Photography as an object of investment

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от BAGIRA

How about this series - "Life for Sale"?

Normally there all with the song.

But I know only the name of this series misunderstood.

[Черномашенцев Владимир]

Сообщение от BAGIRA

... Strange you, I'm glad the opposite criticism. Only it is not illuminated frame, I specifically do it, I like. Here are some examples, and for criticism, if it is the case (by the way, where you did not like the song?, Can I agree with you) I'm just grateful and always click on the "thank you". You may have noticed it.

Thank you. It seemed to me that the background marred in frames 5 and 8 (post 111). Also very much liked the song in 8 - it is suitable for the shooting, but is unlikely to give an artistic effect.

PS

In the message 141 does not pay attention. The one I always podkolet regardless of common sense. We were not friends long ago. Especially since he only specialist on the dead artists:

http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showth...=2665&page=127

"A good artist - a dead artist."

[BAGIRA]

Yes, Cyril. I called so, thinking that all these people going out than they do not want to, but necessary. Sale, and it takes time of life. Of course, it is figuratively.

Added after 7 minutes
Vladimir, You are right, shot 8 would make me special. I wanted to make a figure in the center. Snapshot 5 do not want aktsentrirovat background. Thank you.

[Черномашенцев Владимир]

Сообщение от BAGIRA

Vladimir, You are right, shot 8 would make me special. I wanted to make a figure in the center. Snapshot 5 do not want aktsentrirovat background. Thank you.

But the figure on the frame 8 merges with otblikom on the bonnet.

Frame 10 seems truncated. Imagine that the left it goes to show the sidewalk, on which a continuous stream of people are concerned with the stone-faced. They do not pay any attention to the beggar.
....

[BAGIRA]

Just to the left was not material. Some ass. Remember, this is not staged shots. Ran to the Ministry of Culture and all these pictures stop for a moment to click on the run. On this day (left the child with his girlfriend in Zelenograd, 4 hours each way because of traffic jams) had to sign the documents. Detainees could only seconds. All the nerves was. So, what has grown, it has grown. Thank you for your criticism. I went to do business. In the following time do not hesitate to criticize, I'm good. And Cyril, I very much respect, not insult him, literate friend. Maiga.

[Евгений]

Dear friends, the topic of "investing in the pictures, which made a recognized masters (dead and alive does not matter), it is interesting discussion of pictures (the authors), which are sold at Sotheby's, Christie's, etc., which are for sale in galleries in Russia .
That's the theme and interesting:

Сообщение от Tjutchev

Chernomashentsev Vladimir, you are betraying too much importance to the technical side of the issue. It is natural for a man who has recently started filming. Master the techniques and technologies - it does not bad, but it's still early stage. Stage review. When you satisfy your curiosity and spend a lot of money, you will inevitably come to the fact that much more important role played by experience, talent and something else.

To illustrate his words, I will bring pictures taken nearly a century ago. You understand that technique and technology in those days were at much lower level than now. But look, what images the artist does! For all their desire, availability of technical means and technologies to repeat it would be impossible. That is, do similar images can and will, but it has to be your work in the style of Alexander Rodchenko. Here is an individual's handwriting of the great master, has a style, there is something more than technology and equipment. This - ART!

[Черномашенцев Владимир]

Сообщение от Eugene

Dear friends, the topic of "investing in photos "....

Absolutely agree with you.
On this subject should not teach or discuss amateur photography work. But the ardor of Internet communication often leads to engage in unnecessary discussions. I'm sorry, I admit it. As soon as I realized the interests KaterinyMN and Bagheera, I realized that we are trying to discuss the different things that irrationally. If it was not too much interference by some "helpers", then our discussion would have died out much earlier.

In conclusion, I repeat that in my opinion, the investment value may be of the same Rodchenko, or just good old pictures of famous masters, the same Emanuel Evzerihina, but not banal modern digital photography. Now a photo-call all the artists who are not lazy. And who has not this money and time. Photo courses can be found on blondes that with aplomb, discussing how the apparatus for 200 or 300 thousand rubles to buy them with money from their husbands. And where then arrange his photo exhibition at dozens ve. Teachers softly leave a residue - after all, their students and sometimes can not understand the principles of photography and shoot mode A "machine" as a banal "soap dish."

You can evaluate the modern photo-design (or as it is properly called?), Say the group AES + F, but not what I saw earlier on this topic. And that so many sugary touted forumisty. Strange tastes ... strange. Particularly striking presentation of some of the good songs.

[KaterinaMN]

Chernomashentsev Vladimir,
I actually proposed to describe current of our photographers who have completely sold themselves. and not only us.

but, my friends, before we talk about investments in this photo, you must at least agree on terms. what distinguishes those who are not lazy, from those who can collect. who work in this picture for a year, and not two, not five. and not even ten. and thank God - it is itself alive today.

and let's not generalize: if you did not like what I drew attention to an open slip-up about the macro and the fact that each genre has its own camera - do not translate to the fact that we have different interests, and that discussing different things.

at least that is discussed digital photography and how it is discussed - not too shows a deep understanding of contemporary photography and a certain tendency to generalize.

Vladimir, to be honest - you are at all difficult to understand: when it tried to tell them about our contemporary photographers, and how and what they shoot - was the accusation that fond of antiques and not interested in photography. and then, after a couple of posts, you remembered neschatnyh blondes with expensive modern cameras. What you their kamerki something do wrong? "? you scold technique is praise. poor neschatnye blondes. give them rent. should not be confused amateur photography with a photo. forget about technique, when you talk about photography, especially having investpotentsial.

do not call modern art digital photograph - it is different.
Do not confuse an amateur digital photography for home album of contemporary art photography and in general - with contemporary photography. is about the same will be - how to discuss investment in the dolls that sell us next to the Savior on Spilled Blood. Artists, too, among other things.

if you seriously believe that the investment value of the modern picture is not - persuade you senseless.

but please do not call you advanced your photos digitally. it shows a superficial, amateur knowledge of the material. modern picture is not digital. far.
Read what Michael wrote Kalamkarov, Maxim Zheleznyakov, Nadia Sheremetova, Nahl Podolsky, Irina Chmyreva. Look who puts Olga Sviblova, Irina Meglinskaya.
these people - who understand photography. Yes - they have different positions, sometimes they argue. curse. not agree. pass to the individual. But they understand the subject, they talk about. and they - not ashamed to learn.

[Черномашенцев Владимир]

Сообщение от KaterinaMN

....
but, my friends, before we talk about investments in this photo, you must at least agree on terms. ...

... And let's not generalize ....

at least that is discussed digital photography and how it is discussed - not too shows a deep understanding of contemporary photography and a certain tendency to generalize ...

... Vladimir, to be honest - you are at all difficult to understand ...

.... Do not call modern art digital photo - she is different ....

I highlighted phrases from your letter, which can easily accept. But first of all please do not take my words about the "blonde with expensive cameras, personal to him. I just gave an example of some modern "photographers." Such heroes are now complete and in painting, and photo. Please do not generalize.

When I wrote about the unreasonableness of investment in modern photographers, it was referring to investments in digital photography. Alas, to predict the circulation in this case is simply not possible due to easy copying. Photo-artist himself may over time see the new media better than before, new opportunities in print - and make a new mark. In addition, the level of talent works in general, small (ka ki in painting, not more 5-10%). Or do you think that the work presented on page 10 might be interesting in investitsionnoi sense?

Your story about the technique at least a matter of respect. I may not be ready to use antique cameras, but in any case, "Respect." It's like with cars. It is impossible to persuade motorists to transfer to a motorcycle or scooter, despite the terrible traffic jams in Moscow. I have my friends and not carried away by their example. They do not understand any comfort scooter, nor its high price, comparable to the car. But another friend of mine can travel to Moscow 50 km. cycling. And here is I do not understand his passion: the comfort and safety of bike does not suit me, as the price compared to the price of a bike. But just as he looks at my scooter.
Moral of the story: "Do not generalize!"

We found it difficult to understand each other, because until the dispute with me you do not show on this subject his work and was not told about her technique. I could easily have you confused with the "blonde with Photo courses. But watching your black and white images I see that you are working quite well with the light and shadow. Your work does not cause problems, as examples of some other forumistov. My only complaint sovereshenno biased: many photographers shoot h \\ b, since no color to work in many ways easier. Appears some significance even in the ordinary frames. But this is my bias works.

[KaterinaMN]

Chernomashentsev Vladimir, wanted to train subscribe - brunette with an inexpensive camera <!--~ a ~-->))

work presented on page 10 - do not think having invest.potentsialom (
on a scooter - so I'm thinking - that it's time b <!--~ a ~-->)))
with regard to color - I shoot color. very much. and bright. and monochrome.

on digital photography - sometimes say: "copy without the original.
general - in any case, the question still go down on copyright imprints. because in the end - do not sell a negative (99%), and lottery imprint.