New most expensive photo is Photoshopped

[Darin Boville]

Ansel is just lucky he was born in 1902. If he was born in 1972, he'd be selling homemade Photoshop actions, posting to Flickr and working at WalMart. He would have loved DSLRs.

Damn funny.

--Darin

[Ben Syverson]

Look, the title of this thread implies that manipulation is BS. Well, not many photographers are manipulation virgins.

So all I'm saying is: if you wouldn't slap the cardboard out of Ansel's hands, then don't slap the mouse out of Andreas' hands.

[Darin Boville]

Look, the title of this thread implies that manipulation is BS. Well, not many photographers are manipulation virgins.

So all I'm saying is: if you wouldn't slap the cardboard out of Ansel's hands, then don't slap the mouse out of Andreas' hands.

Hey Ben,

If you are replying to me you got me wrong--I really do like the quote. Especially the Wal-Mart part. Oh so true!

It would make a great forum signature.

--Darin

[Brian C. Miller]

Look, the title of this thread implies that manipulation is BS. Well, not many photographers are manipulation virgins.

Let's pause a moment and consider: what if the photo weren't digitally manipulated, but was darkroom manipulated? Same things removed, same things added. The scene across the Rhine has been completely changed. No buildings, no power plant, etc., cloudy sky instead of blue sky, enhanced saturation, etc.

The photograph has become a composite.

From reading a bit about Gursky's intent, it seems he wanted to create an abstract, featuring the Rhine.

Now, how about if Uelsmann created an abstract, and it sold for $4.3M? Since Uelsmann created it, we wouldn't have any expectation that the image depicted any actual scene found on this planet, even though it might look exactly like what Gursky created. But since Gursky did 99 cents, we now have an expectation that Gursky would produce a 100% real photograph, and Rhine breaks with that expectation.

[Ben Syverson]

If you are replying to me you got me wrong--I really do like the quote. Especially the Wal-Mart part. Oh so true!

Oh, I wasn't replying to you—we just posted at the same time! My post wasn't to anyone in particular, just a comment on the overall sentiment of "pshaw, Photoshop."

[Laron]

hahaha... so funny
about this news, I think there is absolutely nothing to do with questioning the image/composition/technic or using photoshop (come on..) or whatever.
this is just only one simple name, and NOTHING more: Gursky.
I feel pity for those stupids who pays for it and for those who thinks it represents value...
/though Im pretty sure this is a good business (and good business is the best art as we know already from Warhol..)

there is a serbian film maker who directs/produces his films every time in a different name to avoid having sucess because of a name (and he has several successes in different names). now thats something! thats art, thats the real value!

Also I have no doubts if Gursky would opened a new account on flickr in a different name and upload this image, probably would get some comments and faves (maybe not from me) because it is a nice picture no?
anyways, of course its clear, this is a different kind of art, art of business...

[jb7]

Can anyone tell me what the life expectancy of a 'chromogenic color print face-mounted to Plexiglas' might be? Presumably, it'll be a little longer if you turn on the lights?

If there are conservancy issues, sometime in the future, will restoration amount to re-printing the file, and attaching it to the same piece of plexiglass?

Otherwise, might this price seem to be no more than an indefinite lease?

Just wondering- obviously, not an issue I expect to have myself...

[John NYC]

I wonder how many of the "haters" of this photo on the forum have actually seen a print of it in real life?

For me, I can remember first seeing this in The MOMA... turning a corner and seeing it and being stunned by its minimalistic beauty. It's about 6 feet wide, and seeing it at smaller sizes doesn't really have the same impact. Viewing it at 400 pixels wide is like seeing a little 2-foot model of a Richard Serra sculpture.

That said, I would never pay that much for one! ;-)

[John NYC]

Damn funny.

--Darin

And probably true!

[andress007]

Some details at T.O.P. I dunno that $3.89 million Cindy Sherman photo is looking better and better to me.

...Mike

behind the scenes (in german):
http://photo-help.com/top/masters-of...y-photography/