What a $1.74 Million Dollar Bathtub Looks Like

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by missflick, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    20,569
    1,599
    113
    Yes, that's the main punch of it. You said it much better than I could. :)

    I don't have space big enough in my flat to hang it. ;)
     
  2. Japanfan

    Japanfan Well-Known Member

    13,004
    1,801
    113
    :lol::lol:

    I honestly believe that if I had $1.74 million to spend on a bathtub, I'd give most of it away. I might spent some thousands on a really nice bathroom, but I don't know that I could justify buying a bathtub at the price.

    I'm not particularly altruistic and don't think that people with way more more money than they could ever spend should be congratulated for being great humanitarians when they share a piece of their too-large pie with the poor or disadvantaged.

    It just wouldn't make sense to me to spend that much on a bathtub, it would seem a total waste of money that could be better used elsewhere.

    But having lots of $$ seems to changes people's perspectives on such things.
     
  3. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    20,569
    1,599
    113
    It's all relative.

    We all live in our own insular universes.

    I mean what's normal spending for me (buying a donut when I feel like it) is irrensponsible and wasteful spending for people who really don't have any money (I whine about not having any money all the time but let's face it, I'm not starving).
     
  4. Japanfan

    Japanfan Well-Known Member

    13,004
    1,801
    113
    It is and it isn't relative. I'm not an aesthetic and have no interest in taking a vow of poverty like Mother Theresa. But having enough food to eat and buying a donut for a treat isn't the same as spending over a million on a bathtub. One doesn't need to suffer to share with those who have less (and going without a donut is indeed suffering :).

    But there is a point where spending money not only becomes excessive and greedy, but also pointless and lacking in the reward of joy.

    How much happiness is this bathtub going to bring you, really? Reason enough to get up in the morning and feel good about yourself?

    There is a point where sharing the wealth would bring more happiness. I would say this bathtub is that point - not a donut or a good home-cooked lamb dinner (one of my indulgences).
     
  5. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    20,569
    1,599
    113
    I agree with you but that's precisely what is relative.

    Once you become accustomed to something, it's extremely hard to let go.

    The bath tub is obviously an extreme example. ;)

    I remember reading a great article about a couple who made a decision to live on a very small budget and donate all the other money they earn to charity.

    They decided for example to only eat out once a month, etc.

    In the comments, people pointed out that the vast majority of people earn way less than that couple do. ;)
     
  6. zippy

    zippy Active Member

    575
    99
    28
    You must enjoy stripes :). It's one that certainly breaks just about all the rules of composition, which I suppose is some kind of statement in itself; not sure that adds up to perfect composition however. I'm not even sure that it's sharp, although that might just be a result of the low-res version in the article.
     
  7. moojja

    moojja Active Member

    276
    28
    28
    The actual photograph is huge, 6-by-11 feet. So we really can't judge the merit of the picture by the article. I image it's one of those pictures that looks boring in an article or a book, but is absolutely overwhelming when you're standing in front of it. I actually thought that about Van Gogh's sunflowers. Did not understand it's true artistic value, until I saw the original painting. It was a real wow moment.
    But back on topic, it's still a photograph. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you just reprint it over and over again if you kept the negative. It'll should have the exact quality and resolution.
     
  8. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,085
    1,452
    113
    So what kind of gemstones were used? That was a useless article.

    I really hated that they pointed out the money should have been donated to charity instead. How do we know this person doesn't do that as well? If you have billions, what's 1.8 million? (Of course, the person may be a horrible miser, who knows.)

    It certainly not how I would spend my hypothetical billions, but I'm imagining that 1.8 billion went to a number of workers, who are probably really happy that the rich fool was parted with his money.
     
  9. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member

    20,569
    1,599
    113
    Yeah, I am sure that the craftsmen who created the bathtub got the significant percentage of that 1.8 million. Not. :p

    More like 5$ per hour probably. Or less if it was made in China. :p
     
  10. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,563
    113
    These days, it would be a digital image so it wouldn't even degrade over time or based on how many prints were made.... but prints from a negative do degrade the negative (as does time) so that the 100th print won't be as stunning as the 1st print.

    This is why photographers who sell their work as 'art' will sign and number their prints so you know how many others are out there... the more prints made, the less each individual print is worth.

    I suspect this is the sort of item that is designed and made by one person. Obviously, I could be wrong about that. But often that's part of what makes the price so high. If it was made by political prisoners in China on an assembly line, I doubt it could fetch that kind of price. Being "one of a kind" is part of the appeal.

    It definitely was useless! I want to know so many things none of which were mentioned in the article and all of which would be much more interesting than all that whining over what the money could have been spent on instead.
     
  11. genegri

    genegri Active Member

    860
    79
    28
    The photo is perfect for over the toilet. Better yet, both pieces of overpriced trash can go into the same bathroom.
     
  12. zippy

    zippy Active Member

    575
    99
    28
    True, maybe, or it could be a case where the emperor has no clothes. Lots of photographs look more impressive when they're blown up big. Some are stunning no matter what size they are.

    This isn't correct; making 100 prints wouldn't cause any appreciable degradation of a negative. For difficult negatives to print, it might take the photographer upwards of 100 prints to get the right result before they even begin to sell limited edition prints. Some photographs might run in editions of 500+, depending on the photographer's choice (and a few fine art photogs choose to not run editions at all, they just print off a copy when someone wants to buy it). If negatives are stored right, they could last for centuries, depending on the type. I've even heard that at the Center for Creative Photography in Arizona, they allow people to print from Ansel Adams' negatives. Not sure if that's true but it would be pretty cool!

    Of course, a limited edition of a digital photograph would be a little different than that of a silver gelatin because each print would be identical since they're being spat out of a printer, whereas with the silver gelatin each would be unique.
     
  13. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,563
    113
    Sorry but printing from negatives does cause them to age. The exposure to the chemicals, the chance of dust getting on them, them getting scratched, etc all contribute to this phenomena. Yes, you can store them in such a way that this aging is limited, but eventually they will fade no matter how well stored.
     
  14. zippy

    zippy Active Member

    575
    99
    28
    Exposure to chemicals? :confused: Well ok, if part of your printing technique is dunking the negatives in the fixer or something, then yes, ok I can see how the 100th print wouldn't look as good as the first. Otherwise, printing just involves passing light through the negative. I suppose eventually, after many, many years of excessive printing from the same negative, the light exposure could cause it to fade just as exposure to any light would, but in practice this is just not a problem. Especially not in so few prints as you say, which might be churned out in a single day. Good printing involves careful safeguarding against the things you cited - handling from the edges of the negative, eliminating dust with a brush specially made for negatives, etc. If printing was so hard on negatives, the great photographs of the earlier part of the 20th century would be much more rare, and watching movies in a movie theater before the digital era would have been prohibitively expensive or impossible, considering how often they'd have to replace the film. But this is off topic.
     
  15. PeterG

    PeterG Hanyuflated

    9,092
    5,680
    113
    Enough to feed over seven million hungry people.

    Or you can have a really, really cool bathtub.

    Choices, choices.

    :)
     
  16. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,078
    3,563
    113
    I've been a professional photographer and have been shooting film since the 1960 and how to preserve negatives and the degredation of the negative as you make print after print is something we agonized over before the digital era.

    As for movies, fading over time is a big problem which is why many classic films are now being digitally remastered.
     
  17. zippy

    zippy Active Member

    575
    99
    28
    ^And I've only been doing darkroom work since I was seven :). I've won international awards and have attended workshops with master printers who never once mentioned this as a concern. I can't find anything online or in my darkroom books that reference this either. However, I did find this interesting article on limited edition prints by Brooks Jenson, a very well-known fine art photographer and the founder of Lenswork: