of gardens and cottages into a massive marketing empire that brilliantly exploited middlebrow consumer aspirations. Like Mr. Lik, Kinkade was also profiled by the New York Times at the peak of his popularity in a remarkably similar article. I seem to recall the title as something like "art by the boxcar load", and the writer expressed a grudging admiration for Kinkade's marketing skills while pointing out the widespread disdain for his work among art critics. Even if his sales model implies investment value that's highly improbable, Lik at least appears to be running an honest business. Kinkade by contrast used an explicitly Christian sales pitch to suck in mom 'n pop investors who bought franchises to sell his prints and paintings, and many of them lost big when he finally saturated his own market and the bottom fell out.
One has to wonder what'll happen to Mr. Lik's Red Bull-fueled empire when (not if!) he saturates his target market. The collapse of Kinkade's wasn't pretty.
-
Kinkade's work is still being mrketed. There's loads of greeting cards, mugs, etc. that are still being sold.
-
Kinkade's work is still being mrketed. There's loads of greeting cards, mugs, etc. that are still being sold.
I thought his dying was the main issue. Not that it stopped new work being produced.
-
The obvious model here, of course, is Thomas Kinkade. Kinkade parlayed a modest talent for cranking out schmaltzy paintings of gardens and cottages into a massive marketing empire that brilliantly exploited middlebrow consumer aspirations. Like Mr. Lik, Kinkade was also profiled by the New York Times at the peak of his popularity in a remarkably similar article. I seem to recall the title as something like "art by the boxcar load", and the writer expressed a grudging admiration for Kinkade's marketing skills while pointing out the widespread disdain for his work among art critics. Even if his sales model implies investment value that's highly improbable, Lik at least appears to be running an honest business. Kinkade by contrast used an explicitly Christian sales pitch to suck in mom 'n pop investors who bought franchises to sell his prints and paintings, and many of them lost big when he finally saturated his own market and the bottom fell out.
One has to wonder what'll happen to Mr. Lik's Red Bull-fueled empire when (not if!) he saturates his target market. The collapse of Kinkade's wasn't pretty.
Actually Lik pursues the investment value model far more aggressively than Kinkade. Walk into a store and pay some attention to a particular piece. Suddenly the salesperson is on you noting that that is an incredibly popular piece and it is about to go up a tier this weekend. If you wait the new value will be several thousand dollars more in just a few days. You need to collect this piece now!
Hah.
-
By all accounts the Kinkade empire was disintegrating at the time of the painter's demise. Sales of original paintings and 'enhanced' prints, i.e. inkjet prints with a few added brushstrokes, had collapsed. More than half of the franchise storefront 'galleries' had closed. The parent company had declared bankruptcy and stopped paying legal judgements awarded to defrauded franchisees.
Yes, sales of Kinkade images on calendars and coffee mugs continue. The zombie company stumbles forward, as long as there is money to be made.
-
Kincade made a lot of money while he was alive, as does Lik. That's more than van Gogh and a lot of other artists did and do. And although Kincade died of alcoholism and drug addiction, which negatively effected his business, he never cut off his ear. Of course none of that has anything to do with his work or Van Gogh's or Lik's for that matter. My point is, judge his or anyone's work on its artistic value. You obviously don't like it, which is fine. But many people did and still do. Knocking someone's work that is enjoyed by millions by declaring him mediocre and the people who admire his work as middlebrow is narrow-minded and insulting.
-
"Knocking someone's work that is enjoyed by millions by declaring him mediocre and the people who admire his work as middlebrow is narrow-minded and insulting."
Interesting notion you've got there.
Whoever's on the New York Times bestselling author's list is off limits as far as artistic criticism for you? If people like to buy Beats headphones, does that mean their sound quality is by definition beyond reproach? Billions can't be wrong, McDonald's must be amazing?
Strange appeal to populism you've got there.
-
Whoever's on the New York Times bestselling author's list is off limits as far as artistic criticism for you?
I think you are misinformed about the Times list. It is based on quantity of books sold not people's opinions of what's "good". Quantity bought is how the book gets to the top of the list. By the Times standard, Kinkade's millions of admirers would put him near the top of the list for artists.
But my main point is why don't you like Kinkade or any other artist? Rather than knocking the people who admire him as if they are cretins, provide your analysis of why his work is no good in your mind. Art should stand on it's own. Making ad hominem attacks against the artist, his business practices or people who like the artist's work should not be used as a basis of a critique of the art. That's just a cheap shot.
-
Kinkade's work is sickly-sweet sentimental, to my taste.
One should be able to see new things in a piece of "art" on repeated viewing.
-
Nancy: Doesn't that apply to most photos as well? As a landscape photographer, I often look at other people's work. I'm very impressed by some of it. But it takes on a look that is copied by the same photographer and so many others. Lik as well as skilled and creative amateurs are included in that group. So that raises interesting questions. How does one do something different? What does it look like?
-
Yes, it most certainly does apply to photography.
I think that it is really hard to come up with truly "new" ideas and looks.
I use photos as a learning tool (eg, to learn about plants, insects, birds, etc) and as an expression of enjoyment of the plant, insect, etc. When I take a photo I try to see something that I haven't noticed previously - if I can do this, I feel as if I have had some success.
As for finding photos that yield different experiences on multiple views, I think that some formal compositional properties may be important, but I have a hard time defining exactly what those are.
-
I'm an amateur painter among other things, and I do know more than a little about the subject. Kinkade's work was almost universally regarded as kitchy and formulaic by art critics and skilled painters. People are absolutely free to like what they like and to decorate their walls as they see fit, no argument from me. I'm not criticizing anyone's preference in decoration. But I think it's entirely fair to discuss how Kinkade's work was regarded by knowledgeable critics in terms of artistic merit.
There is no doubt that Kinkade had some genuine painting skills; he roomed with James Gurney (the Dinotopia guy, and a very skilled painter himself) at art school. However, once he hit on a formula that resonated with a mass market, he proceeded to repetitively crank out vast quantities of very similar paintings that advanced his art (or anyone else's) not a bit. No doubt he made a lot of money, and folks certainly are free to like his work. There's no accounting for taste. But neither will anyone ever mistake a Kinkade painting for something by (say) Richard Schmid or Clyde Aspevig.
-
You know, all those heavy, oil-laden thick strokes are so formulaic. Repetitive. No wonder no one bought his paintings.
Oh wait. I'm talking about Van Gogh. Shame on me.
-
You have to keep in mind that Lik's work does well even in top blind competitions like Nature's Best and the NANPA Showcase. Even if the images don't win, they score well when judged by professionals, and the consistency of top images is impressive - he's got one or two top images every year.
Perhaps more impressive is the marketing strategy behind the images. For Lik's team, submitting images in major competitions is a marketing strategy. It helps produce an impressive list of marketing materials promoting his top images. Going into his gallery and being told - this one was exhibited in the Smithsonian - adds credibility and it also sells prints. There is nothing left to chance here - you enter good images in a dozen top contests and you'll end up with some winners - that easily justify the cost and effort.
His galleries are a similarly impressive strategy. I was recently in his newest gallery - in San Diego. It's his 18th gallery and they all follow a similar approach. There was little sales pressure, but a lot of things to help make a sale. Images were very large prints under acrylic - very impressive and striking from a distance and up close. The lighting was perfect and focused on the prints. And the quality of the prints was very good. I found the brightness of color and light was striking - not oversaturated but striking in terms of tonal value. I have no doubt that he has a professional team optimizing his images for a large print.
I'd have to assume 18 galleries are producing $40-50 million a year in revenue or more. He's probably paying $20 million or more a year in salaries for a team of people to sell, edit, market, promote, etc. That's probably 200-300 people being employed.
You have to take the comments from gallery owners with a grain of salt. Lik has cut out the galleries and deploys their 30-40% cut on his own group of galleries. This strategy has allowed him to promote and sell his work more aggressively and with some interesting strategies that could not be used with traditional galleries.
The model Lik uses for developing and selling a limited edition of 500 prints makes sense. It sets some boundaries and established a value for the entire edition. I can back into a $6 million price as the present value of the entire edition. I'm not sure I can justify the price for the print, but it does provide an approach for the price. We don't have all the details as to exactly what was sold and how it was priced or structured.
The lack of resale is a concern, but I don't think most owners really care. The Lik owner who posted here is a good example - he likes the work, it's reasonably priced, and it's not going to be sold any time soon. If a large print from a well known artist was sold in a traditional gallery, a $4,000 price tag is not unreasonable.
I respect the business model of Lik. I think he has shown that there is money in nature photography and developed an innovative business model. More power to him.
-
The one and only resale of a Peter Lik that I have seen was on Pawn Stars.
The art owner wanted $24,000 but settled for $6,000 cash.
-
What did he originally pay for it?
-
The article I read stated Peter Lik limits his prints to 950. That article also stated his company is worth roughly $400 Million.
I think the guy is a very talented photographer but an ever better marketer. He opens his galleries in high travel tourist locations. However, a lot of his customers are probably people with disposable income with little art sense. I mean it just seems like he's flooding the market and possibly ruining the secondary market. His work is touted as being able to hold a value but only time will tell.
-
(http://www.lik.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/w/g/wg360_nikks_hut_1.jpg)
I had never heard of Peter Lik. I had heard of "phantom" so I guess the PR company he hired was good at its job. I went to his gallery to see the works.
I like this photo which I saw on his site. I've named it: "43 minutes too late with slipping ball head".
I thought the NYT article was an interesting read.
-
I've named it: "43 minutes too late with slipping ball head".
That is the funniest thing I have read in ages! Made my spit my morning coffee over the keyboard. ;D ;D ;D
-
I stumbled upon info on Peter Lik a few days ago. Artwork looked interesting, so I paid a visit to local gallery in NYC. Excellent presentation, nicely done.
Had a quick chat with sales. Apparently prints are on Fuji metallic paper. In combo with Acrylic it looks great.
I noticed that the photo paper is sandwiched between two 1/8" acrylic, a usual way would have been dibond or some other substrate in the back.
There was however, what appears a quite heavy duty black finished aluminum frame on the back of that sandwich. Nice solution.
When I asked the sales person whether acrylic and print are mounted on metal, she said that the paper is already metallic, hence no other metal is necessary:)
-
Kincade made a lot of money while he was alive, as does Lik. That's more than van Gogh and a lot of other artists did and do. And although Kincade died of alcoholism and drug addiction, which negatively effected his business, he never cut off his ear. Of course none of that has anything to do with his work or Van Gogh's or Lik's for that matter. My point is, judge his or anyone's work on its artistic value. You obviously don't like it, which is fine. But many people did and still do. Knocking someone's work that is enjoyed by millions by declaring him mediocre and the people who admire his work as middlebrow is narrow-minded and insulting.
+ everyone who is not just jealous. 5 pages? Seriously. I admire successful people.
-
I stumbled upon info on Peter Lik a few days ago. Artwork looked interesting, so I paid a visit to local gallery in NYC. Excellent presentation, nicely done.
Had a quick chat with sales. Apparently prints are on Fuji metallic paper. In combo with Acrylic it looks great.
I noticed that the photo paper is sandwiched between two 1/8" acrylic, a usual way would have been dibond or some other substrate in the back.
There was however, what appears a quite heavy duty black finished aluminum frame on the back of that sandwich. Nice solution.
When I asked the sales person whether acrylic and print are mounted on metal, she said that the paper is already metallic, hence no other metal is necessary:)
fuji doesn’t make a “metallic” paper. Lik prints on FujiFlex (https://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/products/photofinishing/p/fujiflex-crystal-archive-printing-material), basically a Fuji Crystal Archive emulsion on a white super high gloss PET base. Kodak makes a metallic paper which does look nice face mounted with certain subjects, but I’ve never seen a Lik print on Kodak metallic in the several galleries I’ve visited.
I’ve been in several Lik galleries, and the sales staff act very informed and yet often spew out information that is totally false. I heard one claim the paper was a special resin full of little crystals like pearls that is hardened while being printed .... obviously their interpretation of Fuji Pearl.
-
I guess this whole Lik-phenomenon must be an american thing, never heard of the guy in Europe, has no galleries overseas and I've never seen any of his stuff in exhibitions...
That could also explain the low resale value; there just isn't that much demand worldwide.
But who knows, maybe he'll be a famous artist someday, right now he's a successful businessman and photographer.
-
+ everyone who is not just jealous. 5 pages? Seriously. I admire successful people.
Aye, there maybe some truth in that but let's not all succumb to hype.
-
It would be very difficult to estimate how much Mr Lik's work influences my photography.
;)
-
It would be very difficult to estimate how much Mr Lik's work influences my photography.
;)
Wouldn't it be funny if Peter Lik had registered under an alias and was participating in this discussion?
-
The shot is just after getting over the log jam in the stream.
...
And I will say despite Lik’s flowery description of the circumstances and ...
I got an ok shot of it, one of my better images from last year, but nothing like his ..
At a year's offset to your post, though less tardy to this thread's latest, I'm finding it a bit of a puzzle to put your two (i.e., yours & Lik's) images together as the same place --there are the similar things but then some differences I'm trying to resolve. IMO, Lik was shooting a significant telephoto way behind your PoV --as evidenced by the small tree in upper-center which in your image is fully visible just BELOW a diagonally sloping (downwards rightwards) fallen tree but in his is seen above it, and another diagonally sloping (single or pair, resp.) tree(s) lie above and much closer in his image. Yeah, maybe different trees (fallen), though that at the water's surface/bottom looks too much the same. And in Lik's image, just behind the center falls is a rock wall convex rightwards which I can't find at all in yours --and so guess that you were at it, with a much wider lens!?
That said, on balance, I might favor your shot for the visible rocky creek bottom, the neat curving broad lines of light ON the water, and nice light (light vs. dark) and more color in all the foliage (vs. Lik's more universal green) --w/o disliking Lik's, but I think you got a better shot.
And, frankly, also considering Lik's image, I'm skeptical about his description of conditions --of all this mist & rain : looks a pretty clear/clean air he's in, AND given notes of how things line up and so on, that he might be well above the water?!
Try matching the rock --which is less movable/changing than flora(! ;D )--; it's hard to match things unless one puts Lik way back so that much of what he shows was at/behind you (such as the convex-rightward wall center, the large opening/widening w/falls in his right near-ground). Now, I believe that Gursky, and --in photo-realist painting-- Estes are known to sometimes supplement reality, but ... !?
--dl*
====
-
At a year's offset to your post, though less tardy to this thread's latest, I'm finding it a bit of a puzzle to put your two (i.e., yours & Lik's) images together as the same place --there are the similar things but then some differences I'm trying to resolve. IMO, Lik was shooting a significant telephoto way behind your PoV --as evidenced by the small tree in upper-center which in your image is fully visible just BELOW a diagonally sloping (downwards rightwards) fallen tree but in his is seen above it, and another diagonally sloping (single or pair, resp.) tree(s) lie above and much closer in his image. Yeah, maybe different trees (fallen), though that at the water's surface/bottom looks too much the same. And in Lik's image, just behind the center falls is a rock wall convex rightwards which I can't find at all in yours --and so guess that you were at it, with a much wider lens!?
That said, on balance, I might favor your shot for the visible rocky creek bottom, the neat curving broad lines of light ON the water, and nice light (light vs. dark) and more color in all the foliage (vs. Lik's more universal green) --w/o disliking Lik's, but I think you got a better shot.
And, frankly, also considering Lik's image, I'm skeptical about his description of conditions --of all this mist & rain : looks a pretty clear/clean air he's in, AND given notes of how things line up and so on, that he might be well above the water?!
Try matching the rock --which is less movable/changing than flora(! ;D )--; it's hard to match things unless one puts Lik way back so that much of what he shows was at/behind you (such as the convex-rightward wall center, the large opening/widening w/falls in his right near-ground). Now, I believe that Gursky, and --in photo-realist painting-- Estes are known to sometimes supplement reality, but ... !?
--dl*
====
Thanks for the compliment (liking my image better than his). I’ve seen his image very large, and it’s beautiful. After being in this location I came away a little disappointed, while I like my shot I don’t think I caught the emotions I felt ... what a magnificent and beautiful place. I’ll certainly be trying it again sometime this year when I head to portland.
The place in the photos isn’t that large. From directly after you cross the log jam to the large log that crosses the river itself seems like it’s only about 100-150 yds. from memory it seems the stream itself is only 50-70 feet across. I was only standing in a few inches of water (that’s why the rocks show), I would estimate looking at Lik’s shot it was 2 or 3 feet deep. When I was there, there were several large areas that were not under water, and the only spot that was deep at all was where the stream narrowed quite a bit which is behind the log laying across the bottom of the gorge.
Only way he could be above the water would be if he was in a raft, it very well could have been waist deep were he was. With it flowing this full there are no places to stand, and a couple of areas could get even deeper. A friend of mine attended a Mark Adamus workshop, and he had shot this location the day before with someone on a private workshop. They had to carry a raft across the log jam because the stream was too deep to walk through. Not sure how they shot it ...
As far as matching it up, I’m pretty sure Lik is further upstream, shooting a much wider lens than I am. If you notice the rocky area to the left of the light beams that sort of jut out a little bit, you can see this in my shot, but it looks quite small, almost like it isn’t the same thing. so I’m further back (probably about 75 feet) and shooting a little more telephoto. But with a place like this, moving a little and changing lens obviously can have a major impact on the results.
for those curious, here’s a shot of me taking that shot (buddy shooting with a 35mm on a Nikon) as well as a shot of the log jam. You don’t just climb up and over the logjam, it’s about 75 to 100 feet from one end to the other.
-
IMO, Lik was shooting a significant telephoto way behind your PoV
I must be bored, tired of the bad spring weather, but after reading your post I became a little curious, so ...
My friend and I who was with me went back through our images of this location, and now I’m pretty confident you are right. Not only was he further away (probably only 100 feet) but my guess is he might have even been standing on the log jam to get additional height. Here’s a shot my friend took from on top of the log jam. Looks like Lik’s shot is same distance but several feet further to the left which opened up the canyon a little more for him. This was shot with at 58mm vertical and 2 shot stitch, so probably 45- 50mm equivalent on a 5DMkIII. If Lik was shooting MF, he was probably using about an 80mm or so, normal focal length for that format so not much telephoto. I was using a 70mm on MFDB where I was. If you crop this image similar to Lik’s everything matches up except the angle looking up the canyon.
Perhaps he was being a little overly descriptive if he indeed took it from on top of the log jam which appears he did. I’m not sure what the stream was like on the back side of the logs, but I don’t think it’s too challenging even in rainy conditions if you don’t mind getting wet. The canyon ends at the log jam and the stream spreads out so not nearly as deep. Base on the two images it looks like the canyon was running with about a foot or more of additional water when Lik took his shot than when this one was taken.
-
What camera system does Mr. Lik use?
-
He is a Nikon user.
-
Hard to say what he has used for any actual piece as his camera of choice has varied immensely over the years. I think he defaults to Nikon most of the time now, and he has a special rig of 3 Nikon d800's that shoot three simultaneous shots to capture his panos.
The particular shot in question was most likely captured with a phase one since the d800 had only been out for a couple of months and at that time he shot Phase most of the time. I read somewhere (can't find it) from someone who stumbled onto him last year shooting and he had the phase then. Could be when he needs to get it in one shot, like the image in this discussion he opts for higher resolution.
For those interested, there is a youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaPNr7PU1Vo) showing the background of the shot in oneonta gorge, certainly was a lot of water. Toward the end it shows him waste deep in a section that was only about 6" when I was there.
-
Very nice image.
E.
I must be bored, tired of the bad spring weather, but after reading your post I became a little curious, so ...
My friend and I who was with me went back through our images of this location, and now I’m pretty confident you are right. Not only was he further away (probably only 100 feet) but my guess is he might have even been standing on the log jam to get additional height. Here’s a shot my friend took from on top of the log jam. Looks like Lik’s shot is same distance but several feet further to the left which opened up the canyon a little more for him. This was shot with at 58mm vertical and 2 shot stitch, so probably 45- 50mm equivalent on a 5DMkIII. If Lik was shooting MF, he was probably using about an 80mm or so, normal focal length for that format so not much telephoto. I was using a 70mm on MFDB where I was. If you crop this image similar to Lik’s everything matches up except the angle looking up the canyon.
Perhaps he was being a little overly descriptive if he indeed took it from on top of the log jam which appears he did. I’m not sure what the stream was like on the back side of the logs, but I don’t think it’s too challenging even in rainy conditions if you don’t mind getting wet. The canyon ends at the log jam and the stream spreads out so not nearly as deep. Base on the two images it looks like the canyon was running with about a foot or more of additional water when Lik took his shot than when this one was taken.
-
He and Trump could be real buddies.
-
I didn't know that Donald Trump was an award winning professional photographer. ::)
-
No, but he is a marvelous self promoter.
-
I didn't know that Donald Trump was an award winning professional photographer. ::)
Welllll, now that all these new cameras fit smaller hands ...
(Trump University of Photography can give him awards.)
;D
-
No, but he is a marvelous self promoter.
Which all great business men are and which is why many professional photographers fail by not promoting themselves. Nothing wrong with self promotion.