Post by Stevewebb on Aug 31, 2014 15:03:47 GMT
The photographer Peter Lik. web site
I went in his gallery yesterday in Beverley Hills and the work looks absolutely stunning as a first impression. Then as I stayed longer I started to see some things that maybe purchasers of this work will not see at first.
1-The work was all printed on acrylic. Highly reflective, makes colours super saturated and look almost luminous. It was all displayed against a black wall with high power 5600K spot lights mounted on the ceiling pointing back at the work. It looked incredible, but how many people would mount the work like this and would it end up looking like nothing more than a mediocre print in a normal home or office?
2-Does the majority of this work show any technical skill above your average landscape photographer or is it more about the stunning locations? Have a look at the "Hollywood Nights" image. I don't believe anyone without a string of galleries all over the world would stand the remotest chance of getting permission to shoot here.link
3-Have a look at "Bella Luna". link. Is it me or does this just look wrong. If I had posted that image to this forum I would expect to get criticised for the moon being way way too big and looking unreal.
Don't get me wrong, there is some fantastic work and I would love to have taken some of those images. Should we be jealous of someone like peter's worldwide success or proud that a photographer can still make money simply selling images rather than pressurising low income families to purchase their family portrait session images at a hugely inflated price?
Should we try harder to get permission to shoot at some of these off limits locations, or even if we did, would we get nothing from it because we don't have a gallery in a glitzy location to sell from?
Is it right that this work should be displayed in such a "perfect" environment and then just packaged up and shipped to the buyer without any advice or guidance on how or where to hang it? If you showed interest in a particular piece they moved it into it's own completely dark room with nothing else but the perfectly lit image.
Any thoughts?
I went in his gallery yesterday in Beverley Hills and the work looks absolutely stunning as a first impression. Then as I stayed longer I started to see some things that maybe purchasers of this work will not see at first.
1-The work was all printed on acrylic. Highly reflective, makes colours super saturated and look almost luminous. It was all displayed against a black wall with high power 5600K spot lights mounted on the ceiling pointing back at the work. It looked incredible, but how many people would mount the work like this and would it end up looking like nothing more than a mediocre print in a normal home or office?
2-Does the majority of this work show any technical skill above your average landscape photographer or is it more about the stunning locations? Have a look at the "Hollywood Nights" image. I don't believe anyone without a string of galleries all over the world would stand the remotest chance of getting permission to shoot here.link
3-Have a look at "Bella Luna". link. Is it me or does this just look wrong. If I had posted that image to this forum I would expect to get criticised for the moon being way way too big and looking unreal.
Don't get me wrong, there is some fantastic work and I would love to have taken some of those images. Should we be jealous of someone like peter's worldwide success or proud that a photographer can still make money simply selling images rather than pressurising low income families to purchase their family portrait session images at a hugely inflated price?
Should we try harder to get permission to shoot at some of these off limits locations, or even if we did, would we get nothing from it because we don't have a gallery in a glitzy location to sell from?
Is it right that this work should be displayed in such a "perfect" environment and then just packaged up and shipped to the buyer without any advice or guidance on how or where to hang it? If you showed interest in a particular piece they moved it into it's own completely dark room with nothing else but the perfectly lit image.
Any thoughts?