How much would you pay for this?

Agree with Smeggy. If this was on my memory card I'd delete it.

I'd rather have the Stiechen than the Lik on my wall any day. I really like it.

I can't see how Lik's photo is any better than thousands of others taken in the same slot canyon. The Phantom in the dust is either pure luck, or more likely clever photoshopping. Most of his work is so over saturated and over processed. He takes beautiful, amazing places and turns them into something gaudy and ugly.

I also really like the Steichen. It has a really eerie but tranquil mood. This from Wikipedia:

//Steichen took the photograph in Mamaroneck, New York near the home of his friend, art critic Charles Caffin. The photo features a wooded area and pond, with moonlight appearing between the trees and reflecting on the pond. While the print appears to be a color photograph, the first true color photographic process, the autochrome process, was not available until 1907. Steichen created the impression of color by manually applying layers of light-sensitive gums to the paper. Only three known versions of the Pond—Moonlight are still in existence and, as a result of the hand-layering of the gums, each is unique. In addition to the auctioned print, the other two versions are held in museum collections. The extraordinary sale price of the print is, in part, attributable to its one-of-a-kind character and to its rarity.//

So...

- It's very beautiful (in my subjective opinion)
- It has importance within the history of photography
- It's finished by hand with great skill
- It's extremely rare / unique

Hence: $$$$$$

So...this could apply to any of my drawings....

very beautiful (in my subjective opinion)
finished by hand with great skill
extremely rare / unique...as in there's only one in existence

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't dismiss any image on the strength of an 800px version.

Sometimes the sheer scale of images can only be enjoyed by seeing them in the flesh, mounted on a wall. This is especially true of paintings, and i wonder how many people realise just how big some of them are.

That's a very valid comment.
When you consider how many people there are and what a minuscule proportion of them ever visit any kind of gallery you can realise how most folk judge images from tiny pictures of the real thing. Rembrandt's "Night Watch" is a classic case in point.

I agree with John Riley on how 'seeing it in the flesh' and displayed properly makes a difference. Some 'images' will still look naff (in my subjective opinion) - others will look great. Several images I have taken don't look anything special, but when enlarged really come to life. Back to the original image in question; I could imagine I would like it if I saw it 'in the flesh'. But $$$$ wise... another story!

Yes it's a fair point John.....
....but a piece of pretentious 'art' is still just that, no matter how much you enlarge it

When I first visited Tate Modern some years ago I remember remarking to my wife 'funny enough the exhibit that impressed me most was a photograph'. That photograph was one of Gursky's 'Rhein' images. In contrast I found Monet's water-lily paintings disappointing 'in the flesh' - so large that they needed to be viewed from at least 30 feet away to achieve the desired effect. So size isn't everything but it works in the case of the Rhein photo.

I love the Steichen image, personally. I couldn't afford it, but I do like it. K.

Excusing an image because it's only displayed at a size most view on a computer monitor isn't valid. If we blew all images up to big Gallery size then the playing field is still level.

It's not just size that's the relevant point, although it can be, it's also the texture and the quality of the tones and colours. The world isn't just seen on a monitor screen, there's a real world out there.

This is true, and I think a good print will always be better than a monitor, but printing or displaying a image larger doesn't make it better. I can't improve my photography by enlarging it (more's the pity).

It looked to me like one of those reflection images you can to by using something shiny, (mobile phone etc) across the camera lens to get a simulated reflection. Would probably look better full size and I like it

I'm sure many of our photos would look a lot better 'full size' and displayed in a museum..