WHo took the world's most expensive photograph?

Undot · 10-28-2014, 07:19 AM

One other approach for answering this question is not what people are willing to pay for a photo today, but for what it cost to have had it taken. Going by that it surely must be Neil Armstrongs protrait of Buzz Aldrin. Because it cost a meagre $25.4 billion to get them there (or $150 billion in todays money).
And we all do know it's always about location, location, location!

Hm, would that put the Apollo project inte the conceptual art category?

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html

normhead · 10-28-2014, 07:25 AM - **1 Like**

He blew out his highlights.... and lost his shadows... way too much contrast he shoulda gone HDR

I'm not buying one of those.... especially not for 150 billion. $10 for a poster maybe.

Nicolas06 · 10-28-2014, 06:02 PM

Ahah!

As for marketing, initial thing was that at list for some photograph, they sell high price big, high quality photo.

To me this maybe an extention of common practice to sell small reproduction at a low price, and bigger size at much higher prices.

There for sure a demand.

**gaweidert** · 10-14-2015, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by normhead

He blew out his highlights.... and lost his shadows... way too much contrast he shoulda gone HDR

I'm not buying one of those.... especially not for 150 billion. $10 for a poster maybe.

I don't think that Hasselblad had the HDR option back then. Of course, nether did the film.

The way that that film was processed was pretty amazing. I was done one roll at a time. After a roll was run, the processor was drained and thoroughly inspected, refilled with new chemistry, a sample was taken off the new roll and checked to see if any processing adjustments were needed. Once all this was done, another roll was processed. A lot of the film had issues with being exposed to the rigors of outer space so it wasn't a simple matter of looking up the specs and processing accordingly. Things like extreme temperatures and background radiation all had an effect on the film and hence the exposure.

The Hasselblad cameras were pretty much as is. But no lubricants were used it they would either freeze or boil off depending upon the temperatures. I think they were rebuilt before each mission too.

Barresian · 10-23-2015, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I'll be happy to look at any numbers you care to provide.... speculation on the issue isn't worth the paper it's written on....

Hubble has done (at least) 1 million "observations" which I supose are what we would call "pictures". According to this source (p.32), the total cost is of 10 billion dollars. So I think we might estimate the cost of each picture to be of 10 000$ which is pretty lame.

My methodology is probably crap, but I think it gives an idea of the actual situation.

I am to lazy to look for the data of how much Apollo programmes costed, how many pictures were taken and how much of the total payload was made up by photographic equipment. But even if you would assume that the Apollo programm was only about taking pictures, it would take ca. 28 000 photos to be cheaper than the one mentioned by OP (Apollo cost estimated at 100 billion). According to this source on the sourface of the moon 6 000 pictures were taken. I don't think a fourth of the Apolo payload was photographic equipment... so I guess also those pictures are not the most expensive ones.

Nicolas06 · 10-23-2015, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Barresian

Hubble has done (at least) 1 million "observations" which I supose are what we would call "pictures". According to this source (p.32), the total cost is of 10 billion dollars. So I think we might estimate the cost of each picture to be of 10 000$ which is pretty lame.

My methodology is probably crap, but I think it gives an idea of the actual situation.

I am to lazy to look for the data of how much Apollo programmes costed, how many pictures were taken and how much of the total payload was made up by photographic equipment. But even if you would assume that the Apollo programm was only about taking pictures, it would take ca. 28 000 photos to be cheaper than the one mentioned by OP (Apollo cost estimated at 100 billion). According to this source on the sourface of the moon 6 000 pictures were taken. I don't think a fourth of the Apolo payload was photographic equipment... so I guess also those pictures are not the most expensive ones.

If a guy buy an expensive MF body and a set of lenses for $100000 and take a 1 crap picture before letting the gear collect dust, he may have spent lot of money, the cost of the picture may be very high... That desn't mean that anyone will ever be willing to spend even 1 peny to get the crap picture.

But if you got a picture on your feature phone that allow for a scoop, you might be able to sell it for 100 000$ to the press if you play it well... You may also post it on the net and get 0 out of it or be a bad negociator and get only $100 from it.

We should not confuse the cost of things, their real value and the money we could get out of it.

Smart people can make things at significantly lower cost than the money they get out of it and buy things at a price below their real value, at least from their point of view. Some people tend to do the contrary.

Barresian · 10-24-2015, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

If a guy buy an expensive MF body and a set of lenses for $100000 and take a 1 crap picture before letting the gear collect dust, he may have spent lot of money, the cost of the picture may be very high... That desn't mean that anyone will ever be willing to spend even 1 peny to get the crap picture.

But if you got a picture on your feature phone that allow for a scoop, you might be able to sell it for 100 000$ to the press if you play it well... You may also post it on the net and get 0 out of it or be a bad negociator and get only $100 from it.

We should not confuse the cost of things, their real value and the money we could get out of it.

Smart people can make things at significantly lower cost than the money they get out of it and buy things at a price below their real value, at least from their point of view. Some people tend to do the contrary.

@Nicolas06, I agree with you. I was only following a given line of argumentation.

**JimJohnson** · 10-25-2015, 06:42 AM

My 2¢ on where this topic has gone - I will concede that photographs taken by humans beyond Earth orbit are the most expensive. At the same time, they were never intended to be considered 'photographic art' with any real thoughts about composition, lighting, etc. Of course we have all seen some photographs taken by truly amateur photographers that more by accident than forethought we could all were agree were great photographs.

With that in mind, I believe the intent of the thread was to consider those photographs where the photographer intentionally with forethought set out to create an image that was knowingly expensive.

normhead · 11-11-2015, 07:13 AM

The thread lives on.

But there have also been several idiot savant types who took pictures, put them in shoe boxes that someone found after they died, and then became valuable, just based on the honestly of the subject matter...with absolutely no intention of creating something expensive... one of the interesting things about art in general, and photography in particular, is the accidental artist. In Photography, it's like whatever you dream up as an all encompassing definition of the process, some successful photographer somewhere has gone against it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Most Expensive Photograph in the World...	froeschle	General Talk	11	11-22-2011 12:05 PM
Why is the FA*28-70 so expensive?	Clinton	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	56	08-25-2011 11:31 PM
World's most expensive K-5	Jun Park	General Talk	4	12-02-2010 01:41 PM
Is this the world's most expensive lens? (not Pentax)	Ash	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	02-18-2008 10:58 PM
World's largest photograph	mopar_man	Photographic Technique	2	09-05-2007 08:43 PM

10-28-2014, 07:19 AM	#31
Undot Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 176	One other approach for answering this question is not what people are willing to pay for a photo today, but for what it cost to have had it taken. Going by that it surely must be Neil Armstrongs protrait of Buzz Aldrin. Because it cost a meagre $25.4 billion to get them there (or $150 billion in todays money). And we all do know it's always about location, location, location! Hm, would that put the Apollo project inte the conceptual art category? http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html

10-28-2014, 07:25 AM - 1 Like	#32
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	He blew out his highlights.... and lost his shadows... way too much contrast he shoulda gone HDR I'm not buying one of those.... especially not for 150 billion. $10 for a poster maybe.

10-28-2014, 06:02 PM	#33
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Ahah! As for marketing, initial thing was that at list for some photograph, they sell high price big, high quality photo. To me this maybe an extention of common practice to sell small reproduction at a low price, and bigger size at much higher prices. There for sure a demand.

10-14-2015, 06:36 AM	#34
gaweidert Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Rochester, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,325	Originally posted by normhead He blew out his highlights.... and lost his shadows... way too much contrast he shoulda gone HDR I'm not buying one of those.... especially not for 150 billion. $10 for a poster maybe. I don't think that Hasselblad had the HDR option back then. Of course, nether did the film. The way that that film was processed was pretty amazing. I was done one roll at a time. After a roll was run, the processor was drained and thoroughly inspected, refilled with new chemistry, a sample was taken off the new roll and checked to see if any processing adjustments were needed. Once all this was done, another roll was processed. A lot of the film had issues with being exposed to the rigors of outer space so it wasn't a simple matter of looking up the specs and processing accordingly. Things like extreme temperatures and background radiation all had an effect on the film and hence the exposure. The Hasselblad cameras were pretty much as is. But no lubricants were used it they would either freeze or boil off depending upon the temperatures. I think they were rebuilt before each mission too.

10-23-2015, 09:43 AM	#35
Barresian Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 33	Originally posted by normhead I'll be happy to look at any numbers you care to provide.... speculation on the issue isn't worth the paper it's written on.... Hubble has done (at least) 1 million "observations" which I supose are what we would call "pictures". According to this source (p.32), the total cost is of 10 billion dollars. So I think we might estimate the cost of each picture to be of 10 000$ which is pretty lame. My methodology is probably crap, but I think it gives an idea of the actual situation. I am to lazy to look for the data of how much Apollo programmes costed, how many pictures were taken and how much of the total payload was made up by photographic equipment. But even if you would assume that the Apollo programm was only about taking pictures, it would take ca. 28 000 photos to be cheaper than the one mentioned by OP (Apollo cost estimated at 100 billion). According to this source on the sourface of the moon 6 000 pictures were taken. I don't think a fourth of the Apolo payload was photographic equipment... so I guess also those pictures are not the most expensive ones.

10-23-2015, 11:35 AM	#36
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Barresian Hubble has done (at least) 1 million "observations" which I supose are what we would call "pictures". According to this source (p.32), the total cost is of 10 billion dollars. So I think we might estimate the cost of each picture to be of 10 000$ which is pretty lame. My methodology is probably crap, but I think it gives an idea of the actual situation. I am to lazy to look for the data of how much Apollo programmes costed, how many pictures were taken and how much of the total payload was made up by photographic equipment. But even if you would assume that the Apollo programm was only about taking pictures, it would take ca. 28 000 photos to be cheaper than the one mentioned by OP (Apollo cost estimated at 100 billion). According to this source on the sourface of the moon 6 000 pictures were taken. I don't think a fourth of the Apolo payload was photographic equipment... so I guess also those pictures are not the most expensive ones. If a guy buy an expensive MF body and a set of lenses for $100000 and take a 1 crap picture before letting the gear collect dust, he may have spent lot of money, the cost of the picture may be very high... That desn't mean that anyone will ever be willing to spend even 1 peny to get the crap picture. But if you got a picture on your feature phone that allow for a scoop, you might be able to sell it for 100 000$ to the press if you play it well... You may also post it on the net and get 0 out of it or be a bad negociator and get only $100 from it. We should not confuse the cost of things, their real value and the money we could get out of it. Smart people can make things at significantly lower cost than the money they get out of it and buy things at a price below their real value, at least from their point of view. Some people tend to do the contrary.

10-24-2015, 03:07 AM	#37
Barresian Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 33	Originally posted by Nicolas06 If a guy buy an expensive MF body and a set of lenses for $100000 and take a 1 crap picture before letting the gear collect dust, he may have spent lot of money, the cost of the picture may be very high... That desn't mean that anyone will ever be willing to spend even 1 peny to get the crap picture. But if you got a picture on your feature phone that allow for a scoop, you might be able to sell it for 100 000$ to the press if you play it well... You may also post it on the net and get 0 out of it or be a bad negociator and get only $100 from it. We should not confuse the cost of things, their real value and the money we could get out of it. Smart people can make things at significantly lower cost than the money they get out of it and buy things at a price below their real value, at least from their point of view. Some people tend to do the contrary. @Nicolas06, I agree with you. I was only following a given line of argumentation.

10-25-2015, 06:42 AM	#38
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,774	My 2¢ on where this topic has gone - I will concede that photographs taken by humans beyond Earth orbit are the most expensive. At the same time, they were never intended to be considered 'photographic art' with any real thoughts about composition, lighting, etc. Of course we have all seen some photographs taken by truly amateur photographers that more by accident than forethought we could all were agree were great photographs. With that in mind, I believe the intent of the thread was to consider those photographs where the photographer intentionally with forethought set out to create an image that was knowingly expensive.

11-11-2015, 07:13 AM	#39
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	The thread lives on. But there have also been several idiot savant types who took pictures, put them in shoe boxes that someone found after they died, and then became valuable, just based on the honestly of the subject matter...with absolutely no intention of creating something expensive... one of the interesting things about art in general, and photography in particular, is the accidental artist. In Photography, it's like whatever you dream up as an all encompassing definition of the process, some successful photographer somewhere has gone against it.