p.1 #3 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
I agree with you about Peter Lik. Did you get the light show while you were in the gallery? I looked him up on the internet but his work doesn't show the same as in person.
p.1 #4 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
Peter Lik just had a run on the Weather Channel. I appeared to be geared to the PSer who had no knowledge of cameras. Some of the shows were interesting just for the locations.
p.1 #6 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
Rodney Lough, Art Wolfe, Peter Lik, and Thomas Mangelsen now have galleries in Las Vegas. And a short drive up to Zion NP will get you Michael Fatali's gallery in Springdale, UT.
I agree, nothing compares to seeing their images printed large with great gallery lighting.
p.1 #7 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
Mangelsen - without question the best wildlife photographer in the world.
Whenever I am out west it is a must to check out his galleries.
I am inspired and humbled by his work! Plus he makes a good living at it!!
p.1 #8 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
I've been to Fatali's gallery in Springdale it was empty except for me for the hour I spent there. My gut feeling is he damaged his career badly when he lit that fire under Delicate Arch.
Lik, I don't care for his style he comes off as a bad Hollywood character.
Magnelsen I've seen the work in Denver and Wolfe I've always liked.
p.1 #10 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
I like the work of Magnelsen and the other wildlife photogs listed here, but I really think Jim Brandenburg's work trumps all of theirs. His wildlife images have so much emotion -- he's the king of that, IMO. And, as for iconic status, I'd say his exceeds even Lik's. Brandenburg is the most storied photographer in the history of National Geographic.
p.1 #11 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
You really can't put Lik's name in the same sentence as Wolf, Mangelson, or Dykinga. Those guys are artists and masters of the craft. Lik is a marketing sensation. His work is about as good as many of the better contributors to the FM landscape forum. He concentrates on massive promotion and name branding, with a marketing team, thus his need to sell images for $5 -10K.
p.1 #12 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
Lik - yuk!
Try some Jeff Wall, Thomas Struth, Andreas Gursky, Desire Dolron, Hiroshi Sugimoto, Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Rut Blees Luxemburg.
Did I mention Jeff Wall?
p.1 #13 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
sauerball wrote:
I agree with you about Peter Lik. Did you get the light show while you were in the gallery? I looked him up on the internet but his work doesn't show the same as in person.
Nope..no light show. I just wandered around with my mouth open saying, "WOW!!"
p.1 #14 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
Speaking of Peter Lik... For how stunning lots of his large scale work is when viewed in person, I just found this photo-hackery on his website "New Releases". It's a ridiculous photo composite that he's billing as the real deal. "It's a really touchy image, but when it all lines up, the result is out of this world… literally." When it all lines up in Photoshop he means. It's a ridiculous image for a few reasons: A) the moon is NEVER that crystal clear low on the horizon, B) the dark side of the moon is darker than the surrounding night sky, and C) a full night sky of stars is never visible like that when viewing the moon at such a dark/contrasty exposure level--to get that exposure for the moon requires underexposing the sky so drastically that stars are not be visible. It's a technically well done composite, but it shocked me that a photographer who pushes his work in his galleries using terms like "no photoshop" and "god's natural light" has stooped to such lows. Saying something is a composite is fine by me, but creating a fictitious scene and advertising it as the real deal is in very poor taste.
Never mind the scale/aov differential of the lanscape vs. the moon ... I want THE lens that took THAT shot.
I'm trying to figure out what fl and from what distance you would have to be to actually achieve that relationship of scale from the aov/fov of a single lens/single image, but my brain doesn't want to work that hard this morning.
(especially since the stars & foreground have one scale and the moon has another)
I'm good with it as a comp, but I do remember how PO'd I was when I finally learned that comps were just that ... after beating my head trying to emulate them in a single image. To me, it's one thing to not divulge your "magic", it's quite another to openly suggest that you didn't use any when you really did..
I may not divulge my processing "secret sauce" (nor should Peter), but I'm not gonna try and suggest that it could be achieved just by pushing a button at the right time and simply using the camera's "secret sauce" for processing the capture ... one is safeguarding proprietary information, the other is being deceptive. Magician's don't tell their secrets either, but they don't try and pawn them off as being real ... they simply leave it for you to try and figure out "how'd they do that".
"No Photoshop" ... does that mean sooc, or Capture One, Nik and Lightoom only
"No Photoshop" infers no post capture manipulation. While we all know that all images require post capture processing, whether it's done in-camera via the OEM algorithms, or out-of-camera via your "secret sauce" ... processing is a necesary part of image making. Composites are certainly a very viable creative liberty ... but (imo) I don't think they qualify as "No Photoshop" no matter what tools were/weren't used.
BTW, cool image that is probably quite impressive in person.
p.1 #16 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
Photo compositing is not post capture processing. It's not tweaking what's there, it's faking something. Potentially he just might have been able to get that scale of moon to foreground with a 600mm lens + extenders or a 1200mm lens. Note the moon/helicopter video shot from the new Art of Flight movie. In any case, to me this photo is nothing more than a surreal 'fantasy' type image composite. Seeing it side by side with a bunch of reality based landscape shots is ridiculous and in very poor taste by Peter Lik--not to mention that he's trying to sell it as a reality-based photo. The accompanying story with that image is enough to make me gag actually. Check it out on his site under New Releases. Ridiculous. If you want to see something extra humorous, make sure to watch his video in the Career Opportunities section of the site. Oh man, it's like a photographer based reality TV show in the same vein as Dog the Bounty Hunter.
p.1 #17 · Peter Lik - What other (Live) iconic photographers are out there that we should know about?
I figured it would need to be a 20,000mm lens shot from 5 miles away.
Oh yeah, and just what SHUTTER SPEED/aperture combination would he have needed to use to take a FREAKIN HUGE moon shot without the moon blurring ... i.e. not the same as he would need for his celestial sky to be rendered as is ... pity really.
. Oh man, you nailed it Mike.