redsoxdesign wrote:
Whenever I see Peter Liks name mentioned here I think "Here we go again....."
I'd rather be out taking photos........
cheers Andrew
Fortunately, I spent the entire day yesterday (4:00 a.m. until after dark) doing just that. And today I am, uh, post-processing them. ;-)
Thats great to hear Dan...you know, after this thread, we will all be viewing them VERY closely!! I've already got my photographers ephemeris open so I can double check......!
cheers Andrew
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm very, very uncomfortable (to say the least) when a photographer who does these things then outright states (or strongly implies) that he or she doesn't do them and/or that these images represent objective reality. While there is no rule that says that presenting landscapes (or other subjects) in ways that might be considered to be relatively realistic is the only way to present them, there are some ethical issues about lying...
This is the heart of the matter IMO. I live part-time in Vegas and have visited Peter Lik's galleries on the strip many times. Whenever I'm approached by an attendant observing me observing a print I invariably ask, in a very respectful manner, what developing and printing techniques were used to bring out the brilliance in the colors. On every occasion I was told those were the true-to-life colors of the scene and on two occasions I was told getting those colors was simply a matter of patience on Peter's part. If you've ever been to one of Peter's galleries you'll know the colors are just jumping off the print. Part of that owes to the excellent presentation and lighting of the gallery. But as to the true colors of the scenes...hmmm. On many of the prints it's a cloudless, dustless sky in a locale with no mountains. In other words, none of the normal atmospheric conditions that would generally lead to such otherworldly colors.
However I can't say for certainty though that the colors on his prints aren't real. I spend most of my time in Tahoe and the diversity of the sunset hues here must be seen to be believed. Many of my sunset photos look like they were processed by someone who just discovered the saturation slider in their photo editing tool ;-) In fact many times I find myself desaturating the colors just to make it look more "believable". But they occur here because of high sierra clouds and mountain diffraction, or sometimes after a winter storm has cleared. Not sure how they could occur in a cloudless sky in the flatlands.
There are many different aspects of photography that get people excited. Lik's works, especially the ones that use compositing, really touch nerves. The same goes with HDR processing. My personal view is if I don't like the image for whatever reason, I just move on. I view photography as art and whatever floats people's boat is fine with me, even if it does not float my boat.
There are many images posted on this forum that do not look real. However, since long exposure or use of filters or heavy processing techniques including merging two images together are "accepted" in today's realm of landscape photography and compositing is not, we somehow look down on other's images that don't meet our standards.
Let's all look at the images as art, and if the works don't do anything for you, just move along rather than somehow policing what is considered photography and what is not.
The rest of the art world has placed judgement on Lik's work and from his success, I believe they like what he produces. We inner circle photographers might poke holes in his methods, but Peter's success speaks volumes.
chez wrote:
There are many different aspects of photography that get people excited. Lik's works, especially the ones that use compositing, really touch nerves. The same goes with HDR processing. My personal view is if I don't like the image for whatever reason, I just move on. I view photography as art and whatever floats people's boat is fine with me, even if it does not float my boat.
There are many images posted on this forum that do not look real. However, since long exposure or use of filters or heavy processing techniques including merging two images together are "accepted" in today's realm of landscape photography and compositing is not, we somehow look down on other's images that don't meet our standards.
Let's all look at the images as art, and if the works don't do anything for you, just move along rather than somehow policing what is considered photography and what is not.
The rest of the art world has placed judgement on Lik's work and from his success, I believe they like what he produces. We inner circle photographers might poke holes in his methods, but Peter's success speaks volumes....Show more →
I don't think the issue is as simple as people taking potshots at another photographer's vision or success. I think the issue is people purchasing Lik's prints because they believe they're buying unique captures of objective reality, which they believe are just that much better than any other photograph they've ever seen before. I think many of those buyers would be surprised to learn what the original scene looks like. Perhaps a certain percentage of them wouldn't care. This is not unique to Lik and of course represents a large continuim of processing in photography; most would be shocked if they saw what Ansel Adam's "unprocessed" prints looked like.
chez wrote:
The rest of the art world has placed judgement on Lik's work and from his success, I believe they like what he produces. We inner circle photographers might poke holes in his methods, but Peter's success speaks volumes.
I don't put too much stock into what becomes a mainstream success. There are too many examples of popular culture running off the rails in terms of art and entertainment...like Andy Warhol and Reality Television.
toddlambert wrote:
"I've tried for years, to capture this shot. It has eluded me like a big cat in the bush, quietly slinking away, whenever I neared...."
Regardless if it's ethical or not, it's just not a very captivating image IMO. Looks like something I'd see on velvet in the 1980's. Similar to the Indian-and-the-coyote-howling-at-the-moon image from yesteryear. Couple it with a ridiculous narrative and it's very cheesy overall.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Barney the purple dinosaur has been pretty successful. People love Chicken McNuggets. And there's always that Justin Bieber fellow. ;-)
It's a rare talent where you posses a great photographic eye coupled with great marketing and sales skills. Many a great photographers images sit alone on a hard disk not knowing how to let the outside world appreciate them.
Peter posses both these talents and that is what makes him so successful. Many mock his success by posting ridiculous photos or jealous like comments...but I bet not a single person would hesitate to switch careers with Peter.
I'm with you Chez......
I mentioned in a previous post about Peter Lik some time ago that I feel we should be grateful for Peter Lik's efforts in bringing landscape photography to a far greater audience - it can only benefit all of us in the long run.
cheers Andrew
chez wrote:
Peter posses both these talents and that is what makes him so successful. Many mock his success by posting ridiculous photos or jealous like comments...
I wasn't mocking Lik in my comment. I was responding to a forum post in which it was presumed that "success" always correlates with "quality."
It is true that it is rare to possess both a great photographic eye and great marketing skills. A greater number of people possess one but not the other.
I've got no dog in this hunt. I had honestly never heard of Mr Lik before today. I looked at the Gallery and saw some nice work, but nothing that was mind blowing. If this were sports I'm sure he and Mr Fatali would be in the record books, but with that pesky asterisk that comes with the idea that the record might be tainted. Functionally it means nothing but there was a code of conduct set by the rule makers that was implicit if not explicit. Personally I've got no use for people who purposefully misrepresent their work. If it's a composite, say so.
chez wrote:
It's a rare talent where you posses a great photographic eye coupled with great marketing and sales skills. Many a great photographers images sit alone on a hard disk not knowing how to let the outside world appreciate them.
Peter posses both these talents and that is what makes him so successful. Many mock his success by posting ridiculous photos or jealous like comments...but I bet not a single person would hesitate to switch careers with Peter.
You miss the point.
Sure, I'd be quite chuffed if I could sell my images for $N-thousand a piece, but I can honestly say that I would never LIE about my techniques or the manner in which I took a given image.
Lik's moon image is an implied lie in that it does not represent reality. I'm not talking about thermonuclear Velvia colors, luminance curve tweaking, and the like. I'm talking about a 100% synthetic image of a scene that never existed. (Yes, it does matter.)
When Lik goes on and on about how he waited for the moon and horizon to converge, blah..blah, he crossed another boundary. Now he is telling overt, outright lies. You can stick fingers in ears and sing 'La, la, la!" all day, pretending it doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't - TO YOU. But please recognize that many of the rest of us scratch our head and wonder, "Peter when does it stop?"
Andrew I am a huge fan of your photography, I always take a peek when I see another one of your images show up here
But I agree with Greg Campbell on this one
Yes, Mr Lik is responsible for bringing Landscape Photography to a far greater audience, but he will ultimately be responsible for bringing an unhealthy level of skepticism and maybe even cynicism to the way all digital Landscape Photography will be viewed going forward
We will never get away from the discussion about what is an acceptable level of post processing in a Landscape image, but stuff like this with the accompanying story tilts the perception way too far off course
IMHO
I've got no beef whatsoever with Peter Lik. He's found a way to make serious money. He's marketing to the masses and not simply looking for praise from his photography peers.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think there are a bunch of ways to think about this. I occasionally create "impossible" photographs (as in a recent Death Valley photograph I posted here - and labeled as such) and I don't think there are any ethical limits on what techniques one wants to use. There is nothing fundamentally ethically wrong with compositing images or altering colors or anything else.
But...
I'm very, very uncomfortable (to say the least) when a photographer who does these things then outright states (or strongly implies) that he or she doesn't do them and/or that these images represent objective reality. While there is no rule that says that presenting landscapes (or other subjects) in ways that might be considered to be relatively realistic is the only way to present them, there are some ethical issues about lying...
I have a simple policy that works for me. If asked, I will speak honestly about any "manipulation" or post-processing techniques that I used in my photographs. I won't do anything that I would be embarrassed to admit to if asked. No skeletons in that closet.
When I do create a photographic image that significantly departs from what I call the "subjective reality" of the scene I will say so unless it is patently obvious such that I don't even have to say it.
This resolves a lot of ethical issues...
Dan
(And, yes, I understand the journalism photography is a different issue - which I'm steering clear of here. :-)...Show more →
I think you have an excellent policy Dan. For me I do not consider a composite to be a photograph anymore, which is where we disagree. Maybe it's because I do compositing professionally (we call them "visual effects shots") that I can no longer view a combination of two or more different scenes as being a photo anymore. But you touch on the heart of the matter, which is if you take my example of a sky from Iceland and a landscape from Death Valley and then say "Look at this great photo I took in Death Valley" then I think that is a lie unless you disclose that you combined the images.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm very, very uncomfortable (to say the least) when a photographer who does these things then outright states (or strongly implies) that he or she doesn't do them and/or that these images represent objective reality. While there is no rule that says that presenting landscapes (or other subjects) in ways that might be considered to be relatively realistic is the only way to present them, there are some ethical issues about lying...
Legal too! (Those who write the laws do, occasionally, get it right.)
They use a word when you blatantly misrepresent an item you are selling; it's called "fraud."
From good ol' Wiki - fraud occurs when these aspects of a transaction exist.
1. a representation of an existing fact;
2. its materiality;
3. its falsity;
4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.
IMO, all 9 aspects are present. I'd give blood to see a buyer of this print sue or press charges against Mr. Lik based on his fraudulent representation of the image.
chez wrote:
It's a rare talent where you posses a great photographic eye coupled with great marketing and sales skills. Many a great photographers images sit alone on a hard disk not knowing how to let the outside world appreciate them.
Peter posses both these talents and that is what makes him so successful. Many mock his success by posting ridiculous photos or jealous like comments...but I bet not a single person would hesitate to switch careers with Peter.
Harry,
If I had to lie and manipulate to be as successful as Peter Lik, I would more than hesitate to switch careers with Lik, I wouldn't do it...
I haven't seen a single jealous comment here. I have seen comments from photographers who have integrity... and that is the point of what is being discussed here... we are talking about character... truth... trust... those once were very valuable characteristics... I would hope they still are... but when you choose to defend Peter Liks outright lies and deception... I think you need to sit back and read and think about this thread a bit more...
